Obama And African American Turnout

Marc... no one thinks you're anti-Hillary. People think the opposite, in fact.

Posted by Eric | March 10, 2008 2:14 PM

Ah, finally a post that can't be interpreted as anti-Hillary.

Heh, are you talking about your own work, Marc? If so, glad to see your senses of humor and ironic detachment are hard at work.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 10, 2008 2:15 PM

SUSA's national poll looked pretty competitive for Obama but not Clinton in VA, NC, and SC (!). Whatever the explanation is, I'll take it.

Posted by John M. | March 10, 2008 2:20 PM

I think it has more to do with the number of newly registered voters, many of whom may be apathetic African-Americans who had given up on the system. Get people excited and involved, as Obama has, and you can boost the AA vote above its already high level for the Dems.

Posted by loralei | March 10, 2008 2:25 PM

John M.

Good job at being selective about which Southern states you list. First Clinton is also very competitive in NC and SC (within single-digits) AND she runs WAY better than Obama in other Southern states: check Arkansas (which is obvious) or Tennessee.

Posted by Daniel | March 10, 2008 2:27 PM

Tom is wrong. Blacks are overwhelmingly Democratic in the South. But they don't turn out as much. Mississippi has the lowest turnout in the country. It could be white people staying home, but my hunch is myriad voter intimidation tactics have driven down black turnout over the years. Cynicism helps too. Obama changes that. Blacks in GA, SC, AL and VA turned out a lot higher than normal.

Posted by Elrod | March 10, 2008 2:42 PM

Okay, he makes a good point but he's using history not present day dynamics. The one thing that keeps coming up is how Obama, his campaign and many of the new voters are breaking the previous mold.

Posted by Lolo | March 10, 2008 3:01 PM

As a white Georgian, I can speak for 2 members of my family who vote straight Republican who went for Obama and another who is independent who voted Obama but would never vote Hillary. I have numerous friends who voted similarly. And this is in a middle Georgia county with 20-25K people.

Sure, this is all anecdotal stuff but I get the feeling that it's like this all over the South.

While it may not be enough for him to carry these states in the presidential election, it will be enough to help out in house and senate races. Obama at the top of the ticket is a big plus--Clinton at the top of the ticket in swing states would be poison.

Eventually the super delegates will figure out that they're much better off hitching their wagons to a leader of a movement than to a hard core partisan.

Posted by Jason | March 10, 2008 3:04 PM

Daniel,

It is true that Obama is only stronger than Clinton in the Atlantic Coast South plus Texas. The thing is, that region includes a lot more electoral votes than Oklahoma and Tennessee. And since the rest of the South probably isn't play for either of them, doing marginally better in the rest of the South doesn't really help Clinton's case.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 3:05 PM

The problem with his argument is that he is comparing the wrong numbers.

He compares black vs. white turnout. It's an interesting data point, but only obliquely relevant. Perhaps blacks in Mississippi already vote at relatively high levels. But since those _relatively_ high levels ain't that high (as in, there are millions of black folks who don't vote, just like there are millions of white folks who don't vote), it doesn't really prove anything.

The truly relevant comparison is what the black turnout would be with and without Barack on the ticket. And the evidence on that, from the primary voting so far, is that Barack has created record black turnout. There can be little doubt that there will be more African Americans voting for Democrats in the fall if Barack is on top of the ticket than if he isn't. Will it be enough to make Mississippi a swing stage? Probably not. But will it help Senate and House races on the margin? Sure.

Posted by Oaktown | March 10, 2008 3:08 PM

One lesson that can be taken from past elections is that traditional states of the opposing party that appear marginally competitive several months before an election usually revert by election day. In 2004, Arkansas looked competitive for Kerry early on, but went decisively for Bush in the end. In 2000 the Bush campaign thought California appeared competitive enough to warrant a multi-million dollar ad buy there, with little or payoff in the end. These early signs of competitiveness are usually illusory, and this time is likely no different.

I do not expect either Democrat to carry Virginia in the end, although I think Obama might get closer than Clinton.

Clinton probably would carry Arkansas in the end by a quite narrow margin (51%-48% or thereabouts), even though she has a clear lead in early polling.

Obama would likely do better than Clinton in states like Alaska, the Dakotas, Montana, Kansas, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Nebraska... but will not win any of these states in the end. It will be the difference between 36-40% of the vote under Clinton, or 40-44% under Obama... not a difference that will win any electoral votes. It's the same thing is states like Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia. The one exception for Obama, I think, is Colorado... I think he would have a slightly better chance to deliver that state's electoral votes than Clinton.

