The Electoral College Map (6/11/08)

Well, who else shed a tear when yesterday came and went with no primaries and no promise of any further contests for another four years? Hey, if we're lucky there may even be a primary or two in 2011. My guess is that it won't be Florida or Michigan that triggers New Hampshire or Iowa breaking beyond the January 1 barrier. But hey, we'll see.

Regardless, primary season is over and the general election campaign has begun. With that change comes a change in how FHQ will be examining the electoral college. Yes, Hillary Clinton has been dropped (The polling firms forced our hand on that one.), but we are also unveiling a new map (courtesy of Paul Gurian) to track the shifts in the electoral college projections. Part map, part cartogram, the new template resizes the states to match proportionally with the number of electoral votes each state has.

That's great, but what about the numbers? To the map!

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Not much changed this week as the polling was light following the conclusion of the Democratic nomination race. There were nine new polls in nine states. With new polls in South Carolina and West Virginia for the first time since February, the fall map was clarified a bit further. South Carolina, which has been a toss up favoring McCain, inched into the McCain Lean category and while West Virginia remained a Strong McCain state, the new poll from Rasmussen brought the weighted average closer to the line between the strong and lean distinctions. Other new polls in Alabama, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Texas and Wisconsin confirmed what was already apparent in each state. Wisconsin and Missouri are both still toss ups leaning toward Obama and McCain respectively, but both are trending toward Obama with this latest round of polling.

With that said the underlying electoral vote breakdown remains the same as a week ago. Based on the shift of Michigan from a toss up favoring Obama to a toss up leaning toward McCain, the Arizona senator maintains a 281 to 257 electoral vote advantage over the newly designated, presumptive Democratic nominee.

As I mentioned a few posts ago, FHQ will be shifting to a bi-weekly update of the electoral college maps. I'll be back on Sunday with tales of all the new polls. Hopefully the polling firms will oblige with a series of new polls.

***Please see the right sidebar for links to Updated Electoral College projections.***

Recent Posts:
The What If Primary: Louisiana Politics Goes National

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Two

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part One

The What If Primary: Louisiana Politics Goes National

This past Friday, the Macon Telegraph ran a letter to the editor calling on the presumptive Democratic and Republican presidential nominees to walk the walk now that each has talked the talk on a post-partisan approach to the presidency.

[begin]

Walk the talk

The presumptive presidential nominees, Barack Obama and John McCain, have promised, if elected, a bipartisan administration. They must also walk their talk, and it can done by two methods.

First, Obama and McCain must urge the passage of a constitutional amendment requiring a non-partisan primary election for all 50 states. This political reform would allow Independents to run in the primary election against Democrats and Republicans. The two top vote-getters would run in the general election.

Second, McCain and Obama must provide a list of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who they would appoint as cabinet secretaries and to White House staff.

In a nutshell, politics as usual must stop in Washington.

Roy Wetherington
Tifton

[end]

I can take or leave the suggestion of having shadow cabinets or prospective shadow cabinets in place before the November election, but the idea of having a national non-partisan primary is an interesting one to say the least. This would be the equivalent of having the Louisiana political infrastructure in place on the national level. Candidates of all stripes are thrown into one chaotic election and the top two voter getters make the runoff (general election). In 2008, for example, a year with both enthusiasm and competitiveness gaps in favor of the Democrats, we would have seen two Democrats vying for the Oval Office in November (Both Clinton and Obama had in excess of 17 million votes while McCain had just under 10 million votes.). It should be noted that had Republican voters known they had to vote to get one of their own in the general election, McCain's total would have been higher.

How would other past primary seasons run in this manner have come out? A quick glance at America Votes gives us a pretty good idea. Though caucus votes are excluded, we still have a rough sense of who would have appeared in the general election runoff following what would have been a national, non-partisan primary.

2008
Obama: 17,535,458
Clinton: 17,493,836
McCain: 9,902,797
...
Barr: n/a
Nader: n/a

2004
Kerry: 9,870,082
Bush: 7,784,653
Edwards: 3,135,373
...
Nader: n/a

2000
Bush: 10,844,129
Gore: 10,626,645
McCain: 5,118,187
...
Nader: n/a
Buchanan: n/a

1996
Clinton: 9,694,499
Dole: 8,191,239
Buchanan: 3,020,746
...
Perot: n/a

1992
Clinton: 10,482,411
Bush: 9,199,463
Brown: 4,071,232
...
Perot: n/a

1988
Dukakis: 9,817,185
Bush: 8,254,654
Jackson: 6,685,699

1984
Mondale: 6,811,214
Hart: 6,503,968
Reagan: 6,484,987

1980
Carter: 9,593,335
Reagan: 7,709,793
Kennedy: 6,963,625
...
Anderson: 1,572,174

1976
Carter: 6,235,609
Ford: 5,529,899
Reagan: 4,758,325

1972 Nixon: 5,378,704
Humphrey: 4,121,372
McGovern: 4,053,451
Wallace: 3,755,424

Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, there aren't that many changes from the general election match ups anyway. The changes that do appear underline some caveats that would have to be considered to look at this thoroughly. For starters, incumbents running unopposed would have to be controlled for in some way. There's no way, for example, that Reagan would have missed out on the 1984 general election, but his vote totals in the primaries were down because he ran virtually unopposed. Without that competition, there was less motivation to turn out GOP voters. The flip side of this is whether incumbents would even be included. Would it be the case that an incumbent would occupy one spot while the other candidates (members of the incumbent's party included) would run for that spot opposite him.

I'm going to try to look at this a but deeper in the next few weeks and months, so be on the look out. Putting some additional numbers in would definitely create an interesting analysis. Now, if only my dissertation will allow me to spend time elsewhere.


Recent Posts:
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Two

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part One

A Big Thanks to Demconwatch

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Two

Yesterday FHQ began a look back at the effectiveness of state's moving their delegate selection events for the 2008 cycle. Today that examination continues with the next ten states alphabetically.

The basic grading criteria are as follows:
1) Did the state move between 2004 and 2008?
2) Did the state change contest types (caucus to primary or vice versa)?
3) Did the state's contest influence the Democratic/Republican nomination in any significant way?
4) Was the state's contest one among many (ie: on Super Tuesday) or by itself (ie: Pennsylvania)?
If a state moved (or did not) and/or was influential in deciding the nominees in each part, the state's grade will be higher.

