Here is the latest head-to-head electoral college matchups for the 2008 Presidential race.
Obama 272 vs. McCain 265
McCain 271 vs. Clinton 266
Obama beats in McCain in:
California (+12.8) — 55 EV Pennsylvania(+6.6) — 21 EV Ohio(+1.4) — 20 EV New Jersey(+10.4) — 15 EV Washington (+11.2) — 11 EV Minnesota(+12.2) — 10 EV Wisconsin(+1.8) — 10 EV Colorado(+5.6) — 9 EV Oregon(+11.6) — 7 EV Iowa(+7.4) — 7 EV New Mexico(+2.8) — 5 EV
– TOTAL — Barack Obama 272 EV vs. John McCain 265 EV
Clinton beats in McCain in:
California (+13.0) — 55 EV Florida (+3.4) — 27 EV Pennsylvania(+13.4) — 21 EV Ohio(+9.0) — 20 EV New Jersey(+6.0) — 15 EV Washington (+1.8) — 11 EV Minnesota(+5.6) — 10 EV Arkansas(+14.8) — 6 EV
— TOTAL — Hillary Clinton 266 EV vs. John McCain 271 EV
Not only is it unfair to the 48 states that abided by party rules for the DNC Rules Committee to seat Florida and Michigan in full (never mind, it’s unfair to Obama, who simply followed the party rules), but apparently, it is also not legal. According to Democratic Party by-laws, Michigan and Florida must be stripped of at least half of their delegates for violating party nominating rules. This is exactly what the Republican Party has done to Florida and Michigan (as well as Wyoming, South Carolina and New Hampshire) that violated their party rules. For the Democrats, that means that no more than 106 Florida delegates and no more than 64 Michigan delegates can be seated. It is not clear whether superdelegates count, but I’m assuming they can be seated in full, since they are not tied to the primaries.
So I’m guessing the most likely outcome is that both states are seated at 50% strength, with Clinton awarded a share proportional to her vote and Obama awarded the remainder. In Michigan, this would lead to a 35-29 split in favor of Clinton. In Florida, this would lead to a 63-43 split in favor of Clinton. So, overall the split is 99-72 in favor of Clinton, a net gain of 27, cutting Obama’s current 197-delegate lead down to 170. It also moves the number of delegates required to capture the nomination from the current 2,026 to 2,111. After counting Florida and Michigan as above, the tally would be Obama 2,048 (1,731 elected, 317 super) and Clinton 1,877 (1,597 elected, 280 super). That would leave 282 yet to be decided (86 elected, 196 super). To win, Clinton would need 234 of those delegates or about 83%.
This isn’t going to happen. The polls are showing Obama up in Montana (16 delegates) and South Dakota (15) by at least 60-40, while Clinton is up in Puerto Rico (55) by a similar margin. This suggests that Obama would pick up 40-42 of the remaining 86 elected delegates. If so, Obama would need only about 20 of the remaining 196 superdelegates to win. In other words, even seating Florida and Michigan using the primary results but at 50% their strength (the maximum allowed by the DNC), Hillary would still need to win 90% of the remaining superdelegates. Given that Obama has been winning superdelegates at least 3-to-1 over the last few months, this is extremely unlikely, if not impossible.
Below are the latest DemocraticSPACE aggregated polling numbers and corresponding seat projections (in parentheses). As you can see, these seat projections largely mirror the 2006 election, suggesting there is little incentive for any party to head to the polls anytime soon. (Note that in most cases current projections do not adjust for individual candidates, as not all candidates have been nominated yet. Projections are a snap-shot in time, based on current polling. Note also that the reliability of projections increases as the frequency of polls increases, so current projections are not as reliable as they are during the campaign period, when there are many polls)
National (21 Apr – 19 May, +/- 1.4%) Conservative — 33.3% (126) Liberal — 31.2% (108) NDP — 15.3% (25) Bloc — 10.1% (47) Green — 9.1% (0)
Other — 1.0% (2)
Ontario (13 Apr – 19 May, +/- 2.4%) Liberal — 40.3% (58) Conservative — 33.4% (39) NDP — 15.4% (9) Green — 10.0% (0)
Other — 0.9% (0)
Québec (13 Apr – 19 May, +/- 2.9%) Bloc — 39.2% (47) Liberal — 22.8% (16) Conservative — 21.8% (11) NDP — 8.5% (0) Green — 6.8% (0)
Other — 1.0% (1)
British Columbia (9 Apr – 19 May, +/- 3.8%) Conservative — 35.4% (19) Liberal — 27.5% (9) NDP — 23.5% (8) Green — 12.4% (0)
Other — 1.2% (0)
Alberta (7 Apr – 19 May, +/- 3.9%) Conservative — 59.7% (28) Liberal — 17.6% (0) Green — 11.3% (0) NDP — 9.9% (0)
Other — 1.6% (0)
Prairies (7 Apr – 19 May, +/- 4.2%) Conservative — 41.1% (19) Liberal — 23.8% (5) NDP — 23.4% (4) Green — 9.9% (0)
Other — 1.7% (0)
Atlantic Canada (9 Apr – 19 May, +/- 4.5%) Liberal — 37.3% (18) Conservative — 34.4% (10) NDP — 21.1% (3) Green — 6.5% (0)
Other — 0.6% (1)
FYI, an update. New polls now put Obama ahead of McCain in Ohio, so in a head-to-head with McCain in a general election, we now have:
Obama 293 vs. McCain 244
Clinton 271 vs. McCain 266
Obama currently leads McCain by 49 electoral college votes. Clinton leads McCain by 5 votes. The only states that Clinton is currently winning that Obama is not is Florida (where Obama is currently campaigning) and Arkansas (Clinton’s former state). But there are many states that Obama is currently winning that Clinton is not: Michigan, Washington, Wisconsin, Colorado, Oregon, Iowa, and New Mexico. And Obama is only behind in Nevada by 0.6% (Clinton is behind by 4.2%).
This is further evidence that Clinton’s argument that she is the better general election candidate is simply not true (while she is right that she does better than him in PA, OH and FL, Obama still carries PA and OH, but she is not carrying many other states). Below is the tally. Note that these are the battleground states that Obama or Clinton are currently winning; neither Obama nor Clinton are currently leading in Georgia (15 EV), North Carolina (15 EV), Virginia (13 EV), Missouri (11 EV), or Nevada (5 EV).
***
Obama beats in McCain in:
California (54.5/45.7 +8.8) — 55 EV Pennsylvania(53.3/46.7 +6.6) — 21 EV Ohio(50.7/49.3 +1.4) — 20 EV Michigan(50.3/49.7 +0.6) — 17 EV New Jersey(55.2/44.8 +10.4) — 15 EV Washington (55.6/44.4 +11.2) — 11 EV Minnesota(56.1/43.9 +12.2) — 10 EV Wisconsin(50.9/49.1 +1.8) — 10 EV Colorado(52.8/47.2 +5.6) — 9 EV Oregon(55.8/44.2 +11.6) — 7 EV Iowa(53.1/46.9 +6.2) — 7 EV New Mexico(51.4/48.6 +2.8) — 5 EV New Hampshire(50.2/49.8 +0.4) — 4 EV
– TOTAL — Barack Obama 293 EV vs. John McCain 244 EV
Clinton beats in McCain in:
California (53.9/46.1 +7.8) — 55 EV Florida (50.9/49.1 +1.8) — 27 EV Pennsylvania(55.7/44.3 +11.4) — 21 EV Ohio(55.1/44.9 +10.2) — 20 EV New Jersey(53.0/47.0 +6.0) — 15 EV Washington (50.9/49.1 +1.8) — 11 EV Minnesota(52.8/47.2 +5.6) — 10 EV Arkansas(57.4/42.6 +14.8) — 6 EV New Hampshire(50.2/49.8 +0.4) — 4 EV
— TOTAL — Hillary Clinton 271 EV vs. John McCain 266 EV
Contrary to popular belief, Barack Obama does not have a problem with all white, rural, working-class voters. Indeed, he’s done quite well with this demographic in the West, Mid-West and Northeast. But Obama can’t win white, rural, working-class voters in Appalachia. Why? While most pundits won’t say it, the reason is quite simple — they won’t vote for someone who is black. There remains a lot of racism in the poorest, most rural part of America. That’s not to say that all whites in Appalachia are racist, but there is a disturbingly high portion. And, unfortunately, racism is not something that an electoral campaign can cure (although Obama’s success is forcing people to confront the issue). Obama cannot change the fact that he is half-black, nor should be want to. He is who he is.
If you listen to Hillary Clinton, “Obama’s problem” with whites in Appalachia — I think it is the opposite, it is racist whites’ problem with Obama — is cause for Democratic superdelegates to overturn the primary results and give her the nomination, because Appalachia runs through what she says are key battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky (in fact, only Ohio and Pennsylvania are true battlegrounds). In other words, what Clinton is effectively saying is that because some people in Appalachia are racist, we shouldn’t run a black man, because the only thing that matters is that the Democrats “win”. Well, winning by pandering to white racists in one region of the country does not constitute a “win” to me. You might win the battle, but you’ve lost the war.
If the polls are right, Barack Obama will win Oregon and Hillary Clinton will take Kentucky tomorrow. Here’s what we project, based on the available polling data:
Oregon
Barack Obama — 56.8% or 30 delegates (range: 55.1% to 58.5%; 29-31 delegates)
Hillary Clinton — 43.2% or 22 delegates (range: 41.5% to 44.9%; 21-23 delegates)
Margin of Victory — 13.6% (range: 10.2% to 17.0%)
Delegate Gain — 8 delegates (range 6 to 10 delegates)
Kentucky
Hillary Clinton — 66.4% or 34 delegates (range: 64.6% to 68.2%; 33-35 delegates)
Barack Obama — 33.6% or 17 delegates (range: 31.8% to 35.4%; 16-18 delegates)
Margin of Victory — 33.2% (range: 29.6% to 36.8%)
Delegate Gain — 17 delegates (range: 15 to 19 delegates)
Net Gain — Clinton 9 delegates (range: 5 to 13 delegates)
As you can see Clinton is expected to win Kentucky by a blow-out of between 30-37 points (33-34 is most likely), while Obama is projected to win Oregon by a much smaller margin, 10-17 points (13-14 is most likely). Clinton’s larger margin of victory means she’ll end up with a net gain on the night of between 5 and 13 delegates (9 is most average) — making only a small dent in Obama’s current 192-delegate lead, leaving Obama up by at least 180 delegates.
We project Obama will win 45-49 delegates on the night (47 is the average), giving Obama between 1655-1659 pledged delegates. Given 3253 total pledged delegates, with these projected results, Obama can claim he’s won a majority of the elected delegates (1627 is needed). In fact, with just 86 total pledged delegates yet to be awarded in Puerto Rico (55, June 1), Montana (16, June 3) and South Dakota (15, June 3), it is clear that after tomorrow, Clinton cannot mathematically catch Obama in elected delegates. Moreover, since April 1, Obama has won over three-quarters of superdelegates (71 to 22). With about 210 superdelegates yet to declare, a similar split would give Obama another 160 delegates to Hillary’s 50 — a gain of 110. That would leave Obama with a lead of almost 300 delegates.
There is no doubt that Michigan and Florida will be seated at the Democratic convention. The only question is how the delegates are split. But to be clear, Michigan and Florida cannot save Clinton. The most optimistic scenario for Clinton has the DNC adopting Michigan Democrats’ proposed 69-59 split in her favor and adopting a proposal to seat half of Florida’s delegation using the uncontested election results, giving her a roughly 63-43 split. So, even in the best case for Hillary, seating Michigan and Florida will yield a 132-102 split — that is, at best, Hillary gains 30 extra delegates on Obama — leaving Obama still almost 270 delegates ahead.
These numbers confirm that after tomorrow, it really is over for Clinton. She should remain in the race to compete in Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota, raising issues on behalf of those states, but after June 3, it is clear that she will suspend her campaign. Obama will be the Democratic Party nominee.
Not that anyone cares, but I’d just like to give an example of why Los Angeles (actually in this case, Santa Monica) is hopelessly lost when it comes to urban planning. Check out the video below. Yes, those are beautiful full-growth Ficus trees being cut down (along the entire street, although only a few are shown in the video below) … to widen the street so traffic can flow, flow, flow (or so the sidewalks don’t crack, or so that shop signs can be better seen, or… whatever lame reason they need to justify themselves). Yes, L.A. and Santa Monica are that stupid… and the saddest thing is that people actually think this is a good thing.
The key to the Democrats (likely under Barack Obama) win the White House rests on 3 key strategies, in order of importance:
1) Mobilizing huge turnout in the cities.
2) Winning over suburban independents.
3) Limiting their losses in rural America.
Urban America (more progressive), 30% of U.S. population: For the Democrats to win, they must mobilize urban America, which is traditionally strongly Democratic (even in states that otherwise lean Republican). Cities also have a higher share of African-American, Latino and other minority populations, which have typically supported the Dems. For the Dems to win, they need to register as many people as possible and get them to the polls on election day. The urban get-out-the-vote effort is paramount for the Dems.
Suburban America (more independent), 50% of U.S. population: Just as important, however, is the focus on winning over independents, who make up 38% of the electorate. Urban America leans Democrat and rural America leans Republican, but suburban America is where the highest share of independent voters reside. The suburbs are the true battlegrounds in November. Suburbs are by-and-large middle-class (although some are very wealthy and some are very poor), but span the spectrum from blue- to white-collar. For Dems to win here, they need to focus on meat-and-potato economic issues.
Rural America (more conservative), 20% of U.S. population: While much attention has been paid to the rural (overwhelmingly white) working-class in the Democratic race, the vast majority of this population leans Republican, largely because rural America is more socially conservative and Republicans have positioned themselves as defenders of traditional social values. The key here for Democrats is to limit their losses.
It should be clear that the more you appeal to Urban America (more progressive), the less you will appeal to Rural America (more conservative). The two are inversely proportional. So, strong appeals to conservatives will limit your appeal to progressives, and vice versa. So it is a delicate balance. But given the above core strategies, it is clear that Dems need to target states that have a larger share of urban and suburban population, and, of course, states that were very close in 2004. I will break down these battleground states and what the Dems have to do in them over the coming days.
The logic that Hillary Clinton is using to appeal to voters and superdelegates is staggering — in that it makes no sense. On the one hand, Clinton is arguing that the basic tenets of democracy demand that we could the votes in Michigan and Florida — exactly as is, even though Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. Her argument is that not counting those votes would disenfranchises those voters.
But in the same breath, Clinton is appealing to 200 remaining undeclared superdelegates to over-turn the results of the 35+ million voters in the primaries and caucuses, because she says that — despite these results — she is the better candidate.
This logic is perverse. One part of her strategy — empowering voters in the primaries — directly contradicts the second part of her strategy — having party insiders overturn the primary results. It’s quite sad, actually.
Hillary Clinton will win a huge victory tonight in West Virginia, by at least a 2-to-1 margin (i.e. she will likely win at least two-thirds of the vote). Here is what the polls are telling us:
Clinton 70.9% +/- 2.0% (range: 68.9% to 72.9%)
Obama 29.1% +/- 2.0% (range 27.1% to 31.1%)
The above suggests Clinton will win 19 or 20 delegates while Obama could win 8 or 9 delegates, meaning Clinton could close Obama’s current 176-delegate lead by 10-12 delegates. I would imagine that if Obama breaks 30% of the vote, his campaign would be satisfied.
Clinton will no doubt try to use the West Virginia results to once again claim Obama cannot win white working class voters. In truth, any Democratic candidate — even if it was Clinton — would lose the vast majority of these voters to the Republicans (rural, white voters are, in fact, a good part of the Republican base).
Of course, West Virginia’s demographics are tailor-made for Clinton. At 94.1% white, it is more white than the likes of Montana and South Dakota; indeed, it is perhaps the whitest state in the nation. What few minorities exist are predominantly Latino, another Clinton strong demographic. There are few African-Americans. Moreover, it has a low percentage of college graduates — less than 15% of those 25 and older have a college degree (compared, for example, with another rural state like Montana, which has about 25%). And, at about $33,000 per household, it is also well below the U.S. average in income. And it is very rural, with no major cities. Indeed, West Virginia represents one extreme of America. It is no less extreme than a state that was 94% black, highly urban, well-educated and above-average income — demographics in which Hillary would also equally perform poorly. No doubt Obama must continue to appeal to rural, white working-class voters in order to build upon his already diverse coalition, but we should not exaggerate the impact of tonight’s results.
