Barack Gore?

Via Kaus, Howard Dean's pollster and Karl Rove's consulting firm agree: The electoral college math doesn't look all that great for Obama. Meanwhile, Ambinder asks the big question:

... are the demographics of Obama's coalition so skewed (in terms of previous coalitions) that his national lead will greatly overstate his relative strength in the electoral college? Or is Obama's new coalition so robust as to absorb some of the bleeding of white, working class men in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and still end up winning?

If it's the former - if Obama ends up winning the popular vote by an even wider margin than Gore did, but losing by a Pennsylvanian whisker in the electoral college - then the 2012 campaign will begin in November, and McCain's presidency will have been dealt a wound from which he'll have an awfully hard time recovering.

Comments

Yeah Howard Dean pollster and Karl "We are going to win solidly in two weeks" (October 24th 2006) Rove are the best person to go to when you want to make election predictions.

Posted by Benjamin | May 21, 2008 11:26 AM

I don't see why we should place any faith in electoral college estimates based on what happened in 2000 and 2004. There are assumptions these pollsters and analysts are making that may not be warranted for 2008. It's really a case of, "We have no serious idea what impact Obama's style of campaign will have on the electorate, so we'll just take what happened the last two times, tweak it slightly, and call that a prediction."

Posted by Grunthos | May 21, 2008 11:42 AM

I don't think the Salon piece is as pessimistic as you represent it. It is fairly cautious, sure (I think CO has to be considered a toss-up, for example, whereas Maslin claims it still leans red), but he has Obama favored to win all of the states the Dems won in 2004, without New Hampshire (tossup) but adding Iowa. Maslin outlines several plausible paths to the nomination. The odds that Obama either wins OH or wins CO and two out of NV, NM, NH are pretty high. One can't ignore VA, either. The one area in which Maslin is (rightly, I think) truly pessimistic is over FL.

And as for Rove's firm, give me a break. He has a long way to go before he redeems himself for his laughable 2006 predictions.

Posted by Kraz | May 21, 2008 12:02 PM

Ross:
You take KKKarl's word for it? Didn't he know "the math" in 2006? Do you remember how that turned out? Are you going to trust his "math" this time(Since, if anything, Bush is hated even more now)?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 21, 2008 12:08 PM

This all assumes that Hillary voters will go for McCain in the general. There are two words for that: stupid and dishonest. (Or, if you prefer "Alberto" and "Gonzales", who has as much credibility here as Rove does.)

Posted by Mike | May 21, 2008 12:34 PM

Two points to the nonsense on all this "analysis":

To presume that "working class whites" who vote for Clinton in the primary won't vote for Obama in the general is nonsense. The Republican brand is so stained that McCain won't survive it. He's too old, too part of the culture of corruption, and too deep into war mongering.

Predicting trends for this election cycle based on previous trends doesn't make sense because of the significant registration of new voters -- Obama voters. His 50-state registration strategy should have conservatives trembling in their wing-tips since it's bottom-up politics with respect for people, instead of top-down authoritarianism.

If conservatives want their brand back, I suggest they take responsibility for their misdeeds. Impeach Bush and Cheney, get out of Iraq, invest in alternative energy, invest in American infrastructure and Americans (instead of viewing those good investments as "nanny state" waste,) and hold corporate moguls responsible for fleecing the environment and everyday people. Without those things, you've got nothing but the stench of decay to blow from your pulpit.

Posted by zic | May 21, 2008 12:48 PM

Ross, you of your propositions aren't back up by empirical data.

(1) Obama's problem with whites is NOT working class white men. It's white WOMEN.

(2) Most recent PA polls have Obama up. His RCP average is higher than what either Kerry or Gore got. I think the odds are fairly good that he'll win PA.

Posted by Dark Heart | May 21, 2008 2:08 PM

No way in hell Pennsylvania goes to John McCain in November.

Posted by Apsaras | May 21, 2008 2:13 PM

Sorry, I'm not buying. If the recent polls are correct and Obama really is up by a comfortable margin in PA, then the math is daunting for McCain. He either has to (1) win both Ohio and Michigan or (2) win one AND hold most of Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. Heck, you can almost come up with a scenario where Obama loses Ohio AND Michigan but still wins (if he picks up the Kerry states minus Michigan plus CO, NM, NV, VA and one of AL, ND, NE) that gives him 270 EV).

Posted by Joe | May 21, 2008 2:22 PM

Check out the Obama-McCain map at Electoral-Vote.com.

Obama 242 - McCain 285.

And that assumes Obama will win PA, CO, and NM.

Clinton, of course, easily beats McCain by 284 - 237.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2008 3:09 PM

If recent polls have Obama up 8 in Pennsylvania, then Ohio has to be at least a tossup. It's not that demographically different.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | May 21, 2008 3:22 PM

Petey, that map uses a lot of ancient polls. Some of it is straight up crazy, like Wisconsin and Michigan leaning McCain. Never gonna happen.

Posted by Brendan | May 21, 2008 3:31 PM

The idea of McCain winning PA is hilarious.

PA does not want 4 more years.

Posted by TDE | May 21, 2008 3:33 PM

Ross: I don't think this is the right way to think about it. Obama's geographic base is larger and stronger than McCain's. His base doesn't take him much above 200 EV, but McCain's base probably doesn't take him much above 150 EV. That means McCain needs to play defense on more of the map than Obama does. That means, to me, that Obama has the advantage in the electoral map.