I believe Clinton's advantage is states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, Arkansas would be much more value in November as these are all marginal states where 1-2% of the vote will make all the difference between winning and losing.

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 3:11 PM

Tim K,

Your argument depends on halting your examination of past elections in 2000. If you look farther back, you will see that in many past elections the map did in fact change significantly from the prior election. Indeed, Bill Clinton won in 1992 as a result of a significant map change from 1988.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 3:34 PM

The real question here is what will those voters do if Hillary manages to take the nomination by superdelegates, ignoring the popular vote and the earned delegates.

I won't claim to know, of course, but I can guess. It wouldn't be pretty, IMO.

Posted by justinb | March 10, 2008 3:49 PM

DTM:

That's true, but one of the reasons I think that is fair is because the electorate has become more polarized since 1992 and before. There are fewer competitive House seats, fewer states with split delegations, and fewer Republicans from blue states and Democrats from red states. So the assumption of less volatility is not without evidence.

Also, in 1992 the nominee was a southerner. That was how Democrats did better among southern whites than they had during the 1980's. That's why Clinton won Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Georgia, and why he nearly carried Florida. The Perot factor also made Clinton more competitive in states he otherwise wouldn't have been like in Virginia, South Dakota and Texas. Those two factors (major third-party challenge, and the "native son" aspect) will be largely absent this time, with the exception of Hillary Clinton's relationship with the people of Arkansas.

The change from 1988-1992 in swing states like New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio was not very significant when you factor in the third-party presence. Clinton won all of those states with a plurality of the popular vote, and with about the same percentage as Dukakis. Basically, the Democrats did a much better job of holding their core vote in 1992 than the Republicans did.

I'm not saying that partisan shifts never occur, but they are usually gradual and take several elections to fully materialize if they are to be sustained.

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 3:52 PM

It is true that Obama is only stronger than Clinton in the Atlantic Coast South plus Texas.

Um, no it's not true. Clinton is the stronger candidate in Florida, an Atlantic coast state. She is surely stronger in North Carolina, an Atlantic coast state. And she also happens to be stronger in Texas. Democrats always perform strongly in the urban core of Dallas and Houston. But Hillary does well in the countless rural, mostly white counties of the Lone Star state. In fact, Hillary seems to be doing quite well in exactly the type of rural, working class white counties in numerous states (Missouri, Arkansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, etc.) that enabled Bill Clinton to crack the GOP's red base, and put him in the White House on two occasions.

The Democrats don't need help winning big, blue metro areas. They need help winning the votes of Latinos and working class whites. Hillary provides this.

Posted by Jupiter | March 10, 2008 4:23 PM

Tim K,

First, now your review of past elections stopped an election too soon. In 2006, half the Democrat's Senate pickups were in Bush states, and I believe over half their House pickups were in Bush states. This is good evidence that whatever partisan dynamics were operating in 2000-2004, they began breaking down in 2006 (and the polls suggest that trend is continuing).

Second, I am a major proponent of regionalism being an important and overlooked factor in political affinity, and you are overlooking much of what regionalism would imply. Obama is a Midwesterner (unlike Kerry or Hillary Clinton 3.0), and that is why it is not surprising he does so much better than Clinton once you get West of Appalachia. On the GOP side, there is some overlap between Arizona and Texas, but Arizona also lacks some affinities Texas has to states farther East or North, so it is not surprising someone like Obama could compete with McCain once you get to places like Nebraska or the Atlantic Coast South.

Finally, 1988 to 1992 is far from the only example of a dramatic map change from one election to the next. Indeed, off the top of my head I know 1976 to 1980 would qualify as well.

So, I actually think the relative stability from 2000 to 2004 was more the exception than the rule. And with entirely new candidates from new regions, and the 2006 elections as evidence of an underlying shift in the partisan landscape, I see little reason to expect the 2000/2004 map to hold up any longer.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 4:25 PM

Indeed, Bill Clinton won in 1992 as a result of a significant map change from 1988.

Indeed he did -- and his strengths were exactly the same kind Hillary brings to the table.

Posted by Jupiter | March 10, 2008 4:30 PM

Jupiter,

First, I think what you want to call Florida is a matter of definition (I would point out that Florida is as much Gulf Coast as Atlantic Coast), but I agree Clinton is likely to be somewhat stronger than Obama there. The problem is that I doubt she can beat McCain.

