Election 2008: Electoral Map Scenarios
Though we are still a little over four months away from the presidential election, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at the “scenarios for victory” put forward by strategists at both the Obama and McCain campaigns via potential electoral maps (courtesy of Real Clear Politics’ make-your-own electoral map feature).
Obama
Best-case scenario
Yesterday, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe laid out the details of Obama’s so-called “50-state strategy,” in which Obama would seek to win not only every state that John Kerry won in 2004, but also several more states that have historically not been competitive for Democrats in recent history.
Plouffe’s ideal map (according to my reading of his comments) would look something like this:
In this case, Obama would win not only all of Kerry’s states (and most toss-up states), but also add these traditionally Republican states:
-Alaska– Plouffe says Obama has “a great organization” there whereas McCain “doesn’t have anything.”
-North Dakota- Plouffe: North Dakota is “very close right now;” the campaign has already started running TV ads in that state.
-Indiana- Sees as winnable because of proximity to Obama’s home state of Illinois.
-Texas– Obama has “tens of thousands of volunteers” ready to help in that traditionally conservative state, which could swing it into Obama’s column.
-Georgia– Democrats are counting on Libertarian candidate Bobb Barr (a Georgia native) to rack up at least 8 percent of the vote in that state — most of which would take away from McCain. The campaign sees “49 percent” for Obama — and Georgia’s 13 electoral votes – as a possibility if they can produce high enough black turnout.
Narrow win
A more modest victory, according to Plouffe, wouldn’t even require Obama to win Ohio or Florida — the two traditional “deciding” swing states in the past two elections. Plouffe notes that if Obama won all of Kerry’s states in 2004 plus Iowa and either Virginia or North Carolina — traditional Republican strongholds where Obama has been polling competitively — then Obama wins with a map that looks something like this:
Alternatively, if McCain holds on to Virginia and North Carolina, Obama could still win if he took either Ohio or Florida.
McCain
Best-case scenario:
Acknowledging that the political environment for Republicans was “one of the worst in our party’s history,” McCain campaign manager Rick Davis laid out McCain’s strategy in a video recently. He identified 24 “battleground” states that were in play for this election, representing 242 electoral votes. Best case:
Blue states that McCain seeks to win are:
Wisconsin– Kerry won this state in 2004, and although Obama is leading, McCain has been polling fairly well and sees it as competitive.
Michigan — Another Kerry state that shows McCain within the margin of error, and which his campaign considers winnable.
Connecticut — McCain polling generally within margin of error; believe CT Sen. Joe Lieberman’s support for McCain will help him win this traditionally Democratic state.
New Hampshire — John McCain’s “strong” ties to the state (he has made an astounding number of visits there and refers to it as his “second home state”) throughout his history gives McCain the advantage to win this state.
Pennsylvania – McCain believes he can win this traditionally blue state by capitalizing on Obama’s difficulties here during the primaries with working-class whites, Jewish voters, and disaffected Clinton supporters. Davis cites exit polling that showed nearly 25 percent of Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania vowing not to vote for Obama — Davis believes this could translate to a McCain bump of as much as 12 percent in Pennsylvania in November.
Davis also believes McCain has a fair shot at overtaking Obama in very blue states like Oregon, Maine, and even New Jersey.
Narrow win:
A more narrow victory for McCain would likely see him holding on to all of Bush’s states, but losing Iowa, where Obama has been leading.
There are of course hundreds of possible scenarios that would allow either candidate to win — the above are simply intended to provide an illustration of the broad spectrum of what the map could look like in November.
There’s still a long way to go, and considering what we’ve seen already in this election cycle — from Obama’s insurrection to defeat the “inevitable” candidacy of Hillary Clinton to McCain’s ressurrection from having his campaign pronounced “dead” in September 2007 to winning the nomination just 5 months later – I’m fairly confident that anything is possible.
Over 4 months ahead, it does seem a bit premature to be prognosticating, but it is interesting to see how the campaigns are thinking. Given that the 2000 and 2004 maps were so similar, it would be interesting to see things shaken up a bit in 2008 with different states being seen as in play. If I were a Democrat in Utah or a Republican in Vermont, I’d be pretty bummed every 4 years.
McCain has to carry Texas, Florida and either Ohio or Pennslvania under any scenario to get elected. It is Obamas race to lose, but McCain is running a terrible campaign.
The big questions in the future congress will the “blue dog” democrats show some resolute independence and will the senate have 40 solid republican votes.
We face the prospect of having a government totally out of fiscal control with a flat economy. Can we afford all the new programs and bailouts.
Mr Mayer the young people will pay the price!
> McCain has to carry Texas, Florida and either Ohio or Pennslvania
> under any scenario to get elected.
McCain will win Texas and Florida. Ohio and Pennsylvania are questionable.
> It is Obamas race to lose, but McCain is running a terrible campaign.
McCain is running a campaign? When did this happen?
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 19 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
nice post; thanks
one other scenario I like.
http://www.grassrootsnetroots.org/survey2008/results/C_H_MO_2nd_Haas_Bill.cfm
From http://www.Electoral-vote.com, Obama currently has about 229 EV’s in states where he is up by 5+, while McCain only has about 150 EV’s in states where he is up by 5+. Considering how tight the polls are in NC, VA, CO, GA where GOP usually wins big, McCain has a lot of territory to defend and half the money as Obama has to do so. McCain has never been in a long drawn out campaign in his life (AZ is solidly GOP), and his age and lack of resources are no match for Obama’s grass roots and $$$. Throw in a collapsing economy, and I think a cross between scenarios 1 and 2 is most likely; Obama 330 vs McCain 208. This will be the first time in decades that MO does not go with the winner though.
Did it occur to anyone to point Senator McCain and his staff to actual polls in CT? Without adding Senator Lieberman to the ticket, he’s currently losing CT 35% to Obama’s 56% (give or take). Adding Lieberman might sound like a good idea, as a recent poll suggests it would make 18% of the population more likely to vote for McCain, but it would also make 32% of voters LESS likely to vote for him. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which McCain can hope to win Connecticut.
Obama should win, he has all the cards, but we need to wait until the VP are selected. Romney might bring in Michigan a blue state for McCain that would help McCain.
Obama needs to pick a gov from a big red state who is a Democrat-and there are really any I can think of.
McCain and Obama, both senators need to pick a Governor from a state they want to “paoch” from the other side. We shall see.