Hawaii:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-24-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-19-08/caucus (Dem.)--5-15-08/caucus (GOP)
Dem. Influence: Obama claims at least 37 states as one of his home states. This one though is toward the top of that list. Clinton focused much of her efforts on Wisconsin that week and ceded the Aloha state to Obama.
GOP Influence: Do you recall Hawaii holding a caucus during the weekend between West Virginia and Kentucky/Oregon? I don't either.
Contest Company: Wisconsin
Grade: C-
Comments: Hawaii is just to far away to get too terribly much candidate attention. And when the contest is either dominated by a native or falls after the point at which the nomination has been decided, that's a recipe for disaster.

Idaho:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-24-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus (Dem.)--5-27-08/primary (GOP)
Dem. Influence: Like Alaska and the other caucus states of Super Tuesday, Idaho gets a bump (retrospectively) for being a part of the caucus bump that propelled Obama to the Democratic nomination. The Gem state was largely ignored at the time, but being a piece of that organizational triumph for the Illinois senator's campaign is a plus.
GOP Influence: Do you remember the Idaho primary on the Tuesday between Kentucky/Oregon and Montana/South Dakota? I don't either.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday (Dem.)--Stand-alone contest (GOP)
Grade: B-
Comments: Idaho was a valuable part of the caucus strategy that the Obama campaign employed but fell on a date after which the GOP nomination had been decided. Not holding their events simultaneously hurt Idaho's already minuscule chances of influencing the outcome of the nominations.

Illinois:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-16-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: At the time, the Illinois legislature moving the state's primary was seen as a boost for Obama in light of New York and New Jersey having already moved to Super Tuesday. The Land of Lincoln was seen as a contest that could help secure some delegates and keep him alive following Super Tuesday. He needed those delegates from his home state, but not necessarily for the reason the legislature may have thought.
GOP Influence: It wasn't a winner-take-all primary but a 54-3 trouncing (via a Loophole Primary) of Romney handed McCain quite a big prize on Super Tuesday.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B+
Comments: A big delegate prize on Super Tuesday, Illinois helped send both McCain and Obama off toward their nominations. Obama's home state status detracts from the grade slightly, but like California, we're talking about a delegate-rich state here.

Indiana:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-4-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 5-6-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A tight contest with the nomination on the line. Clinton edged Obama, but Indiana got a rare dose of the spotlight on the Democratic side.
GOP Influence: There was a lot of Clinton/Obama talk but very little about McCain.
Contest Company: North Carolina
Grade: A
Comments: Doing nothing about moving the Hoosier state's primary for 2008 certainly didn't hurt. If I were making the decisions in Indiana (and I'm not), I wouldn't bet on lightning striking again in 2012. In fact, as early as this past January, at least one Indiana state legislator said she was going to propose legislation during the 2009 session to move the state's primary for 2012. For the Republicans, Indiana was business as usual; the nomination has already been wrapped up.

Iowa:
2004 Date/contest type: 1-19-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 1-3-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: The one that started it all made a viable candidate out of one Illinois senator and began to cast light on the cracks in the Clinton camp's armor.
GOP Influence: McCain did better than he did in 2000 and Huckabee got a win that helped sustain him through Super Tuesday and into March.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contest
Grade: A
Comments: Being first (and staying there) has its advantages.

Kansas:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-13-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus (Dem.)--2-9-08/caucus (GOP)
Dem. Influence: Another Super Tuesday caucus in another Obama home state. Kansas, like those other caucus states, provided the Illinois senator with much of the final delegate margin and was, as a result, consequential to the outcome.
GOP Influence: Along with Louisiana on the same day, Kansas was among the last of the Huckabee wins. After the squabble over the Washington caucus tally on the same day, Huckabee was never the same. Kansas was a part of the voting block that cast doubt on McCain's ability to woo Christian conservatives.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday (Dem.)--Louisiana and Washington (GOP)
Grade: B+
Comments: After the state legislature failed to pass a plan instituting a primary, both state parties did well to move their contests into the window of decisiveness.

Kentucky:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-25-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 5-20-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Kentucky, along with West Virginia, pointed out the white Appalachia problem Obama has. Clinton's win in the Bluegrass state made all the more poignant her argument that she would be the better general election candidate because of the blocs of voters she could bring to the Democrats.
GOP Influence: Ho hum. Another post-Ohio/Texas contest that ceded attention to the Democrats.
Contest Company: Oregon
Grade: B-
Comments: Though Kentucky was a foregone conclusion, it was still influential in its position late in the process. Like Indiana, this was a case where doing nothing actually paid off.

Louisiana:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-9-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-9-08/primary
Dem. Influence: As was the case in other states across the deep South, heavy African American turnout pushed Obama over the top in the Pelican state's primary.
GOP Influence: This was one of the last hurrahs for the Huckabee campaign. Another regional win that questioned how well McCain would be able to motivate evangelicals in the fall.
Contest Company: Kansas, Nebraska (Dem.) and Washington
Grade: B+
Comments: Like Alabama or Georgia, Louisiana was a state that witnessed Obama and Huckabee wins simultaneously. Unlike those two, Louisiana moved its primary to a weekend date with a trio of caucuses. Instead of being lost in the shuffle, the Pelican state enjoyed a bit more exposure than its neighbors to the east.

Maine:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-8-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-10-08/caucus (Dem.)--2-3-08/caucus (GOP)
Dem. Influence: This was another caucus win for Obama, but one in an older state demographically, which should have favored Clinton. The Clinton camp was also beginning to see the Obama caucus strategy.
GOP Influence: After McCain's win in Florida, Romney came back with a win in nearby Maine (nearby Massachusetts, where he had been governor). The win did little to help him going into Super Tuesday, though.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: C
Comments: Sunday contests set Maine apart from all the other states. The results, though, did little to move the needle. Romney and Obama continued to excel in caucuses. For a small state, Maine did well to hold stand-alone contests that would maximize what would still be minimal coverage, but an increase over past years.

Maryland:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-12-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Maryland continued the post-Super Tuesday streak for Obama. His resounding wins in all three Potomac primary states lifted the Illinois senator to his peak during primary season.
GOP Influence: McCain's win moved Huckabee into "believe in miracles not math" mode. It was the beginning of the end for the former Arkansas governor in demographically hostile territory (save western Virginia).
Contest Company: One third of the Potomac Primary (DC and VA)
Grade: B+
Comments: The state government in Maryland was smart (Ha! Hindsight is 20/20) to pull away from Super Tuesday for the first time since 1984 when the Old Line state still held a May primary. Coordinating their efforts with the primaries in Virginia and DC on the same day was beneficial in focusing the week's agenda on the that subregion.