Second, your analysis of states like NC and Texas appears to depend on how Clinton has done against Obama among Democratic primary voters in states like Texas (or the others on your list). Somewhat obviously, that is not the same question as who would run stronger against McCain in a general election contest.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 4:31 PM

To continue:

First, a further point in response to your earlier post: I think it is important to note as well that Obama has also done better than Clinton among working class Democrats in states such as Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa, and so on.

Second, what makes you think Hillary Clinton can duplicate Bill Clinton's appeal? It does appear that in Arkansas and perhaps Tennessee, Bill has enough in the way of regional coattails to share some of his appeal with Hillary. But otherwise, Clinton's support is almost entirely limited to the same states as Kerry, and indeed she appears to have less appeal than Kerry once you get past the Appalachians. In other words, it appears most of the country views the Senator from New York as a Northeast candidate, in contrast to Bill.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 4:38 PM

By the way, if you take the 2004 map and hypothesize a wraparound effect wherein the West Coast (and Hawaii) are reallocated to the East Coast (and the Atlantic), and then put pins in that map for the Republicans and Democrats in Texas and Massachusetts respectively, you end up being able to draw an arc between those pins (circling a roughly equal distance around the Texas pin from Minnesota to the new East Coast California) with almost all of the Kerry states on one side and almost all of the Bush states on the other. What sticks out a bit is actually Illinois.

So given this, imagine moving the Democratic pin up from Massachusetts into Illinois, and moving the Republican pin back from Texas to Arizona, keeping the West Coast wraparound in place. Now, redraw the same arc at the same distance from the Republican pin. Seems like a good idea for the Democrats.

In truth, of course, that is not quite realistic: there probably wouldn't be quite the same neatly continuous regions, and the demarcation arc would probably change from convex to concave (from the vantage point of the Republican pin). That last bit, though, would also be good news for the Democrats (you want that bulge in the arc being away from your pin, meaning you are getting more of the territory in between the pins).

Anyway, this is kinda silly, but something to think about.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 5:07 PM

DTM:

There is quite a bit to respond to here but I will try to be as concise as possible.

The 2006 election was a good sign for the Democrats, but I would be cautious in reading too much into it. The Democrats did very well in the 1986 midterm election without that translating into a presidential win in 1988; The Republican victory in 1994 did not foreshadow a win in 1996. Just as there are examples of game-changing elections, there are more examples of fluke elections. 1976 was not a transformational election, it was a fluke. 1980 did change the electoral map, but that was a culmination of a partisan realignment that took years to come to fruition, mainly involving the migration of southern and rural whites from the Democratic to Republican parties.

I notice when you discuss regional appeal you mention Obama and McCain, but not Clinton. Considering you clear bias that isn't very surprising. I think it's highly condescending (and I hope doesn't suggest an underlying bias on your part that goes beyond anti-Clintonism) that you attribute Clinton's support in Arkansas only to her husband. She herself has ties to that state that go beyond name recognition and word association. Hillary was First Lady of Arkansas for 12 years, in what was hardly an honorary position. She chaired a board on rural health care and led a successful task force on educational reform, among other contributions. Not every spouse or relative would necessarily be leading in a presidential match-up, and suggesting that is absurd. Would Chelsea Clinton be leading John McCain in Arkansas?

This shifting from Massachusetts to Illinois seems silly. John Kerry won Massachusetts by 26%, Gore won it by 27% And was from Tennessee! Clinton carried Tennessee in 1996 but Gore couldn't 4 years later even though he was born there and represented the state in the Senate for a decade.

The truth is that either Clinton and Obama will in all likelihood carry mos, if not all, of the states carried by Kerry and Gore in 2000/2004. Neither is likely to bring strongly Republican-voting states into the win column. Like I have argued from the beginning, this is going to be a close election and will once again come down to a small handful of states.

Clinton and Obama will only change that on the margins.

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 5:38 PM

Tim K,

First, I think it is important to remember who has the burden of proof here. Your original argument was that past elections prove the map is unlikely to change more than marginally between 2004 and now. Well, we have placed plenty of counterexamples to what you claimed was a historical axiom on the table. Of course, that doesn't mean there will be such a change in 2008, just that there is no basis from history to argue that such a change is unlikely to occur.

Similarly, your supplementary argument was that things are now a lot less likely to change than they may have been in the past because of some hypothetical conditions of polarization that arose around 2000. In response, I noted the results in the 2006 election. But I am not arguing that the 2006 election proves that the map will change this year. Rather, I am simply pointing out that the 2006 election suggests that whatever special map-fixing conditions you think existed from 2000 to 2004 may not have persisted past 2004.