More here: http://theamericanscene.com/2008/05/21/return-the-map

Posted by Noah Millman | May 21, 2008 4:04 PM

Ross: I don't think this is the right way to think about it. Obama's geographic base is larger and stronger than McCain's. His base doesn't take him much above 200 EV, but McCain's base probably doesn't take him much above 150 EV. That means McCain needs to play defense on more of the map than Obama does. That means, to me, that Obama has the advantage in the electoral map.

More here: http://theamericanscene.com/2008/05/21/return-the-map

Posted by Noah Millman | May 21, 2008 4:04 PM

To presume that "working class whites" who vote for Clinton in the primary won't vote for Obama in the general is nonsense.

This statement itself is nonsense, because no serious analyst looks at the proposition as an "either or" question. It's really a matter of degree. Who loses more Democratic leaners/primary voters in a matchup against McCain: Obama or Clinton? Most of the analysis suggests it's Obama. Certainly he'll have more trouble than Clinton would at keeping Michigan and Pennsylvania in the blue column, and certainly he'll have far more difficulty than Clinton at converting Ohio, Florida, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri and New Mexico into the blue column.

The handwriting's been on the wall for some time: Obama's principal strength is among voter cohorts that Democrats win big in every election. Clinton's principal strength is among voters who are traditionally up for grabs (as is McCain's); that's why it's obvious that Missouri, for instance, would be won more easily by Clinton than by Obama, despite the fact that the latter nosed her out in the primary (he did so by running up huge margins in areas and among cohorts that, yup, the Democrats win even in bad years, whereas her strength was in areas and among cohorts that swing between the parties). You see this pattern in state after state, and, worryingly for the Democrats, you see it most vividly in purple states.

Posted by Kilroy | May 21, 2008 4:23 PM

Kilroy, let me take some of your assertions in turn.

First of all, although Clinton is performing better in industrial rust belt states, Obama is essentially performing as well if not better than Clinton is in Michigan.

http://www.pollster.com/08-MI-Pres-GE-MvC.php

http://www.pollster.com/08-MI-Pres-GE-MvO.php

As for turning New Mexico blue, this new poll has Obama doing better than Clinton:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_mexico/election_2008_new_mexico_presidential_election

This whole idea that Barack Obama is winning the voters that Democrats get and Hillary Clinton is winning the voters who determine victory in fall is based on a faulty premise: that demographic divides in the primary translate into the general.

First of all, Hillary Clinton's voters are not by and large Reagan Democrats, so much as the beer-drinking loyalists who preferred Al Gore over Bill Bradley and Walter Mondale over Gary Hart. Indeed, Al Gore and John Kerry had beer track coalition and performed very badly among blue collar whites.

Some polls (Gallup, Newsweek, and Pew) have found Clinton performing better among less educated whites. Others haven't, though (Quinnipiac, Washington).

Also, this assumes that Obama's upscale support only indicates strength among "latte liberals" who are reliable Democrats, rather than upscale swing voters.

Lastly, Pew and Gallup's work indicates and both Democrats performed equally well in purple states.

Posted by Dark Heart | May 21, 2008 4:46 PM

"McCain's presidency will have been dealt a wound from which he'll have an awfully hard time recovering."

Why would that be true? Didn't hurt Bush.

Posted by JoshA | May 21, 2008 4:53 PM

Didn't hurt Bush.

It would if Bush had to seek re-election after losing a war and a major American city. He hasn't.

Posted by Gabriel | May 21, 2008 6:24 PM

"Petey, that map uses a lot of ancient polls. Some of it is straight up crazy, like Wisconsin and Michigan leaning McCain. Never gonna happen."

If the national popular vote is 50/50, then McCain would indeed beat Obama in MI. That's the problem here.

Obama would fare better in WI.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2008 7:33 PM

Petey, when the national popular vote was +3 R, Bush lost MI by 2.

And the pollster.com trendline has Obama up slightly

Posted by Dark Heart | May 21, 2008 8:03 PM

The handwriting's been on the wall for some time: Obama's principal strength is among voter cohorts that Democrats win big in every election. Clinton's principal strength is among voters who are traditionally up for grabs (as is McCain's);

Only among Democrats. Obama pretty widely cleans her clock among independents, which has been borne out by poll after poll as well as the results of open primaries. To win the GE, you need to win independents. Period. McCain will beat Clinton among independents. He probably won't beat Obama.

Posted by Xeynon | May 21, 2008 8:19 PM

Xeynon says: "McCain will beat Clinton among independents. He probably won't beat Obama."

I don't think he'd beat either one with that group. He's running on fumes and he'll be a gaffe machine in any debates that take place, because his brain is fried. Tying him in with Bush and the GOP disaster will be child's play.

He'll be underfunded and outmatched intellectually by either opponent. I'm backing Obama, but I can't see McCain beating either one.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 22, 2008 2:03 AM

I tend to think old people are probably the biggest problem for Obama. (Many Appalachian Democrats will likely vote Republican even if Hillary wins. Although she potentially put Arkansas in play) Old people I think could find McCain more appealing and old people are an important voting group.

This is really crass, but Ted Kennedy ailing I guess could help him on that. As does Byrd's endorsement. Kind of a reminder that Obama even can reach former Dixiecrats who were in the KKK. He probably needs even more elderly Democratic leaders, and maybe more positive statements about old people or things, to make older Democrats feel less like he's upsetting and new. He really needs to seek out the endorsement of some of the Golden Girls and old Hollywood. Anyway right now there's still some impression that he sees elderly whites as lovable, but backward and *racist.

*Even if this were an accurate description of elderly white voters, politicians generally ignore unpleasant things if it'll hurt them too much.

Posted by Thomas R | May 22, 2008 8:05 AM