Scrambling The Map (II)

I take Matt's point about the various statistical weaknesses involved in Survey USA's attempt to aggregate state-level polls and project electoral vote totals in McCain-Clinton and McCain-Obama races. Still, if you take these aggregations as indicators of which states might be in flux and where the red-blue dynamic might break down, they hint at some interesting underlying dynamics. You can see, for instance, that McCain - thanks to his credibility with liberal Republicans and center-left swing voters - has the potential to do what some Republicans hoped Rudy Giuliani would do, and put liberal-trending states in the northeast and northwest back in play for the first time in a decade. You can also see that McCain has the potential to lose ground - again, as many of us expected Giuliani to do - in the Midwest and Plains States; he's vulnerable in states like Ohio, Iowa, Arkansas, West Virginia, and even Nebraska and North Dakota, all of which went for Bush last time around. You can see that Hillary Clinton wins by essentially taking the states John Kerry captured and then improving on his showing in Ohio and Florida;, making her the candidate most likely to maintain the red-blue balance. (I'm just crying out for a link from Andrew with that line, aren't I?) And you can see that Obama, by contrast, has the potential to shake things up a bit more, picking up prairie-populist voters in North Dakota and Nebraska (to the delight of Russell Arben Fox, no doubt) and center-right suburbanites in Virginia and Colorado on his way to victory.

Is any of this dispositive? Of course not. But it's suggestive, at the very least - not only for this election, but for the shape of the political coalitions to come.

Comments

FYI, it's not "prairie populist" voters that might place Nebraska in flux--it's Nebraska's decision to split its electoral votes by congressional district. Nebraska (similar to Maine, I believe) awards two electoral votes to the statewide winner, and one electoral vote to the winner in each of Nebraska's three congressional districts. Survey data suggest that Nebraska's 2nd Congressional district (essentially, Omaha) is in play for Obama. This isn't surprising, as Omaha has a relatively high proportion of affluent educated voters, and a substantial African-American population. And redistricting has pushed some of the relatively Republican Sarpy County suburbs out of the district.

Posted by David | March 7, 2008 10:51 AM

It would be good for the country if the red-blue map gets scrambled this year.

I hope there are 3-5 surprise results.

Posted by Kim | March 7, 2008 12:38 PM

Survey data aside, why do people speak of Ohio as a potential November pickup --against John McCain-- for the Democrats?

It's absurd on its face, really.

Posted by Say what? | March 7, 2008 1:12 PM

Greetings from North Dakota. I don't expect Obama to win here, but it doesn't surprise me that he polls much better here than Clinton does. His style fits the state much better than hers does. The entire culture here is polite and non-confrontational, and the politics are generally conservative but people aren't very partisan--the entire congressional delegation has been Democratic for decades.

Posted by nodakdude | March 7, 2008 3:19 PM

why do people speak of Ohio as a potential November pickup --against John McCain-- for the Democrats?
It's absurd on its face, really.

See the congressional, senatorial and gubernatorial results for Ohio in 2006. Moreover Ohio has never been a solidly GOP state; Bill Clinton took it twice. The Ohio GOP is in public disfavor these days owing to corruption problems and the attempt of S. Ohio social conservatives to wrench the party far to the Right, against the desires of the more moderate Republicans in the northern counties where Eisenhower Republicanism is alive and well. Add in an economy that is in terrible shape, and the fact that the state's largest cities are increasingly solidly Democrat and Ohio is absolutely in play.

Posted by JonF | March 7, 2008 6:50 PM

The question Democrats have to look at, and it is a question with long-term implications, is this:

Do you want a coalition with the sensible people in these states, or not?

If you want the west and midwest and south to be competitive in the long term, giving you a better chance to rebuild yourselves as the dominant party, the Democratic party needs to be able to be competitive in as many of the 50 states as possible.

That's the bottom line on why I think Obama's the guy. Clinton would have actually been a great candidate for 2004 and the challenge of running against George W. Bush. The problem is, she did not run. She would have been a legend in the party. If she lost by the margin John Kerry lost, she would have fought Florida.

I believe that Clinton's nature as a fighter - and if she has experience, it is in fighting - is a positive trait in her life. And, in that election, it was the ideal trait.

But this is 2008. And the nature of the opportunity the Democratic party has (really, perhaps "duty"), is vaster than one campaign. The party should not squander such an opportunity.

I can take seriously the position that superdelegates should, to some extent, exercise their own judgment. But that, together with the context of the delegates to date, should be what prevails in their judgment.

Posted by B. | March 8, 2008 9:53 PM

ylpba ofqkjary ldjaq julstzov srwm dfomb mhyqg

Posted by mtopxdkfs psac | June 17, 2008 11:38 PM

jlbdxt bnly moftsg nlkrexms wmhiq crpqnile uhbdpoqf

Posted by gscxbnvhf tsar | June 17, 2008 11:41 PM

jlbdxt bnly moftsg nlkrexms wmhiq crpqnile uhbdpoqf

Posted by gscxbnvhf tsar | June 17, 2008 11:41 PM