Second, I didn't directly address Clinton in the context of discussing regionalism because you had already addressed Clinton yourself in that context, and yet you failed to address Obama and McCain. So, as I stated above, I set out to address the people you had overlooked. And ironically, you are now accusing me of bias for failing to address Clinton, when you yourself originally did not address anyone but Clinton.

Third, I think it is extremely hard to sort out what part of Hillary's appeal in certain regions is based on her own affinities, and what part is derivative from Bill's appeal--even your example of her being First Lady of Arkansas is by the nature of such a position going to involve Bill. But in any event, I am happy to admit that for whatever reason, she is extremely likely to do better in Arkansas than Obama.

Fourth, I am confused about what point you are trying to make with Gore. It is certainly true that Gore did not have enough regional appeal to win Tennessee, but I think that goes to show that if you are in Washington long enough, prior regional connections can fade. Moreover, you had previously argued that an important factor in the map changing from 1988 to 1992 was that Bill Clinton was a Southerner, presumably in contrast to Dukakis, who was from Massachusetts. Now suddenly you are suggesting that it is "silly" to note that Obama is a Midwesterner, as opposed to Kerry, who was from Massachusetts.

Personally, I think you were right the first time: Clinton was not just a more skilled politician overall than Dukakis, but he also knew how to appeal to the people in certain regions better than Dukakis. And I think the same is true of Obama: he is not just a more skilled politician overall than Kerry, but he also knows how to appeal to the people in certain regions better than Kerry. I just don't get why you think this logic worked for Clinton in 1992, but can't work for Obama in 2008.

Fourth, you also have provided no real basis for claiming Clinton could easily hold onto all or most of the Kerry states. Kerry had many close states outside of the Northeast Corridor and California, meaning upper New England, the Upper Midwest, and the Pacific Northwest. Moreover, McCain is not necessarily going to be as weak as Bush was in those regions, thanks to the importance of independents in most of those contests. The upshot is that we have every reason to believe the polls are not misleading us when they indicate that McCain could well beat Clinton in those areas, precisely because Clinton apparently has nothing more than Kerry to offer in those regions, and McCain would just need to be a bit more appealing than Bush to win.

As a final note, you have indeed been consistent in maintaining that Clinton has the right strategy, what is usually called the Kerry + 1 strategy. But you have also been consistent in failing to address all the reasons to believe such a strategy could fail even if Clinton gets her + 1 (or + 2, or + 3). Similarly, you have consistently discounted the very possibility that Obama could take an alternative, and less risky, approach. And as we have seen here, your evidence for all this is basically that the map did not change much from 2000 to 2004, which is only one of many pieces of data we have available.

So, I do give you points for consistency. But your consistency appears to be the product of refusing to consider evidence or analysis which contradicts your original thesis.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 6:45 PM

1) The basic point I was making from the beginning is that lack of change is much more common than change in any given cycle... most states vote the same way time and time again, and few states switch very often. Usually they are the same states. That doesn't mean a big change won't occur this year, I'm just not seeing much clear evidence of it.

2)I did discuss Obama's comparatively stronger appeal to smaller red states, and states with significantly larger than average black populations. But I contended, and will continue to, that he is unlikely to move any one of these states over to the winning column.

3) You're right, it's always difficult to determine exactly why any candidate is popular in any particular state or among any particular group of voters. I just wish fewer Obama supporters would argue that any advantage Hillary possesses is due to her husband, while any negative quality is hers alone.

4) The South is a unique region in respect to "native son" effects. Being a south-westerner or a mid-westerner is not really the same as being a southerner. I would compare being a southerner to being a Quebecer in Canada, or a Scot in the UK.

5) I don't think it's a question of who has the "right" strategy. I'm sure any and every candidate would like to have a strategy that would lead to a 49 state landslide. The problem is that isn't very likely at all, no matter who is the candidate is.

One reason Kerry failed in 2004 was because he actually targeted more states than Bush (30+ as compared to 15 or so). If Obama expends large amounts of valuable resources in states like Mississippi, Georgia, Kansas, or North Dakota, the result could be disastrous. Gore-Lieberman made the mistake of pulling its ads out of Florida too early and focusing on Ohio instead. Had they not done so they would have won the election.

