Midsummer '08, where is the presidential race? Is it true that Obama can "expand the map"?
I don't know the answers, but last Sunday, while pedaling a stationary bike in front of some TVs at the health club, I came to the conclusion that I can read polls and perform arithmetic with the best of the talking-head experts. For example, on The Chris Mathews Show, Howard Fineman opined that, notwithstanding all the speculation about Obama's chances of breaking through in Dixie and the mountain West, "the math" was for him still "very difficult" without Ohio. That's not the way it looks to me.
In 2004, John Kerry won nineteen states (and the District of Columbia), with 252 electoral votes. The most recent state polls indicate that Obama is ahead everywhere Kerry won. If he stays ahead in those states, he still needs to win 18 more electoral votes. Of course Ohio would do it. But take another look at the map. It shows 255 electoral votes at least "leaning" toward Obama (the Kerry states plus Iowa minus New Hampshire) and 120 more in the "toss up" category. Unless things change substantially, it appears that McCain has to win, in addition to Florida and Ohio, all but one or two of the other states that are currently too close to place, however tentatively, in one column or the other.
On the available evidence, the map has expanded. An Obama victory does not depend upon his prevailing in Ohio (where he looks to be, at the moment, slightly ahead). While arguing that Obama really needs Ohio, Fineman allowed that he was likely to win both Iowa and New Mexico, two states Kerry lost. The Kerry states plus Iowa and New Mexico would put Obama at 264 electoral votes. Ohio would put him over the top--but so would Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, or Colorado. At present, he appears to be, if anything, slightly ahead in both Virginia and Colorado.
The above optimistic analysis depends upon Obama defending successfully big states, especially Pennsylvania and Michigan, that Kerry won by small margins. If he can't do that, the discussion is probably moot: losing Pennsylvania and Michigan means the whole thing has gotten away from him and he loses Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado, too. But I am an optimist, and it seems to me at least as likely that the whole thing gets away from McCain. I think Obama has a better chance in Indiana than McCain does in either Pennsylvania or Michigan. A recent Rasmussen poll of 500 likely voters in Montana showed Obama up five points. Georgia is home to well over 2 million African Americans, more than a quarter of the state's population, and a white guy named Bob Barr.
The map has expanded and Obama is ahead. And why not? The Republicans have been in the White House for the last eight years. For most of that time, there has been a Republican majority in both the House and Senate. They have been derelict in their stewardship. Their domestic policy has been reckless and irresponisble, and their foreign policy has been even more reckless and irresponsible. "It's time for a change" is more than a slogan--it's the reasonable conclusion of the electorate.
Comments