By and large, the grades for this group of states is higher than those of the states examined yesterday. Having Iowa and states with contest dates other than Super Tuesday helps though. Being first helps as does holding a contest on a less crowded week or weekend. It isn't uncommon for caucuses to be conducted on the weekend, but it will be interesting to see if, barring any reform measure, other states follow Louisiana's lead and move their primaries to the weekend in 2012. I suspect that we'll witness a return to the types of campaigns that we saw in 2000 or 2004 in 2012. In other words, the nomination(s) will be decided on Super Tuesday. That will likely be the first Tuesday in February again; the earliest allowable date to hold a delegate selection event. It will be difficult for states to move ahead of that point simply because of fear of becoming another Florida or Michigan. The plan that recently failed in Kansas would have established a primary and scheduled it for the weekend prior to Super Tuesday in 2012. That provision wasn't why it failed, but it is noteworthy that some states have taken notice of the Louisiana move in 2008.

Up next: Massachusetts through New Jersey.


Recent Posts:
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part One

A Big Thanks to Demconwatch

Texas Caucus Final Tally: ?% of the Caucus Vote, 57% of the Caucus Delegates

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part One

Now that primary season is complete the movement (or non-movement) of state delegate selection events as compared to 2004 can be assessed a little better. By their nature, the nomination races in 2008 were a different animal than was the race Democratic race in 2004. Both parties had contested nominations and the Democratic race remained competitive to the final contest. On both counts, the opportunity for a state to influence the 2008 process was divergent from the same chance in 2004.

The question of the day: Did states make the right moves (or non-moves) in preparation for the 2008 cycle? During this week, FHQ will take a look at all 50 states (10 states a day in alphabetical order) and determine to what extent their individual frontloading (or lack thereof) influenced the races for the Democratic and Republican nominations. There were contests outside of the fifty states. However, they won't be considered here. The mere fact that Democrats Abroad or Guam were mentioned warrants a grade of A in their cases.

The basic grading criteria are as follows:
1) Did the state move between 2004 and 2008?
2) Did the state change contest types (caucus to primary or vice versa)?
3) Did the state's contest influence the Democratic/Republican nomination in any significant way?
4) Was the state's contest one among many (ie: on Super Tuesday) or by itself (ie: Pennsylvania)?
Of the ten states (plus the District of Columbia) covered in today's post, nine held contests on February 5.

Alabama:
2004 Date/contest type: 6-1-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Alabama was among the states that gave Obama a vote of confidence on Super Tuesday. But the state moved from the first week in June to have a voice in who the nominee(s) would be. They did, but Alabama got lost in the shuffle on Super Tuesday. We could be talking a bit about Alabama now as a state that put Obama over the top in addition to Montana and South Dakota.
GOP Influence: Mike Huckabee got a solid post-Iowa victory to go along with a string of other wins on Super Tuesday. Would that support have gone to McCain or Romney in Huckabee's absence? That's a good question. Romney played the role of GOP Obama that day, doing well in most of the caucuses. Huckabee was a regional candidate for the most part and Alabama's move helped sustain him until the first week in March.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C+
Comments: More influential on the GOP side than on the Democratic side. The move to February made the state consequential in both nominations for the first time since 1988.

Alaska:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-20-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: Any state that was a part of the Super Tuesday caucus revelation for Obama gets high marks, whether intentional or not. Democrats in the Great Frontier opted for the earliest allowable date and became a decisive part of the delegate margin that Obama used to finally wrap up the Democratic nomination.
GOP Influence: Again, Romney was a quiet caucus success on Super Tuesday, but no one heard about it because he was getting trounced in all those winner-take-all states the same day by McCain.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B
Comments: The move paid off in that Alaska was among the states that were decisive in both nominations. The one month jump from 2004 to 2008 helped that, but being a far away caucus on a day packed with delegate-rich states, put both parties in the state behind the eight ball.

Arizona:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A comfortable win for Clinton and a state that didn't seem to get too much by way of mentions on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: None.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: D
Comments: Being a home state of one of the major candidates on a day when there are only so many places a candidate can visit will get you relegated to bypass status in a heartbeat. For the Republicans, that was the case. For the Dems, it was, along with California, evidence of Obama's potential problem among Hispanic voters.

Arkansas:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-18-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: None (see Arizona for McCain. The same was true for Clinton in this one.).
GOP Influence: None (Huckabee's favorite son status pushed him to an easy victory.)
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: D-
Comments: Of all the states that jumped, Arkansas' gamble worked out almost worst of any state not named Florida or Michigan. Favorite sons and daughters doomed the contest as soon as Huckabee won Iowa (if not before). And they're already talking of a return to May for 2012.

California:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Once Obama jumped to a lead on Super Tuesday (measured by the number of states won), California proved a big win and delegate boost for Clinton.
GOP Influence: McCain's Florida win the week before really carried over into Super Tuesday and California was certainly evidence of that.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: A-
Comments: The Golden State could probably go on any date, but has insisted upon being ahead of the nomination decisive point since 1996. That goal was achieved again during 2008. What if California held its primary last week, where it had traditionally been in the post-reform era up until 1996? Clinton would have been deprived of an early and important victory that may have forced her hand earlier than June 7. McCain likely would have gone on to take the nomination, but he too may have been made to wait until Mississippi during the second week of March or until Pennsylvania in April to have formally wrapped up the nomination. That would have been a precarious month for McCain.

Colorado:
2004 Date/contest type: 4-13-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: Like Alaska, another caucus state that bolstered Obama's delegate lead; one that lasted into the waning days of the nomination race.
GOP Influence: Romney did well in the caucuses. Enough said. This one was lost among the shuffle of other, larger delegate gems on a busy day.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B+
Comments: It may be that these caucuses didn't truly find their influence until after the fact, when people began to put all the pieces together. In a retrospective examination, that's a good thing though. Colorado jumped into the window decisiveness and was fairly influential on the Democratic side (in the end) while being an also-ran for the GOP candidates.

Connecticut:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: An aberration on Super Tuesday for Obama. It was the only northeast primary state that went for Obama until Vermont a month later (Maine, the weekend after Super Tuesday also gave the nod to Obama.). In that respect the Constitution state got several mentions in the press coverage during the evening of Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: Another winner-take-all state that McCain took. The Arizona senator dominated among the winner-take-all states on Super Tuesday.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C-
Comments: This was a small primary jump and a small state that didn't get too much from the candidates in the way of attention; especially on a day when over 20 states held contests.

Delaware:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Obama won, so correctly picking the nominee has to mean something, right?
GOP Influence: McCain won, so correctly picking the nominee has to mean something, right?
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: D-
Comments: Delaware was like Connecticut, but further South. On such a crowded day, the First state didn't stand a chance. They were on essentially the same date in 2004, but with far fewer states, and certainly didn't gain anything by competing on an even more crowded date.

District of Columbia:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-14-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 2-12-08/primary
Dem. Influence: This one was a foregone conclusion for Obama, but the DC primary was part of the post-Super Tuesday streak that Obama ran up before Ohio/Texas on March 4.
GOP Influence: You're kidding, no?
Contest Company: One third of the Potomac Primary (w/MD and VA)
Grade: C
Comments: The District made the move from caucus (with advisory primary) to primary, but they've held advisory primaries as early as early January before. DC isn't going to get too much attention, but was smart to coordinate with Maryland and Virginia a subregional primary that was a valuable part of Obama's sweep through the later 3/4ths of February.

Florida:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-9-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 1-29-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Florida's influence was in extending the chaos of the Democratic race into the last week of contests.
GOP Influence: McCain's win in the Sunshine state catapulted him into Super Tuesday and to the nomination.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contest
Grade: C
Comments: Florida is a study in extremes in the 2008 nomination battles in both parties. Very influential in the GOP race and very influential in the Democratic race (just not in a positive way). An A for the GOP effort and an F for the Democrats averages out to a C. The Florida legislature's gamble paid off. Well, it is Republican controlled after all. Maybe I should bump the grade up because of that.

Georgia:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Other than being the first state called for Obama on Super Tuesday, the Peach state was lost in the shuffle then and in the grand scheme of the nomination battle.
GOP Influence: This was another of Huckabee's post-Iowa wins that kept him going. McCain had jumped in the polls after Florida, but that support proved fleeting. Georgia going for Huckabee was indicative of the problems McCain would have (and still has) to clear up with Christian conservatives.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C
Comments: Georgia is like Alabama without as big a jump from 2004 to 2008. Obama won based on a heavy black turnout and Huckabee emerged as a victorious regional candidate.

On the whole, low marks for a group of states that gravitated towards February 5. Those gambles didn't really pay off other than keeping or putting states in a position to be a decisive part of the nominations. All were a part of it, but few proved very influential.

Up next: Hawaii through Maryland.


Recent Posts:
A Big Thanks to Demconwatch

Texas Caucus Final Tally: ?% of the Caucus Vote, 57% of the Caucus Delegates

VP, VP, VP. Who Will They Choose?

A Big Thanks to Demconwatch

I'd like to take an opportunity to publicly thank the good folks over at 2008 Democratic Convention Watch for linking FHQ's electoral college maps in their general election tracker. I always appreciated the US News exposure, but I value the vote of confidence from my blogging peers. And this is a vote of confidence from a really great site. If you haven't been reading Demconwatch, then you've been missing the best coverage of the delegate race in the battle between Obama and Clinton.

With the new exposure and a likely increase in polling, I'm going to start bi-weekly updates of the electoral college maps. Those posts will now come on Sunday and Wednesday. Also, I'll be unveiling the general election map in this Wednesday's electoral college post. Yeah, yeah, I know. And just after I changed the color coding. The color code will remain the same but we'll (Paul Gurian and I) be introducing a new and unique map template. Paul has been using it for years and it should be a great addition to the site.



Recent Posts:
Texas Caucus Final Tally: ?% of the Caucus Vote, 57% of the Caucus Delegates

VP, VP, VP. Who Will They Choose?

Now It Was the Calendar that Brought Clinton Down?

Texas Caucus Final Tally: ?% of the Caucus Vote, 57% of the Caucus Delegates

Fine, if you want to go with the 41% of precincts reporting total from the first step (Obviously, I don't want to given the title.), then it should read "Texas Caucus Final Tally: 56% of the Caucus Vote, 57% of the Caucus Delegates." But don't say I didn't warn you.

Even though FHQ doesn't have access to the true nature of those initial numbers, all is not lost in pursuit of an answer to the caucus question in Texas. Texas Democrats may have stopped publicly counting the March 4 caucus numbers at the 41% mark, but we do know from reports of the senate district convention results that Obama gained support over Clinton compared to the March 4 results. What we know is that Obama improved upon his initial level of support in the senate district conventions to 58%. That total would have netted the Illinois senator 39 delegates in the caucus portion of the Texas delegate selection plan. The state convention seems to have knocked that number down a tad though. In the presidential preference vote held among the 7300 delegates at the Texas Democratic state convention, this weekend, Obama received 57% of the vote which equated to 38 delegates in the caucus process.

Well, la-di-da. What does that matter now anyway? Obama's already the nominee, right? A valid point, to be sure. But this also happens to help test the caucus question hypothesis (that throughout the caucus process momentum will build behind the front-runner/winner/presumptive nominee). Texas held the first state convention to close a caucus process after Obama clinched the nomination. As such, Texas offered the first opportunity to see any wholesale defections toward Obama. We didn't see any. Next weekend offers three further opportunities to discover evidence in support of the caucus question. Idaho, Iowa and Washington all close down their delegate selection shops for the 2008 season with state conventions next weekend. The following weekend, Nebraska will officially bring an end to the delegate selection phase of the 2008 campaign (source: The Greenpapers).

Of those, Iowa will be the most interesting because, well, it's Iowa. Also, Iowa was an early, three way, competitive caucus. The result is that there is a lot of room for a shake up from the original results to the final results. Many of the Edwards delegates from Iowa have already committed to Obama and that certainly factors into this. The big question is whether Clinton delegates, now that the New York senator has dropped her bid for the nomination and endorsed Obama, will move over to support the Illinois senator in Iowa or any of the remaining three caucus states. In Texas the answer was a resounding no.

Elsewhere, it may be a different story. Idaho, Nebraska and Washington all handed Obama decisive victories over Clinton in official caucuses, but also held later beauty contest primaries that served advisory roles. In all three cases the primaries were closer contests.

Idaho caucus: Obama - 79.5, Clinton - 17.2
Idaho primary (scroll down): Obama - 56, Clinton - 38

Nebraska caucus: Obama - 67.6, Clinton - 32.2
Nebraska primary: Obama - 49, Clinton - 47

Washington caucus: Obama - 67.5, Clinton - 31.2
Washington primary (scroll down): Obama - 51.2, Clinton - 45.7

Those differences are noteworthy heading into the next two weekends in terms of the caucus question.

Recent Posts:
VP, VP, VP. Who Will They Choose?

Now It Was the Calendar that Brought Clinton Down?

Change is Gonna Come: How Did Obama's/Clinton's Fortunes Fare During Primary Season?

VP, VP, VP. Who Will They Choose?

Ah, the question of the hour. Well, I suppose Hillary Clinton's speech today may hold the more pressing questions of the day (Will she talk about the popular vote totals? To what degree will she endorse Obama? etc.), but the VP talk has certainly ramped up since Obama's clinching victories on Tuesday night (I say victories because he won the Montana primary and the superdelegate primary that day.). Anyway, in open season in the running mate selection game, there are no shortages on guesses, lists or any other speculation over who it will be. Paul Gurian sent around a link to CQ's VP Madness yesterday on one of his emailing lists and that includes a robust pool of 32 possibilities (...in a bracket layout, no less. It looks like Hillary Clinton is the number one seed, at least in her placement at the top of the bracket. That may not match will the actually likelihood of her being chosen. Though, just like in March Madness, top seeds are always ripe for an upset at some point--excluding 2008 of course.).

Chris Cillizza over at The Fix also had a Friday Line up yesterday devoted to the VP selection. Here are those rankings (as they appear in reverse order):
Obama:
5. Hillary Clinton
4. John Edwards
3. Kathleen Sebelius
2. Jim Webb
1. Ted Strickland

McCain:
5. Joe Lieberman
4. Charlie Crist
3. John Thune
2. Mitt Romney
1. Tim Pawlenty

Well, I'll indirectly weigh in, but I'd like to turn the tables a bit. Only Obama, McCain and their inner circles really know who they are targeting, so anyone else is simply guessing. Some of those guesses are more educated than others, but they are still just guesses. Correctly divining who the running mate picks might be is slightly more difficult, so I'll take the far easier route and have a glance at who McCain and Obama won't pick. I'm setting this up similar to the NBA player trade value list that ESPN writer, Bill Simmons, puts together every year (I know, two basketball references in one post. It's a terrible habit that I'm trying unsuccessfully to cut back on.). In this situation we'll move from the least likely VP choice to the most likely. In other words, this will progress from certainty to abject guess work. I'll look at the highlights of the top 500 on both sides.

Let's start with the Illinois senator:
500. Barack Obama: The arrogance of Obama has been a topic of discussion among Clinton supporters and even reared its ugly head the other day in Chicago when Obama speculated that when Chicago holds the 2016 Olympics, he'll be finishing up his second term. Is he arrogant enough to flaunt the Constitution and name himself his own running mate (Actually, is there anything in the Constitution that prevents this? I don't know. It seems like the order of succession would just pick up with the Speaker of House if the same person was both president and vice president.)? FHQ thinks not.
...
493. Jeremiah Wright: Who else thought we had seen the last of the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ? Well, here's guessing that we have, at least in the context of the vice presidential selection. The big question: If Wright is #493, who the heck are the VPs from #494-#499? I'll leave that up to you.
...
450. Osama bin Laden: If you're a fan of rhyming tickets, I'd wager you'll be disappointed that Obama-Osama won't happen. Then again, Osama would face the same predicament John McCain has: he wasn't born in the US.
...
401. James Dobson: The Fix mentioned Ted Strickland helping Obama and the Democrats close the "God gap," but why not go for broke by tapping Dobson. Something tells me this won't be the good reverend's calling.
...
362. Chelsea Clinton: The first of the former First Family to appear. She's just not old enough. It's that simple. But hey, making it this far will certainly help jump start her own political career.
...if she's so inclined.
...
327. Mark Penn: Maybe he'll be closer to the Columbian government than the US government should Obama (or McCain for that matter) become president.
...
295. Fidel Castro: I suppose that if you need preconditions to sit down with them, then you'll need a bit more to actually make one of them your running mate.

294. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: See above.
...
215. Joe Lieberman: Nah, probably not.
...
187. Oprah: Hey, there's one way to win back some of those female voters.
...
133. Dean's scream: No, not Howard Dean himself. The scream brings all the passion necessary for the long haul, without actually being Howard Dean. But that's so Two Americas 2004.
...
100. Bill Clinton: C'mon, you knew he'd be on the list. You can't have a VP list and not include the Constitution-steeped, former-president-as-VP scenario.
...
74. Chuck Schumer: Democrat? Check. New York senator? Check. Hillary Clinton? Well, no he's not. But he's a Democratic senator from New York.
...
48. Dick Durbin: Democrat? Check. Illinois senator? Check. Barack Obama? Well, I don't suppose so. But two outta three ain't bad. And at least Illinois as a Democratic governor. They'd be able to replace those Democratic seats.
...
33. Jennifer Granholm: Oh wait, she was born in Canada.

32. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin: The South Dakota representative is an up and comer within the Democratic Party. This may not be her year, but like Bobby Jindal on the GOP side, it may not be a bad idea to put her name out there as a possibility just to grant her a bit of recognition.
...
21. Elliot Spitzer: Oops, that almost made it through.
...
15. Chris Dodd: Well, Connecticut has been trending toward the red lately (in the last couple of polls out of the state), and the other senator from the Constitution state certainly won't be backing Obama (see #215). Of course, if the Democrats seriously desire that fillibuster-proof Senate, they would probably not want to select for a VP nominee a senator from a state with a Republican governor.
...
12. Sam Nunn: Secretary of Defense? Maybe. Vice president? Probably not.
...
10. Hillary Clinton: I'm just not going to touch this one. Do 18 million votes make her a shoo in? Is Obama less an executive decision-maker if he is forced to choose her? There are too many questions to answer in regards to the Dream Ticket, but the New York senator is too much of a presence in this race not to include. But she's this low because I just don't see an Obamary or Hillama ticket.

9. Tim Kaine: Virginia is important and Kaine was an early Obama backer, but the lack of foreign policy credentials will hurt him in this chase.

8. Ed Rendell: Another important state (Pennsylvania). Another Democratic governor. The polls seem to be trending Democratic in the Keystone state to the point that Rendell may not be as vital as a governor from a neighboring state.

7. Bill Richardson: It is interesting to me that the Richardson as VP chatter has quieted down since the New Mexico governor endorsed Obama. Richardson may well be a part of an Obama administration, but as Secretary of State, not vice president.

6. John Edwards: I suspect that the Edwards as VP talk will die down similar to the way it has done for Richardson. Also like Richardson, Edwards may be a part of an Obama administration but as Attorney General and not Vice President.

5. Wes Clark: Obama would cover some foreign policy and Clinton supporter issues by tapping Clark as his running mate. Clark isn't mentioned as often as other possibilities, but he seems a logical choice and in a tight election, may help pull Arkansas' six electoral votes back into play.

4. Jim Webb: Wes Clark without the Clinton connection. He is an elected official from Virginia though, and has the foreign policy experience that Kaine lacks. The article on female servicepersons may not sit well with a majority of those Clinton supporters though.

3. Joe Biden: He may be too big for the office, but I can't imagine why Biden's name isn't mentioned any more than it has in the VP talk. He' experienced, has the foreign policy chops and has assumed the McCain in 2000 straight talker mantle.

2. Ted Strickland: Ohio governor. Former representative of a relatively conservative Buckeye state district. Methodist minister. Clinton supporter. Sounds good. The question? How well does/would he get along with Obama?

1. Kathleen Sebelius: I think Obama will go the Clinton '92 route and choose someone similar to himself but who is stronger in other areas. She won't necessarily help with the foreign policy question, but I think he is comfortable with her and she has the potential to help bring in those female Clinton voters. The Fix mentioned that that may be seen as an indignity to those voters, but they haven't been introduced to Sebelius yet. I think the Kansas governor gets the nod.

And what about McCain?
500. Barack Obama: Why not end this thing now and form a unity ticket? Eh, probably not.
...
490. John Hagee: The Jeremiah Wright of the Right? That has a nice ring to it, but won't prove any more likely as Wright as Obama's running mate.
...
402. Chuck Hagel: There ain't room enough in this town for two Vietnam veterans with differing views on the Iraq war. It could be a coup in a tight election where the districted distribution of electoral votes in Hagel's home of Nebraska could help shore up a couple of those districts that are tight now.
...
385. Fred Thompson: I joked early on that this could be the "old white guys" ticket. Not really the face you want to present to the nation in the fall though. But there were all those questions about Thompson's desire to be in the Republican race in the first place. Would not he be perfect then in a job that doesn't require too much and "isn't worth a bucket of warm spit?"
...
342. Hillary Clinton: Well, if you're trying to lure her supporters over to your side, why not go straight to the source. And it would be a civilized ticket according to Bill Clinton.
...
291. John Cornyn: "F--- you. I know more about this than anyone else in the room." Temper, temper. Something tells me statements like these to Senate colleagues (Cornyn in this case.) may stand in the way of ticket of two Republican senators.

290. Thad Cochran: Or do statements like those and McCain's temper send "chills down [your] spine" Senator Cochran?

289. Chuck Grassley: How about you, Senator Grassley? "'I'm calling you a f------ jerk!' he once retorted" to the Iowa senator. None of these three guys may be the bridge to the legislative branch that a President McCain would want.
...
213. Jack Abramoff: Here's a unity ticket we may not see. Campaign finance reform vs. the king of the campaign finance loophole/violation.
...
184. Adam Putnam: The Florida representative has a good last name and is a red head like someone FHQ knows. How bad could he be?
...
129. Mark Foley: Geez, and you thought Jack Abramoff was too 2006. I'm willing to bet Foley would want to skip this vetting process.
...
100. Dick Cheney: He never said he wouldn't run for vice president again. Plus, what will the left do without him?
...
75. Bob Barr: Forget wooing those Hillary voters. Why not go after the Ron Paul, libertarians by wooing Bob Barr back into the Republican fold? McCain didn't move quickly enough on this one. Barr's already installed as the Libertarian Party nominee.
...
50. Jeb Bush: If ever there was a time and a means of testing the Bush fatigue theory, this marriage would be the way.
...
25. Sonny Perdue: The Georgia governor is the first Republican governor (not to mention two terms) of the Peach state since Reconstruction. And while he has had his moments and remains relatively popular, he just isn't a "wow you" sort of pick.
...
17. Rick Santorum: He hails from Pennsylvania and sure, he just lost out to Bob Casey in his 2006 reelection bid, but it was just earlier this year that Grover Norquist was singing the former senator's praises as a future player in the GOP.
...
13. Kay Bailey Hutchinson: You have to have a Texan on the ticket if you're a Republican (unless you're Bob Dole--See, he lost.), and John Cornyn isn't going to be McCain's pick. Hutchinson may be effective at pulling in some of those disaffected Clinton voters too.
...
10. Mike Huckabee: The readers at CQ handing him VP Madness honors on the GOP side may be the only thing that Huckabee wins before 2012 or so. The former Arkansas governor acquitted himself well during primary season, but just doesn't seem like a good VP to pair with McCain on a ticket.

9. Bobby Jindal: I mentioned Jindal in my thoughts on South Dakota Rep. Herseth-Sandlin. They are both on the rise within their parties. Jindal was tasked with introducing McCain for his speech on the night Obama clinched the Democratic nomination and got an invitation to McCain's Sedona ranch for a meeting with other prospective vice presidential nominees. It's just too early for Jindal, but this is certainly a "working out the farm team" move.

8. Robert Portman: The only Ohio Republican, it seems who isn't in trouble electorally or with the law or named Ken Blackwell. Ohio will be valuable. Florida seems to be leaning toward the Republicans while Pennsylvania is trending Democratic at the moment. That leaves Ohio as the sole member of the triumvirate of big swing states still swinging. And a native son wouldn't hurt the Republicans. Portman would bolster McCain's economic credentials because of his stint as director of the Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush.