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 7:10 PM

Tim K,

On (1), that just doesn't seem accurate. We've gone back to 1976, and I'd say the map changed significantly in most of the elections since then. We already discussed 1976 to 1980, and while 1980 and 1984 look somewhat similar because they were both blowouts, in 1984 Reagan actually took 5 of the 7 contests Carter won in 1980. Then in 1988 Dukakis won 11 contests to Mondale's 2, and it was a different map than the one Carter had in 1980 (so not a case of states switching back and forth). Then, as we discussed, Clinton completely changed the map in 1992. I'll give you 1992 to 1996, although there were a few changes, but 1996 to 2000 included a lot of switching from Clinton to Bush. And that takes us to 2000 to 2004, which I again am willing to put in your column.

So, there was significant switching in 5 of the last 7 contests, which makes switching the rule, not the exception. And the map never held up three contests in a row during this time, which is what you are claiming will happen in 2008.

On (2), that doesn't address Obama's regional appeal, which was the topic at hand. Moreover, your use of the term "red states" is begging the question, since that assumes the thesis (a fixed map of red and blue states) which you are trying to prove. Similarly, I know that you are asserting that Obama can't win what you call "red states," but my point is that you aren't coming up with good reasons to believe your assertions are true, particularly since your historical claims are inaccurate.

On (3), I agree that Hillary has many of her own positives and negatives. But on the other hand, I think it is a bit silly to argue that her appeal in Arkansas isn't at all related to her marriage to a former Governor of Arkansas who became President. Generally, she has encouraged people to treat her and Bill as a unit when it has been convenient, so your point about selective use of this connection cuts both ways.

On (4), I again see no basis for your assertions. Indeed, I think Westerners, for example, would be surprised to hear that Reagan was not the beneficiary of a favorite son effect in their region.

On strategy, first, as always you seem to be just ignoring the problem of Clinton potentially losing several Kerry states to McCain. Frankly, until you come up with a compelling reason to believe there is no way that could happen (other than blind faith the map will hold up for three contests in a row), the rest of your strategic analysis is a non-starter.

Second, Obama won't have to worry about insufficient resources relative to McCain. Moreover, he will undoubtedly want to expend resources in states he has no realistic chance of winning simply to help downticket races.

Third, it is a false dichotomy to present this as a choice between Kerry + 1 and a 49-state victory. The recent polls have confirmed that Obama would start with more states firmly in his column than Clinton, including a few non-Kerry states, because he is not as restricted regionally. He would also put more states in play on top of his firm base, for the same reason. That gives him lots of different ways to win, and fewer ways to lose, all while recognizing McCain is likely to win some states.

But as I keep noting and you refuse to acknowledge, Clinton's Kerry + 1 strategy cannot survive serious losses among the Kerry states, and requires victories among Clinton's handpicked Bush states. That would give Clinton a lot more ways to lose, and fewer ways to win.

Frankly, I think you are rationalizing. Clinton would love to be able to follow Obama's strategy instead of the Gore/Kerry strategy. The problem is she can't: except for Arkansas and maybe Tennessee, she doesn't seem to have the ability to put any new states in play, because like Gore and Kerry, her appeal is very limited regionally. So, she has no choice but to follow the Gore/Kerry strategy, regardless of what would be ideal.

So, you as a Clinton supporter are in the awkward position of having to argue it is a good thing that Clinton is following the same basic strategy that has lost two elections in a row. And your only way of defending it is to argue that it is impossible to do any better. But history does not support your assertion, nor does current polling, and so unless you can come up with something new, I think we are done.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 9:26 PM

DTM:

1) Like I said, in most cases, relatively few voters and relatively few states actually changed hands. If you take results state by state, there are relatively few changes. When there are changes they are often longstanding trends over time (ie California, Illinois and New Jersey's journeys from Republican state to swing state to solid Democratic over 50 years or the South's journey from solid Democratic to solid Republican) or are single election flukes like the South in 1976. I except that changes do occur but I don't see any real signs of that sort of game-changing alteration to the electoral map this time. Perhaps you could provide me some evidence of that.

2)I'm using the term "red states" to mean the traditionally republican states like South Dakota that haven't voted Democratic since 1964. The fact they haven't voted Democratic since 1964 is a pretty good indication that they won't again this year absent a 60-38% size landslide, which I absolutely do not think will happen. The burden is proof is on Obama supporters who think he has a chance in those long-shot states to prove he can win there, and his wins in red state caucuses do not even come close to satisfying that case.

