Expertinent: Will 'Obama vs. McCain' Change the Map?
Expertinent is a regular Stumper column featuring interviews with experts on the news of the day.
Nate Silver is channeling Nostradamus. As a University of Chicago econ alum slogging through an undemanding post-collegiate consulting gig, he developed a --down to, like, his height, his weight, his career singles and the size of his home stadium. Called PECOTA, it's now
So we'll start with an easy question: Who's going to win
the election?
Well, if you look at where the polls are right now, it's
going to be just as close as it was the last couple of cycles. That said, if
anyone wins by a large margin, it's more liable to be Obama. Right now, he's
tied with McCain, even though he's losing 20 percent of Democrats to McCain.
That number is pretty unprecedented-it's usually about 10 percent. If Obama can
get that number down to 15 percent, then that represents a bump of four points
overall: you're basically taking two points away from McCain and giving two to
Obama. That would represent a landslide compared to recent elections.
The fact is, the fundamentals favor Obama. He is tying McCain among Independents, and there's four-to-three ratio of Democrats to Republicans in terms of voter ID. If those numbers stay the same, he just has to hold his own among Democrats-maybe even losing a few more Democratic voters than John Kerry might have because of race or because some Hillary supporters stay bitter-and he wins. That's especially important states like Ohio where you had big swings at the state level to Democrats, and Hillary picked up the bulk of that support.
Can he win them back? A lot of Clinton supporters say
no-they're going to vote for McCain.
I think by the time it gets to September, Hillary die-hard
supporters might still not love Obama, but they won't love McCain either. At
that point McCain's going to be advertising to his base-Republicans-and
Democrats are going to be advertising to theirs. So he's going to look
unacceptable to Democrats, even if they supported Hillary. McCain's goal is to
win 60 percent of the Independent vote to counteract by the Democrats' edge in
party ID, which he'll do by saying Obama is too liberal.
We are talking about this in sort of a macro sense, but
it's the electoral college that will decide the election. It's state by state. Now, I know on your
site is keeping track of every state-by-state poll that comes down the pike.
How is the map shaping up? It seems to
me that if Obama can pick up New Mexico, Iowa and Colorado, he doesn't have to
worry as much about places like Ohio and Florida where he isn't quite as
popular as Hillary among Democrats.
Right. Or, if you take the Kerry states, add Ohio-which I
think Obama's almost certainly going to win--and then add Colorado and Iowa,
then that's a winning map by a few electoral votes for him. Actually, I think
it's one of the more likely maps.
If you had to predict a couple of surprises, what would
they be?
You want to get exotic? If Obama just won Colorado and
Iowa-not Ohio--and picked up one electoral vote from Omaha, in Nebraska, then
he would tie 269 to 269. Now, McCain is going to win Nebraska. He'll totally
clobber Obama. Republicans usually win the state by 20 points or more. But the
thing is, Nebraska divides its electors up by congressional district, and there
are two districts out of three where Obama might be competitive. One is the
city of Omaha, where Obama is running about 10 points better than the state
overall, and the other is focused around Lincoln and the University of Nebraska
and borders Iowa, where people seem to love Obama for some reason. He could win
one of those districts, and with things being so close, that could be the
technicality that decides the election. In light of what happened in Florida in
2000, it would almost be fitting, no? Tying 269-269 by winning the city of
Omaha, then having it go to the House, where the Democrats would vote for him.
Farfetched, but possible. That one electoral vote could matter.
Any other possible surprises?
Indiana is an interesting state. It's always a state that
maybe shouldn't be as red as it is. Like, the Bill Clinton maps from '92 and
'96--Bill won in a lot of states where Democrats don't often win. Indiana is a
little lake of red in the middle of a lot of blue. It's unusual that it hasn't
gone more Democratic. I think part of the reason is that some of these states
haven't really had a democrat campaign there for years. Indiana, they've just written off. It's
usually voted Republican, but it's also a state that has a huge manufacturing
industry. It has the same concerns that Ohio has. Which is why, I think, our
current projections show Obama losing by less than four. North Carolina is
another state that might be reasonably competitive; McCain's up by about six in
our system. I think in the course of the long Democratic primary campaign,
Obama discovered a couple of hidden swing states where he can compete that he
otherwise would've written off.
What about Virginia?
That's another one that people toss out there.
I think in four years Virginia is going to kind of a solid
blue state, because it's becoming more northern. So while Virginia is a good
opportunity for Obama, whether it gets there right away, I don't know. The western panhandle of Virginia reaches
into Appalachia, where he's going to lose pretty badly. But Virginia-along with
Missouri, where Obama is also polling pretty well-are going to be the only
Southern tossups. But I think he's not likely to win a state like Mississippi,
which the campaign says it's targeting. They talk about turning out the
African-American vote out in Mississippi, but even if you do that, it's not
going to happen. Turnout among African-Americans is pretty good already.
That said, I'm watching Georgia. I'm fascinated by it. The polls show Obama
trailing McCain by about ten points, but they also have former Congressman Bob
Barr drawing six to eight percent. So if Obama can increase African-American
turnout and inch up a few points, it seems like he might have a shot.
Don't forget: it's also one of the youngest states in the
country. Alaska could be interesting, too.
Thanks to its harsh climate and hard-core industries, it attracts a very
hearty, very male population. Historically, there's a lot of affection for
third-party candidates in Alaska, so it's a state where Barr could get five or
six or seven percent of the vote-which is about how far behind Obama is in the
latest polls. It might be enough to tip it. In which case, we'll be up until
4:00 in the morning waiting for the returns from Juneau.
What about the reverse?
We have been talking optimistically about Obama, but what about
McCain? He's more competitive in places
like Pennsylvania or New Jersey or Michigan than any other Republican would be.
There are a lot of Independents in Michigan, and they
certainly seem to have a lot of affection for John McCain. They certainly did in 2000, and right now
he's leading in our projections by a tiny, tiny margin-one-tenth of one
percent. I think that the fact that Obama didn't get to mobilize there in the
primary campaign probably hurts him, but that at the end of the day, Michigan
leans Democrat. Still, McCain's could win. He's got a special relationship with
the state. Wouldn't be interesting if Obama wins Ohio and loses Michigan?
That's what our map shows him doing right now. It's one of millions of
permutations, but it's possible.
Overall, though, Obama is in a better position than John Kerry was. In Pennsylvania, Obama has pulled enough ahead now where it's not likely to be supercompetitive. And in states where McCain otherwise might be especially strong-- like in the West-any "native son," regional advantage is probably outweighed at this point by changes in demographics and the local political cultures. Arizona won't be competitive, of course, but those neighboring states-New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada-will be.
Where McCain does better than Bush did, actually, is on the East Coast. He might stay within eight or ten points in Massachusetts, whereas Bush lost by 20. Or Connecticut might be within in seven points But he's not going to do well enough to actually win then. Because it's his strongest region, he gains popular votes--but not necessarily electoral votes.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
Andrew Romano is a senior writer for Newsweek. He reports on politics, culture, and food for the print and Web editions of the magazine and appears frequently on CNN and MSNBC. His 2008 campaign blog, Stumper, won MINOnline's Best Consumer Blog award and was cited as one of the cycle's best news blogs by both Editor & Publisher and the Deadline Club of New York. Follow Andrew on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.




Comments