How do we get 270 electoral votes against McCain?

One of the many reasons I supported John Edwards was that I thought he would expand the map for Democrats in the general election. I thought he would hold all of the Kerry states, adding Iowa and Ohio with ease, and would make things competitive in several other places too (like Missouri).

I think Clinton or Obama could beat McCain or lose to him. Clinton’s winning scenario is obvious: turn out record numbers of women and Latinos, rack up a big lead among seniors, thereby holding most if not all of the Kerry states and adding Florida and/or Ohio.

Plenty of things could go wrong with Clinton’s scenario, but it is hard to argue that she would not turn out record numbers of women and Latinos.

Obama’s winning electoral vote scenario is less certain for me. Although nationwide polls show him doing slightly better against McCain than Clinton, he runs behind Clinton against McCain in several key states:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

And that’s before the right-wing hate machine has even opened fire against Obama. With Clinton, we pretty much know where her floor is, but with Obama, who knows?

That’s why Charlie Cook recently argued that Clinton would probably win between 48 percent and 52 percent of the general election vote, whereas Obama could get 55 percent or more, but could also conceivably get below 45 percent in the general.

Yesterday I asked Obama supporters at MyDD to give me their scenarios for 270 electoral votes against McCain. MyDD user JDF came up with this:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2…

Here is how I see Obama getting to 270. This is a broad strokes view and I put it together relatively quickly so I am sure it is not perfect, but at least shows (from my POV) that it is not a stretch for Obama to get well past 270.

States he WINS

Wash: 11

Oregon: 7

Cali: 55

New York: 31

DC: 3

Maryland: 10

New Jersey: 15

Mass: 12

RI: 4

CT: 7

NH: 4

VT: 3

ME: 3

Michigan: 17

Illinois: 21

Minnesota: 10

That would give him 213 Electoral Votes.

There are 20 in Ohio, 21 in Pennsylvania, 27 in Florida, 13 in Virginia, 11 in Missouri, 11 in Indiana,  5 in Nevada, 5 in New Mexico, 10 in Wisconsin,  7 in Iowa

Puts 130 other Electoral Votes in play that I think fall anywhere from a strong edge for Obama to a moderate edge to McCain at this point.

Also, and this is a stretch, but I would argue that he can compete in states like South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. Which puts another 32 electoral votes within reach but highly unlikely.

All in all I would give the GE edge to Obama. Also, I don’t think you give people in the south enough credit to be able to look past Obama’s skin color or Obama’s ability to transcend it. The people who “would never vote for a black guy” would never vote for a democrat either.

I think this is plausible (except for the part about SC, GA and LA), and I would throw in Iowa’s 7 votes for Obama against McCain. Also, Maine would probably deliver all 4 of its electoral votes to Obama (they don’t have winner-take-all there). Still, that only brings Obama to 221 electoral votes.

Florida is a write-off, given McCain’s strength among military and Latinos, and Obama’s relative weakness among Latinos and seniors.

Pennsylvania and Ohio could be real problems for Obama against McCain, in my opinion, especially when the media start covering Obama’s voting record on gun control in the Illinois legislature.

What do you think?

UPDATE: This diary by Clinton supporter silver spring is quite interesting:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

The MSM is constantly feeding us the theme that Obama would somehow be more “electable” in the general election because he overwhelmingly attracts independent voters, and if Hillary is the nominee, then McCain will get the bulk of the independents.  

There are two things wrong with the above proposition – 1) Even though Obama is attracting more independents, Hillary is not doing bad either; for one thing,  she is attracting more independents than McCain ….  but more importantly – 2) Independents are only one subset of traditional swing voters, the other subsets being Hispanics, white Catholics, white women and suburban voters.  Among the last four subsets above, Hillary is comfortably beating Obama (as well as McCain).

The diary has a lot of good analysis, including this bit, which refers to November 2004 exit poll data:

From the above 2004 numbers it’s interesting to note that Kerry actually beat Bush among independents (as well as Hispanics).  However, Bush comfortably beat Kerry among Catholics, white women and suburban voters.  Thus, it can be logically argued that Catholics, white women, suburban voters and Hispanics are as important as independent voters (if not more so) in order to guarantee Democratic success in November.

Catholics, white women and suburban voters are going to be crucial in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

About the Author(s)

desmoinesdem

  • You understimate Hillary's negatives

    Hillary’s ability to get elected against McCain reminds me of Gore and Kerry’s ability to get elected against Bush.  Not only is it a vote for the lesser of two evils, which is not good for our democracy, but there are significant roadblocks, such as the negatives associated with the Clinton era that embitters Republicans and turns off Independents.  There is also the fact that she is a divisive figure within her own party and her Machiavellian political tactics are a put-off to those who think real change occurs by bringing in new administrations, not installing supplanted regimes.  This country is at its best when its democracy is vibrant.  A Hillary presidency turns off people to our democracy even when the party has seen incredible turnout for the primaries.  This is a concern.

    Plenty of things could go wrong with any campaign, but you do not describe them and in so doing fail to offer a balanced view on this, if that is what you are going for.  I’m not convinced we know where Hillary’s floor is either.  Without accounting for her negatives, it is difficult to even venture a guess.  It is also not clear how you establish Obama’s floor.  I can’t fathom Democrats failing to receive at least 47% in the general election.  