3)Of course Hillary's appeal is Arkansas is *related* to being married to Bill. She never would have moved and worked there had it not been for Bill. My point is she has always had her own ambitions, professional accomplishments and public policy contributions and is not some Lurleen Wallace, which is really the implication I tend to take offense to from some Obama supporters.

4) Reagan carried California (not surprisingly) and did very well in the West, but Gerald Ford was from Michigan and he carried California and did very well in the West. That was just a Republican region at the time, and has only fairly recently become more competitive for national Democrats.

On strategy:

I'm not sure how to respond without knowing which states you have in mind. It's also hard to prove that something ISN'T possible. Beyond Clinton's difficulties with independents (which isn't a state-specific concern) I don't see any reason to believe Clinton would be losing any Kerry states. Any more than Obama would be losing New Jersey because he is doing worse against McCain than Clinton among Democrats in current polling.

Obama will probably have to worry about resources to a certain extent since I think he will end up having to take public financing and then make those funds last one additional week than McCain has to. I expect the situation will be balanced by outside funding and the general financial edge of Democrats at large this cycle, but I don't think Obama will be outspending McCain 2-1 by any means.

I don't accept the notion at all that Obama has a larger electoral map than Clinton. Certainly not based on those Survey USA numbers of this week. Name some states you expect Obama to carry but Clinton not to, it's a lot easier to make your argument in the general sense rather than referencing specific states.

And it is my contention that this is going to be a close election and that losing is going to be a very real possibility for either Obama or Clinton. I wish it weren't so but I think it will be. I think either candidate (Obama or Clinton) will have to focus on keeping the Kerry states and adding 3-6 additional states. If McCain's campaign collapses that won't be necessary, but I am not counting on that to happen and neither should Obama. I know Clinton isn't counting on that.

I may be rationalizing but I think you are dreaming. What are these new states Obama is going to be putting into play? It's not going to be the plains or rocky mountain states, it's not going to be Arizona, it's not going to be the Deep South, and it's not going to be Indiana or the Heartland. Where are there magical states Obama will suddenly put into play? With the exception of a few states like Arkansas and Tennessee for Clinton, and Virginia and Louisiana for Obama... these candidates will be playing on the same field.

Candidates cannot wish states into play Jeff, no matter how hard they would like to.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:02 AM

Tim K,

I'll keep this relatively brief:

(1) Your historical assertions are simply not accurate based on my review of the 1976-2004 elections. And again, I am not arguing that history proves the map will change. I am just pointing out that history does not support your assertion that the map usually doesn't change.

(2) Obama is close in the head-to-head polls in the Dakotas. He is also a Midwesterner and in Illinois has proven his appeal in rural Midestern areas. Finally, Western-libertarians have become disaffected with the Republican Party over the two terms of the Bush Administration, which was proven in part by the 2006 midterms. So, there is no reason to believe he can't compete in states like South Dakota.

(3) I'm not particularly interested in discussing arguments I haven't made.

(4) You are proving my point by citing Ford, because there are cultural connections between the Upper Midwest and West, which explains why Obama also does well in the West whereas Clinton does not. This cuts both ways: Arkansas is the interior South, but there are cultural connections between the interior South and Appalachia, and Clinton does well in Appalachia despite having no direction connection to the region.

On strategy: I've named the Kerry states Clinton could lose to you several times. They include Maine, New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. Those were close Kerry states, and he needed a significant number of independents to win. If McCain has a sufficiently high independent share against Clinton, he could win several of those states and ruin your strategy.

Public funding doesn't cap spending until the convention, and in any event Obama has not yet unilaterally committed to public funding: it depends on what McCain is willing to agree to.

I've already named some specific states Obama might carry that Clinton might not, namely the close Kerry states above. Among the Bush states, I would add Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, and Alaska. I also think Obama and Clinton are roughly equal in Ohio. Note there are many different combinations of this total pool of states which would lead to Obama winning the electoral college vote.

Now you keep asserting this can't happen, but you have yet to offer a valid reason to back up your assertion. I have explained my basic argument: independents and many Republicans have become disaffected with the Republican Party. Obama knows how to appeal to these people, and the head-to-head polls have shown he can put these states in play.

Your reply is to keep repeating you don't think it can happen, and to make erroneous assertions about history. But I have debunked your history and your gut feelings don't count as evidence. So this is the last detailed response I will make, unless you can come up with some bew reason to believe this can't happen (other than your personal feelings and false statements about history).

Posted by DTM | March 11, 2008 8:37 AM

Obama And African American Turnout

Comments (26)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives