It's time to DEBUNK some Electoral Myths about the states Clinton and Obama have won

[FlyingSquirrel]

I just can't imagine how some can project a November winner from the Democratic Primary winners, state by state. It makes no sense to me. For example, "Hillary has won NY and CA - we need those states to win, therefore she should be our nominee." Most people here, I think, see this for the absurdity that it is - however for the benefit of the rest, let's do a little electoral analysis.

(Before I do that, let me just say that I completely agree with the 50-state strategy; we should not assume blue states will stay that way for purposes of the general election campaign, nor allow red states to be uncontested.)

The following states have been consistently blue in each election from 1992 to 2004:

California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

Total electoral votes, 248

The following states have been consistently red in each election from 1992 to 2004:

Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming

Total electoral votes, 135

IT ONLY TAKES 270 TO WIN, PEOPLE! WE ONLY NEED 22 MORE.

This shouldn't be hard, but somehow it has been for Democrats the last two elections.

Okay, now we have three states that lean blue (3 out of the last 4 elections): Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico.
That's 16 of the necessary 22 swing electoral votes we need if we can carry them this year, assuming the Blue states stay Blue.

The above three states have pretty much been a statistical toss-up between Clinton and Obama. 38 delegates for Clinton, 37 for Obama.

We have five states that lean red (3 out of the last 4 elections): Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Montana

I REPEAT: Florida is a red-leaning state. Furthermore Edwards was on the ballot and gained 14.4% of the vote there. The vast majority of his support has since moved to Obama. Those claiming that Hillary has a better chance of swinging this state in 2008 had better come up with a new argument because there's just no way to know for certain just going by those election results, and in any case there's still a good chance that the state will remain red.

Get the stars out of your eyes with regard to Florida's 27 EV's. We don't need that many. If you really think this is such a big deal, Obama won Georgia 66% to 31% - there's 15 EV by your same logic. Yes, that was a primary not a caucus. That would only leave 7 more EV's necessary to win the election - or, it would WIN the election for us if Obama also won Iowa. 15+7=22, there's some simple math.

Of the remaining red-leaners, Clinton's slight advantage in Arizona (10 EV) is balanced out with Obama's convincing win in Colorado (9 EV). Montana has yet to vote.

So that brings us to the true swing states. They all went Blue in 1992 and 1996, and Red in 2000 and 2004

Arkansas, Ohio, Tennessee, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, Kentucky, West Virginia

Obama convincingly won Louisiana (9 EV) which cancels out Clinton's convincing Arkansas win (6 EV). Kentucky and West Virginia have yet to vote. Missouri and Nevada were statistical ties.

If you look at this graph from Pollster.com you can see that Obama could easily have won Ohio given a few more weeks of campaigning.



That leaves just Tennessee with its 11 EV's as an advantage for Clinton among swing states, and there are plenty of combinations without TN that would swing the election our way (not that I'm conceding TN if Obama wins the nomination).

Now is that enough of a convincing advantage to make you choose Clinton over Obama, just on the basis of "electability"?

I'd say, probably only if you've already decided she's your candidate.

[Muttocracy]

1. good post, need to think electability in the General Elec. based on electoral college purples states

[JorgeTheGood]

2. Thanks for taking the effort to put

this post together.

One problem I see. The premise seems to be that the known blues stay blue and the known reds stay red. That may not be the case this year.

CA is one state that will be in danger of going red, particularly if BO gets the nod. McCain will crush him with the indys, Hispanics, the military and the red pockets ... San Diego, Orange COunty, Central and San Joaquin valleys ... et al.

Also, the latest poll on NJ showed McCain very strong there against BO, and the latest poll I saw on MA showed Obama only up by 2. These are states that we must carry or it will be a landslide for MC.

We can't count on taking any of the red states although it would be nice to think such. Those states are just too wrapped up in God, Guns and country to not vote for MC.

[democrattotheend]

16. Obama does better against McCain with Indies than Clinton does

But I am a little worried about the Hispanic vote in California.

Didn't a recent poll (post Super-Tuesday) show Obama doing better than Clinton against McCain in California?

The Massachusetts poll has to be an outlier. Clinton was up by less than 10 in that same poll, and that is just ridiculous.

[democrattotheend]

18. If we can't win any red states, we can't win

If we win every state that either Kerry, Gore or both won it won't be enough.

If we take back Iowa and win either Virginia or Missouri we can win, assuming we hold the other Kerry-Gore states.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. I can guarantee you that Montana will go to Obama in the primary.

Clinton isn't well liked here, even by lots of Democrats, and we have an usually large percentage of independents.

In the GE, Obama would have a shot at winning, Clinton wouldn't.

[JorgeTheGood]

4. Well how about naming some red states ...

BO will take ... other than Montana. And name the blue states he holds for us.

[Hawkeye-X]

11. Colorado is another.

Voted for Chimp in '00 and '04. Bill won this state in '92. We've been steadily trending blue for quite some time. Obama being the nominee at the DNC convention right here could make it a true blue and give their 9 EV's to Obama.

Hawkeye-X

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Yep, CO is another state that Obama could win that Hill probably couldn't. NM

is another trending Blue state that Obama could bring in.

Iowa.

Virginia.

The problem with Hill is that a lot of people just don't like her for whatever reason. And since she's gone negative on Obama her negatives have gone up. She motivates right-wingers who hate her more than they dislike McCain.

[FlyingSquirrel]

22. I don't think either one has all that much chance to take Montana actually.

It's the reddest-leaning of the red-leaners, followed closely by GA. Still, they both voted for Clinton in '92 so I wouldn't count them out completely.

I don't see why we can't hold all the blue states - none of them went red any time since 1988 and things have gotten so bad in the last 7 years I can't imagine why they would. So I don't really get the question of "which blue states can either one hold and why".

But if you want to go down that road, the blue states that were closest in 2000 and 2004 were:

Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin

Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. PA and OR haven't voted. Obama won both Minnesota and Wisconsin by large margins.

The best chance we might have to flip a red state would be Virginia. Obama won that 54 delegates to 29.

As stated before, Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico were essentially tied between the two candidates. These are blue-leaning swing states.

As also stated before, Edwards took a lot of support from Obama in Florida - this could have been a near-tie as well without Edwards in the mix. Colorado's the next best chance among red-leaning swing states and Obama won, 32 delegates to 13.

Among the remaining swing states, they're pretty much all possible except maybe Kentucky. As stated above once again, Clinton has the advantage in Tennessee and that's pretty much it.

[Gore1FL]

5. Obama throws the southeast into battleground

Even if he does not win one in the general election, he makes McCain spend time and money there--same with the west. If Gov Sebelius is his VP it does the same in the midwest.

By the way, VA is leaning blue for Obama at this time.

[JorgeTheGood]

8. VA will be tough to take from McCain ...

largest congregation of military (and families) anywhere in the country -- that makes it MC country.

Northern VA probably won't be enough to hold it for BO.

[Gore1FL]

10. Even if he just has to campaign and spend money there

It'll be worth it!

[DearAbby]

13. why do you assume military will go GOP?

80% of the country is against the war. McCain has basically vowed to continue in Iraq. that means there are plenty of GOP and Independents who are just as sick of the NeoCons as we are. This isnt going to be your usual election. It could be full of surprises.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Obama and Ron Paul have gotten the most money from active duty military personel this

primary season. They lead all others in donations.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Don't count on the military necessarily supporting McCain.

The guys that are getting shot at for no discernable reason for the past 5 years are getting a little tired of it. They just might prefer someone who says he will get out of Iraq and redouble efforts against Bin Laden.

That could throw NC into the mix this time around, too. I think one reason we regularly elect Dems locally while electing republican presidents is that the military, who are not invested in local politics, only vote the top half the ballot. If a sufficient number of those votes go Dem, NC could easily flip. Truth be told, I expected us to flip last time.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. K&R (#5). See also a spreadsheet of state-by-state primary and caucus results at URL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4918049

[grantcart]

7. k and r

[truedelphi]

9. Your OP states:

(Regarding obtaining 22 electoral votes more)

"This shouldn't be hard, but somehow it has been for Democrats the last two elections"

In 2000 we had a judicial coup, in which the Various Supreme Courts shut down FLorida counting the votes. We did not find out that Gore won Florida, nor sis we find out that Gore had the popular vote, until after Sept 11th 2001. (Both the state Supreme Ct and the Federal Supreme Ct)

In 2004 we had massive voter suppression, vote flipping and miscalculation - always in Bush's favor, every single time. Thus the election that hinged on Kerry receiving the electoral win in Ohio went to Bush. It is likely that votes for Kerry were shaved off and fliped for Bush = the repugs really needed to make the call that "Bush was also the winner of the popular vote"

The media and the way they are allowed to call the election (Or allowed to let the Chief of Staff at the WH call the election) played a role as well.

[spag68]

12. Your calculations are flawed

Ohio will be won by HRC, now that we get an even break on vote counting, it will be tougher for Obama, but still possible. If you consider the NE population in Fla. and their general sickness with the rethugs, HRC wins there with the help of upstate women. Again IMO Obama can win there too, but closer. Don't forget firecracker in the woodpile has been crossover voting , and I'm not sure how that turns out. Don't worry about Cal. we win that with either. If we keep the primary relatively clean, and believe it or not it has been, we win this time. The rethugs have run out of crap to throw, the real problem is to win those Senate seats, so stop beating up Dems. and try to work for those seats.

[JorgeTheGood]

14. I don't know if you live in CA (I do)

and 'Amnesty' John is going to do OK here .. especially with the Hispanic vote, the military and the red sectors.

The dems take '08 CA for granted at their own peril.

on edit: presumming BO is the nominee.

[spag68]

17. New York

I never said any of this will be easy, however I don't believe your state will turn red this time. Has everyone lost sight of McCain Kennedy. Also he is bat shit crazy and will have a hard time getting out from under 100 years in Iraq.

[JorgeTheGood]

20. BO polls miserably with the hispanics ...

that's the most worrisome part. Along with that, I watch those red pockets growing larger and becoming more influencal every year. With the right candidate, the republicans have a real chance in CA. MC just might be the one.

Not all of CA is San Francisco.

[spag68]

21. How about

all the pubs. caught up in the scandals, has that gone over, or are we here the only ones who remember that stuff.

[JorgeTheGood]

24. from my POV ...

Nov will not be about the Iraq war, nor the scandals. None of that will be held against McCain. People only seem to care about the economy, real estate, health care, gas prices -- kitchen table stuff and here in CA they care a bunch.

Bringing the troops is nice but it doesn't make those 4 back payments on the beachfront property.

[Laelth]

25. Nice number crunching. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[FlyingSquirrel]

26. Thanks - it bears repeating that a few of the blue states were very close last time

The Blue states that were closest in 2000 and 2004 were:

Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin

Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. PA and OR haven't voted. Obama won both Minnesota and Wisconsin by large margins.

Clearly we need to focus on keeping those states in our column this time around as well as NH, while trying to turn a few of the others like IA, NM, CO, FL, OH, NV, MO, LA, AR... Possibly even TN, VA, WV, GA, KY, MT and AZ (don't know how popular McCain is in his own home state).

I'd love to see a landslide this time around and not just a one-state victory.

[Laelth]

27. I want 36 states and 62 votes in the Senate.

Only Obama has even an outside chance of doing that, imho.

If Hillary wins, it will be much closer.

:dem:

-Laelth

[FlyingSquirrel]

28. OMG THEY'RE STILL MAKING THE SAME STUPID ARGUMENT

Guess I better kick this

;)