    I would agree that Obama could pull in 55% for the general, but I highly doubt it would be as low as 45% unless domestic and international circumstances change dramatically (such as a terrorist attack or a dramatic economic recovery).   Democrats will score well given circumstances remain the same.  The question is will it be good enough to elect a President or enough to get one appointed?  Democrats will be strong-willed and motivated with Obama in the general election because not only will he have the establishment (which he does not have currently) behind him, but he will have a large base of new Democrats and Independents who passionately believe in his cause.  I think McCain can be defeated quite easily by Obama, a non-polarizing Democrat, because McCain would have greater issues with the Republican base when facing Obama, whereas against Hillary those issues could easily be forgotten and the focus would be on defeating her.  You bring up Obama’s votes on gun control, but you ignore McCain’s election and tax reform votes.  McCain has a long history in the Senate, and that usually does not bode well for Presidential candidates.  He is a venerable soldier, and I give him a lot of credit for that, but he does not motivate Republicans as effectively as Obama motivates Democrats and non-Democrats.  Obama’s strength is in motivating Democrats, Independents, and disillusioned Republicans to work and vote for him.  It is hard to argue convincingly that Obama does not have a significant advantage in this area compared to Hillary.  Ignoring the hundreds of thousands of people who have donated to his campaign or the thousands of young Democrats, new and old, who have come to work for him, seems wrong.  Many of these people want real change and they do not view Hillary as providing that change.  She does not represent the Democratic Party that they want to see.  She is not one of them.  

    Let’s wait and see how the Latino vote shapes up in Texas and Ohio after Obama sweeps February contests.  Obama can do very well in Ohio and Texas with a month of momentum behind him.  With the amount of time he will have to concentrate on organizing for those states, I still think he is in incredibly good position – far better than he could have asked for coming out of New Hampshire or before that.  Giuliani, a well-known national figure, failed miserably with his strategy of waiting for later states to make his move for the nomination.  While Hillary has placed better than he did in early states, getting blown out through the month of February does not look good any way you look at it.  We’ll see how well the strategy works out for Clinton.

    A note of concern about a Brokered Convention: If this goes to the convention, the Democratic Party is in for trouble.  I think going to the convention means a Hillary victory, and more importantly a highly contested and divisive one at that.  It does not look good for the Democratic Party if Hillary squeaks by or is viewed as winning the nomination through negotiations in a smoke-filled room.  It will be bitter, which is right on par for Clinton politics, and it will hurt the party internally.  

     

  • Either can win...either can lose.

    I think, as you say, either can win and either can lose. I think the odds are good that whoever gets the nomination will win.

    Hillary will definitely play a calculated 50+1 strategy. A Hillary map looks a lot to me like the 2004 map, with the exception of Arkansas, maybe New Mexico (big maybe) and Iowa going blue. I think Pennsylvania has shifted more Dem since 2004…a win for either. Ohio would be the big battleground–and it would get very dirty there.

    Obama, I think would use a broad 50 state strategy…or perhaps a 40 state strategy to be accurate. Again, Pennsylvania is a given, I think. But he wouldn’t have to place so much emphasis on one state. He stands a better chance to pick up Missouri, Iowa, Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia (the last three still iffy). Ohio would still be important, but not nearly as critical.

    This is a great site to play around with it, by the way.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/…

    • Pennsylvania is not a given for Obama

      I can’t agree with you there. McCain will pick up a lot of moderates and Catholics. (The link I posted above as an update shows that Clinton does better than Obama among Catholics.)

      You are right, Arkansas would go for Clinton, I forgot about that.

      • I don't know about that...

        Pennsylvania took a pretty hard left turn in the midterms. While the Catholic numbers are troubling, I still think that barring some kind of scandal or catastrophe it’ll go for either candidate with nearly the same margin that Kerry beat Bush there. Maybe I was wrong to say “a given”…but I’ll go so far as to call it pretty safe for  either.

        I’m a little confused by the Hispanic factor. Are you suggesting that because Hispanics prefer Clinton to Obama that they would vote McCain over Obama? McCain, while more moderate, is still from the party of “deport them all”.

        • McCain is the lone voice of sanity on immigration

          in the GOP, and this has not gone unnoticed in the Spanish-language media.

          I think McCain would do very well among Latinos, possibly even better than George W. Bush, who got about 44 percent of the Latino vote in 2004.

          So yes, I think there are Latinos who would prefer Clinton to McCain, but would prefer McCain to Obama. I hope that Obama can improve his standing with this group if he does win the nomination.

  • Did you see the results from last night?

    Obama beat all GOP candidates combined in Virginia. Virginia hasn’t gone blue since 1964 (for LBJ). If we can keep this momentum up and of course win Iowa…I think we can do it with Obama. Hillary might be a different story.

    William J Meyers for House 2008

    • of course Obama would win Iowa

      I would say he’d even have a shot at Virginia.

      But start trying to get to 270 without PA, OH and FL, and the math gets tricky. Especially since Obama would not be a lock for us in MI or NJ, in my opinion.

  • wait

    I dont see MI as a lock but Jersey seems like a sure democrat lock

Comments