Talk Elections

West coast:  Obama sweeps.   Stronger than Hillary vs McCain in Washington and Oregon.  Mountain states:  No race here.  Colorado the exception.  Only battleground state here.  Leans McCain in November.     
                                                                                                                                                        Southwest: Arizona obviously not in play.  Nevada very close.  New Mexico leans Obama, but McCain can still win the state whereas he couldn't against Clinton.  Obama still the favorite 
       
Farm states:  McCain sweeps.  Obama did well in the primaries and caucuses but that was amongst Dems.  Exception is Iowa.  McCain had a very good chance against Hillary.  Slim to none vs Obama.  I guess that means it isn't a sweep after all.
                                                                                                                                                            Upper midwest:  Wisconsin will be relatively close but Obama wins by 5 this time.  Minn goes to Obama by 7 or so.  One of those areas where Obama runs significantly stronger than Hillary.Michigan goes to Obama about the same as Kerry carried it.  Shouldn't be that close due to the economy but race keeps it closer. 
                                                                                                                                                            South:  A blowout.  Not worth discussing with two exceptions.  Virginia will be for McCain by 3-5 in the end.  Webb was tied with Allen but Webb ran as a right leading centrist.  Obama isn't close to pulling that off.  Arkansas would have been Clinton's but that's over. 

                                                                                                                                                          Border states:  Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia all blowouts due to race.  Missouri will be the one to watch.  It always is and it will be close - probably to McCain by 2 -3 in the end.  Race again.
                                                                                                                                                   Northeast:  See South.  Despite what some Dems think McCain is popular in NH and that  state will be a couple of points type race - won by Obama.  NJ will be reasonably close, but anyone who actually believes McCain will win there is smoking something.  NJ is the ultimate tease for Republicans.   

The big three that generally determine the race.                                                                             Florida - not this time.  McCain will win comfortably.  This gives the GOP a welcome and unexpected oasis in a tough year.                                                                                                                         Ohio -Close as always but it's here that McCain gets a break with Obama's nomination.  McCain will make inroads with working class Democrats.  Race, pure and simple.  The other help is rural Dems in the Southeast portion of the states - see Kentucky and West Virginia.  I like McCain's chances here.                                                                                                                                                      Pennsylvania - tossup.  Wouldn't be due to economy but race again.  McCain will cut into the same working class demographic in industrial areas that he does in Ohio.

There you have it.  Notice I didn't pick a winner.  It will be too damn close to do that.

Obama should outperform Kerry in the "farm states."

I don't know what state you're referring to in "the Northeast," but I may disagree there.

Otherwise, I agree that it's as good of a prediction as can currently be made.

whoops.  I meant NH.

Then this all pretty much my current prediction, too (although again I think Obama will make several solid GOP states west of the Mississippi closer, but not close).

What about NM?  I see that state going to Obama by around 51-48, 52-47.

Assuming a close race = a bad idea. We could see blowouts from either direction in Obama v McCain.

He...wrote about New Mexico.  :P


It's certainly possible, but right now I think a close race is the most likely, so it's what I'm making predictions based on.

I would agree that Obama runs better in the Republican states of Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, the Dakotas than did Kerry - probably 6 or 7 pts worth as it stands now.

Yes, the election could break one way or the other.

McCain has health problems or economy really nosedives helps Obama.

An international crisis or terrorist attack on American soil obviously helps McCain.

There's also the possibility that one of the two candidates says something incredibly stupid in a debate.

I have been surprised by the popularity of Obama among North Dakotans.  He certainly won't win the state, but he could make it closer than it has been in a long while.

It will probably come down to Colorado or Nevada this year.

Ag,

That's a super analysis.  I pretty much agree.  Well done.

For purposes of predicting a winner this doesn't really matter much though, since none of those are really close enough to be interesting.

Of course.  I only added that because "but that was among Dems" implied to me (wrongly) that he thought that Obama wouldn't perform any better in the region.

I think I totally agree with ag, though.

I kind of like analyzing even the non-competitive states, since the competitive states are typically so few.  :P

For a 50-50 map, this is quite reasonable.  I have some minor issues here and there, and a couple of other interesting tidbits I would include, but nothing big.

I can't see Obama winning Florida in a 50-50 contest, in fact, I would bet serious money against it.

So it would come down to Ohio and Pennsylvania.

sure, I could see that. Here's how:
KS - 57-43
NE - 61-39
SD - 58-42
ND - 60-40
MT - 58-42
ID - 62-38
UT - 65-35
WY - 61-39

I doubt that any of these would get closer than those margins

KS - 55-44
NE - 60-40
SD - 55-45
ND - 54-46
MT - 55-45
ID - 59-41
UT - 64-36
WY - 60-40

2000 and 2004 were pretty much the same dynamics.  Same battleground states.

2008 - as Michael Barone has stated, different dynamics.  Can Obama steal away Colorado?  Can McCain carry Pennsylvania?

Much more interesting election in my opinion.

Even Hillary would be much more interesting.  You take Colorado and Virginia off the table and replace them with the upper South and the Pacific Northwest.  I also suspect the upper Midwest will be more in play and New Hampshire probably flips.  PA probably goes off the table and Florida moves back on the table.

To presume that this election can't be another close one simply because... "it can't" is kind of silly. My belief all the way along is that Obama would do better in the popular vote, but Clinton would do better in the EV.

There are two things that many should be VERY concerned about- McCain's appeal to latinos and to moderate/conservative democrats.

The one state won by Kerry in 2004 which worries me as to whether Obama can hold it is Pennsylvania, which for any Democratic presidential nominee is a pivotol state


Obama has a Latino problem in the Democratic primaries, that much is obvious. Question is are they, generic, Democratic voters or, exclusively, Clinton voters? If they are the latter, he does have problems come the general; while McCain will not be the anathema to Latino voters that many other Republican presidential nominees would be

Indeed, Democratic primary voters are 'divided', demographically, between Obama [male, younger, African American, upscale/higher educated) and Clinton (female, older, Latino, downscale/lower educated) but not ideologically

But to what extent are Obama and Clinton voters 1) candidate exclusive or 2) Democratic candidate generic come November? That's the great 'unknown' - and yes, it is a matter of concern :(

As for moderate and conservative Democrats, I'm not so sure they find Obama that much of an anathema. From what I've seen of the exit polls, it's not a case of Obama dominating the liberal Democratic primary vote with Clinton dominating among moderate and conservative primary voters

Dave

Remember. 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888 were all decided by 3 points and one state. Then again, this was all 120, 130 years ago. I mean, the all either came down to SC, IN or NY.  Since then, 1916 came down to 55 votes in  NH. In 1960, the election was decided by 100000 votes, but Kennedy was way ahead in EVs. 1976 was as close as 2004, but there wasn't decided by one state.

Since then, this series of elections have been the first time since 1888 where back-to-back elections were decided by one state.

Don't base your predictions off of 2000 and 2004. Too many different dynamics at play here.

Also, Obama can match McCain in terms of how many indies and moderate GOPPers he can take....Obama will probably do as well with some rural midwesterners and westerners as McCain does with hispanics. Look at this map, for example-

()

In rural SW Illy, Obama did quite well...

Kerry didn't- ()

alan keyes

Yeah, but I am comparing SO Ill.'s contrast with the overall state result. Obama was able to get some of these counties within 5%, while Kerry did 10-15% worse than he did overall in the state.

yeah, but...ALAN KEYES






(he's black, you know...)

Obama is black. They could of just stayed home, instead of vote for Obama.

In a highly contested Presidential election year (with a couple of highly contested seats to add on)?  I don't think so.

So, they still probably voted. Thanks for proving my point.

Your point being?  They voted for a competent black man over a lunatic black man.  McCain is a lunatic black man?

My point is that Barack appeals to some people that would otherwise vote conservative. Reagan won over many who would have voted for a Liberal, so just because you are ideologically strong doesn't make you ideologically limited...in some cases.

Turnout will decide 2008.  McCain will be all done when paired with Bush and Bush administration policies. Wait until this summer comes around and the mud starts slinging.  McCain will do well with white males in areas where race/gender is a big deal.  I predict this year will have a very defining election in favor of the Dems and that's not just because I want them to win. 

Just wait until we are reminded of "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.  Expect ads like the '64 ad with the girl and the daisy with a mushroom cloud behind her.

McCain is not a bad man, but he will never survive in the current political climate.  The Dems either tie him or out poll him right now and he hasn't been attacted yet.  The Dems will be smeared too, but with the same old junk that won't do much more than make McCain voters happy.

Short of an Spitzer type scandle, I just don't see it happening for McCain.

However, mental note to all Dems.  Don't attact McCains character, or it will backfire.

I sent Obama a letter saying that when he is attacked by McCain, to just hold out the incident as what's wrong with the current body politic than attack McCain himself. Punish the sin but not the sinner.

No...it's more a case of Keyes not appealing to some people who would otherwise vote conservative. It's like using 1964 to show how LBJ had tremendous appeal to conservatives in the north. Or even as an example of how popular GOldwater was in the South.

As for Reagan, he mostly managed to utilize an existing conservative majority to his advantage.

...how did that 60% supermajority come and go?

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but I'm guessing it may be Reagan's almost 59% in 1984. I would say that there were in some respects a much more conservative electorate back then. There is a case to be made that there is a more liberal electorate now than in previous years but I'm not convinced that there is to the same degree. When Reagan came along the Republicans had a traditional strong base dominating the West and stretching through the Midwest into New England. He was able to add the entire South to that coalition. By that point the Democrats were really pretty screwed. If you look at 1988 you get an idea of what kind of results Democrats could get in those days, without Reagan on the ballot. Things changed after that, of course.

Are we really any more liberal?

The South definitely is. I'd say California is as well.

I doubt the south is more liberal. Maybe California is.

More liberal than 1964? Hell yeah, while the South isn't exactly a hot bed of progressivism and tolerance it's not exact living in the 1950s either.

Yeah. Virginia's the best example(DC suburbs), but North Carolina and Georgia have both seen an influx of people from the north in recent years. But it's mostly felt in NC. Overall, it hasn't changed much, however.

I think giving Goldwater 87% of the vote is more conservative than today. Even giving Nixon 70% ís more conservative today. The South did give 40% of their votes to Kerry.

But, if you just look at the white vote, the south gives 70-90% of their votes to Bush.

Depends on what state you're looking at. I don't think there are many places where he got 90%. In fact, that's sort of my point. But if you want to believe that the South has not changed in the last 3 to 5 decades, go ahead. It's a bit too deluded for me to want to argue the point. I'll just point out that blacks can actually hold office in those states now.

Lynchings are also uncommon, segregation is no longer around, and there is a possibility that you could actually live as a gay person in parts of the South. Is it still behind the rest of the country? Of course however it has progressed since the 1950s. To say that it hasn't is quite delusional.

Yeah, but I heard of a report of a prom being segregated until last year. ...and if the country is more liberal, where is President Gore?

There's more liberal, and there's electing some guy who supported gun restrictions and a number of other policies that made him unpopular in the South. Obviously, the South is still behind the rest of the country in a number of ways, and they'll continue to hold us back for quite some time.

Well, are they as relatively conservative as they were then?

Probably not, but they're still conservative enough to be reliably Republican in pratically every state except for Florida, which doesn't exactly fit in with the rest of the South for a number of reasons. As for Virginia, I might give it another 1-2 presidential elections before it really becomes a swing state. It doesn't represent the whole South, by any means.

Good analysis. I agree with most of it. A couple points:

1) I think Ohio will lean to Obama. Yes, Obama polls more poorly among working-class whites than Clinton and yes, the pastor controversy may hurt him. But a lot of that will be water under the bridge by the time November rolls around. I'm sure Ohio will be close, but with extremely high Black turnout, the poor state of the Ohio GOP, the popular current Dem governor and anger over globalization and the war in Iraq, I think Ohio will lean Obama.

2) Pennsylvania is more likely to be McCain country. Obama will do well in Philly and Pittsburgh, but will likely get crushed in rural areas. Will he win it? I'd say probably, but McCain has a much better shot here than even Bush had in '04.

3) Also, a lot of recent polling has had Texas close. This is probably due to (a) Bush not being on the ballot, (b) dissatisfaction with the war, the economy and Gov. Perry, and (c) Hispanic hostility to the Republican party. I still imagine that Texas will wind up going relatively comfortably for the Republicans. If it's an Obama blowout, he might win it though. And in an even race, it may be only about a 10-point McCain win, possibly slightly lower.

Obama also has a good chance in Virginia, although not really as much of a shot anywhere else in the South. Florida will be competitive, but will lean McCain.

I'd say that much of that is the saturation of Democratic ads during the primary.