7. Mark Sanford: It is difficult to make a case for someone from a state that is highly likely to go Republican at the presidential level in November. It would take an astronomically high turnout from African Americans to even keep the race close for Obama in the Palmetto state. The utility of selecting South Carolina's governor then seems fairly low. Then again picking a VP simply to make a state competitive or swing it in another direction hasn't worked out that well lately. Edwards didn't do much for Kerry in North or South Carolina. Kemp didn't help Dole in New York. Choosing someone from a safe state might be the way to go then. Sanford fits that bill.

6. Rick Perry: The governor of Texas hasn't been mentioned in the VP chatter I've heard, but hey, Republicans like their Texans (see #13 Kay Bailey Hutchinson). It could be that Perry's endorsement of Giuliani is hampering his chances. But McCain wouldn't hold a grudge, would he Senators Cochran, Cornyn and Grassley?

5. Joe Lieberman: Lieberman is certainly exerting his independence by backing McCain. If he were serving in the Dick Cheney "vetting the VPs" role, I'd call him a sure thing. The one question I haven't heard answered is how his constituents back home in Connecticut are responding to this foray into GOP politics. Well, polls there have taken a turn toward the red lately, so their may be something to this Lieberman as VP talk. Eh, but it's just seven electoral votes. 7 electoral votes is 7 electoral votes when it's close.

4. Charlie Crist: His endorsement of McCain helped in the Florida primary that partly launched McCain to the nomination. Loyalty means something and McCain can't choose the Governator, so he can opt for the next best early endorsement.

3. Tim Pawlenty: The two term Minnesota governor has gotten a lot of mentions in the VP talk, but I'm not convinced that he swings the tide there for McCain. Obama has a solid lead there (almost ten points in my calculations) and it would be tough to change that. Everyone is saying Pawlenty, but when everyone is telling McCain to do something, he strikes me as the type that is apt to go in a different direction. But like the Jindal scenario, this builds the farm team for the future.

2. John Thune: The South Dakota senator took out Tom Daschle when he was majority leader during Bush's first term. Need we say more. Conservatives like the guy. On top of that, he's young, but not too young. And people know him more than the guy who beat sitting Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, in 1994 (It was George Nethercutt.).

1. Mitt Romney: The man who had more paths to the GOP nomination than anyone has a good shot at the Republican VP slot. There was tension between the two men (something I've used against other possibilities), but Romney's willingness to raise funds (and we mean raise funds) and campaign for McCain is a big asset. Plus he has already gotten some scrutiny during his own bid for the nomination. Dare I give Romney the most paths to the VP nod as well. Sounds like a kiss of death to me. Sorry Mitt.

McCain-Romney vs. Obama-Sebelius? Agree or disagree, the comments section awaits. There are no right answers, just a lot of wrong ones (see the above). No one will know until the candidates reveal the best kept secrets in politics in the next month or so. Also, feel free to plug in any holes in the above lists.


Recent Posts:Now It Was the Calendar that Brought Clinton Down?

Change is Gonna Come: How Did Obama's/Clinton's Fortunes Fare During Primary Season?

The Electoral College Maps (6/3/08)

Now It Was the Calendar that Brought Clinton Down?

"If states had not moved up or “frontloaded” the date of their primaries and caucuses, under the misimpression that doing so would give them a greater voice in the 2008 nomination, Clinton might be the Democratic nominee."
--Michael P. McDonald, The Brookings Institution/Professor of Public and International Affairs, George Mason University

So now it was the calendar that knocked Clinton out in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination race? State governments and state parties were deciding where to position their primaries and caucuses for 2008 during the time between March of 2005, when Arkansas became the first state to move and December of 2007, when Michigan's unsanctioned move was given the green light by the courts (over the access to voter information from the contests). Was it really a "misimpression" that 2008 would be like 2004 or 2000 or 1996 (etc.)? If 2008 had been like 2004, those states would have made "wise" decisions. They may have been lost in the shuffle among other, bigger states, but they at least would have held their contests on or before the time at which the nominee emerged. That had been the mark of most of the frontloaded system's races prior to 2008. Sure, in retrospect, those frontloading decisions may have been off the mark, but expecting states to have foreseen that is about as realistic as expecting pundits and experts to have predicted the race that just completed.

For the record, sequence did matter in 2008. But sequence has always played a role in these things. Florida's position in 1976 helped Jimmy Carter eliminate George Wallace. In 1988 the Souther Super Tuesday pushed George H.W. Bush out in front of the pack of Republicans. 1992 saw Georgia's position just after New Hampshire assist Bill Clinton in the comeback that began in the Granite state.

Sequence matters and it did in 2008 as well. That's just part of the nomination process, but it isn't the only factor. Obama's organizational prowess in the caucus states and micro-targeting of districts in state's where he did not win built the delegate advantages that he carried into the final weeks of primary season. The Clinton camp's inability to quickly devise a plan B after their Super Tuesday or bust strategy failed was the real cause of her downfall. The calendar was the same for everyone and was a known quantity (with the exception of Michigan) from early fall 2007 until Iowan kicked things off on January 3. Obama planned ahead; Clinton didn't. That is the story.

Look, I'm a staunch believer in the rules playing a decisive role in politics. Rules and rules changes form the basis of my academic pursuits and this particular set of rules (those applying to the scheduling and sequencing of presidential nominating contests) are the root of the dissertation I'm currently writing. I'm also something of a defender of/realist about the current system. Is it ideal? No. But it will be extremely difficult to get the national and state parties, Democrats and Republicans, and national and state governments on the same page to make a significant change. There are simply too many competing (not to mention, contradictory) interests involved. So now that primary season is over, it apparently is open season for frontloading bashing. The reexamination of the current system is a discussion that needs to be had, but a dose of reality is an important component of that discussion. Reform may be nice, but will be tough to come by. Rotating regional primaries may be nice, but a national primary, or something close to it, will be what we end up with.

Thanks to the good folks at Ballot Box (via The Election Law Blog) for the link.

Related: Michigan: What Would Have Happened? (from Fivethirtyeight.com)


Recent Posts:
Change is Gonna Come: How Did Obama's/Clinton's Fortunes Fare During Primary Season?

The Electoral College Maps (6/3/08)

The Big Montana

Change is Gonna Come: How Did Obama's/Clinton's Fortunes Fare During Primary Season?

After the post-Super Tuesday run Obama made through February, the Illinois senator hit the wall in some respects. March and April ushered in a string a defeats that effectively prevented him from eliminating Hillary Clinton and claiming the Democratic nomination sooner. And though the two Democrats split victories coming down the stretch in May and early June, Obama failed to put Clinton away until the final night of the contest. This isn't meant as a means of tearing Obama down. He did just win the nomination after all. However, Obama's struggles in finishing off the formidable Clinton in the primaries translated to the electoral college as well. As FHQ showed last month in attempting to demonstrate the changes in state poll numbers in the wake of the two Wright dramas and "bitter-gate," Obama's numbers had only slid significantly in a handful of states. [In this case, a fraction of a point could prove significant, shifting several of the swing states from the Democratic column to the Republican column and vice versa.] Still, to that point Clinton had only really just pulled ahead of Obama in the electoral college relative to McCain.
In the weeks since it has been Clinton who has been more consistently ahead of McCain and Obama, who has lagged slightly behind the Arizona senator. Both are directly opposite to the positions both Democrats were in during Obama's February streak. At the end of primary season then, it is Clinton with all the momentum. Well, sort of. Of course, she isn't the nominee, though. While Obama averaged a 1.4 point loss in each state's average of head-to-head polls against McCain throughout primary season, Clinton gained only 0.6 points on average. Much of the New York senator's gains were due to the vitally important shifts of Florida, Pennsylvania and Washington from McCain's column to hers. In the map below you can see those positive shifts toward Clinton (in shades of orange--the darker the color, the greater the change). On the whole, the states that were already in Clinton's favor shifted in her direction (a slight downward shift in California being the exception) while those that were already solidly for McCain (in shades of purple) moved toward him. Clinton gained in the three big battlegrounds of the last couple of presidential elections (Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania), but lost ground in states like Texas. She gained on McCain in 24 states while the Arizona senator made up ground in 19 others. [The seven states in white are the states where no additional polls were conducted and exhibit no change as a result.]
The Obama map is slightly different. The progression of his state level, head-to-head polling against McCain had a decidedly negative tint (in shades of green). The Illinois senator was at his height early on and in coming back down to earth, lost ground in the electoral college pairing with McCain. So, while I offered the Clinton line earlier, that she might be the better general election candidate (and only barely so in the maps that appear on this site) part of the changes here can only be viewed through the candidates' relative position to McCain at the outset. Obama was at his peak and Clinton was not. That being said, Obama is the nominee and it is instructive to look at the states where he has gained in the polls against McCain. While he lost ground to McCain in 24 states, the 20 states (in shades of yellow) he gained in could be part of the grouping of states the Obama campaign targets for the fall. He has shored up support in states like Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. Pennsylvania, despite the primary loss to Clinton, has since shifted to Obama's side of the ledger. Ohio and Indiana are also trending toward the Illinois senator. Both states are toss ups leaning toward McCain 0n the latest map. So, while Michigan, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Virginia have switched to McCain, pulling ahead in the Buckeye and Hoosier states would offset those losses as would the gains in Florida and North Carolina. McCain, meanwhile, can tout gains in other battlegrounds like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico (all state bordering his home state of Arizona).
What then, can we take home from these maps? Clinton has been trending upward in the electoral college relative to Obama, but she isn't going to be the Democratic nominee. Despite coming back from the dead of February, the Clinton campaign is headed for suspension this weekend and Obama is pressing forward as the presumptive Democratic nominee. In doing so, the Illinois senator has a swath of swing states in which he is trending in the right direction, but others where McCain is in a good position to overtake him. At the outset of the general election campaign, this appears to be a close race and even including the lost ground since February, Obama is still in good shape. Then again, McCain is in good standing as well, considering all the typical indicators of presidential election success are pointing away from him.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Maps (6/3/08)

The Big Montana

The Long and Winding Road

The Electoral College Maps (6/3/08)

Out of the eight Survey USA state polls released yesterday, none of them polled the Clinton-McCain match up. If that is indicative (and last night's results tell me that it will be), then this may be the last week that FHQ includes a Clinton map in the weekly electoral college breakdown. For this week, though, the Clinton map is still here, as are the Obama-McCain and McCain margin maps. Since last Thursday there have been 23 new polls in 19 different states. The outcome of both electoral college scenarios did not change at all, though, and only a few of those states actually switched categories.
Losing Michigan and North Dakota a week ago and only gaining in Colorado put Obama behind McCain. And while Texas slipped out of the McCain lean category and into the Strong McCain column this week, Obama made up ground in Missouri where he has lagged behind where Clinton has been relative to McCain. The Show-Me state is now a toss up that favors the Arizona senator. Like Ohio, though, it is trending toward Obama, which is something that Obama would need if he were trailing McCain by 24 electoral votes. If those two states were to go to Obama, it would effectively turn the tables on the current electoral college numbers between the two presumptive nominees.
Little changed on the Clinton-McCain map this week. Most of that was due the the decline in actual data on the Clinton-McCain pairing. There were but ten polls in ten states which asked about the hypothetical Clinton-McCain race and only Connecticut switched in any noticeable way. Clinton's support in the Constitution state increased pushing the Connecticut out of the toss up area and into the Clinton lean category. Aside from that one shift, little else was different and the slim electoral college victory the New York senator won a week ago was preserved for another week.
And in what may be the last McCain margin map (Toot my own horn alert: I know, a sad thought considering how much better it looks now.), little changed. The new poll in Wyoming increased Obama's McCain margin (the darker the color, the greater McCain margin, Clinton = green, Obama = blue) there. Beyond that, Clinton's slight McCain margin lead in Missouri became even smaller, while the opposite was true for Obama in Connecticut (his McCain margin slipped). Both are lighter this week, meaning that the difference between each of the Democrats and McCain is low. In other words, it doesn't matter which Democrat is up against McCain. Connecticut is a good lean to the Democrats while Missouri remains a slight toss up favoring McCain no matter who the Democratic nominee is.

Later this week I'll be back with a look at how much the maps have changed since we started looking at the electoral college scenarios back in March. I'll also be unveiling the new map template that Paul Gurian and I will be using for the general election electoral college breakdown. Also, I should note that I will continue collecting Clinton-McCain data, when and if it surfaces. However, I'll move those into their own post with the soon-to-be defunct McCain margin maps.

***Please see the side bar for links to past electoral college comparisons.***


Recent Posts:
The Big Montana

The Long and Winding Road

Maine Final Tally: 59% of the Vote, 63% of the Delegates