I see that there is a debate within the Democratic party and the Biden campaign about whether to concentrate on the "core battleground"—Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, and Arizona—or instead seek a landslide by extending the campaign to Georgia, Texas, Ohio, and Iowa. Here are a few observations regarding the question.
(1) The issue is essentially whether the citizens of 40 states or 44 states should be ignored. Thanks electoral college! You need to be retired.
(2) The arithmetic: Hillary Clinton won 232 electoral votes. The six states of the "core battleground" have 101 electoral votes. 232 + 101 = 333, which is 63 more than the 270 needed to win. The four other states that are "in play" have an additional 78 electoral votes.
(3) The lay of the land: The website Real Clear Politics aggregates presidential polling within the battleground states and publishes an average result. Currently the site shows Biden ahead in:
Pennsylvania (+6.7%)
Michigan (+8.2%)
Wisconsin (+6.4%)
North Carolina (+2.0%)
Florida (+7.0%)
Arizona (+2.8%)
And in the additional four the averages are:
Georgia (Trump +2.7%)
Texas (Trump +0.2%)
Ohio (Biden +2.3%)
Iowa (Trump +1.5%)
The campaign pros who I'll call "scairdy cats" look at these data points and conclude: we're ahead, but the game is still on—no "10-run rule” yet. The other side, more optimistic, thinks: Trump is down 7 in Florida? basically tied in Texas? trailing in Ohio? Let's run the table!
(4) Other considerations: If Biden wins, the Democrats need a net gain of three seats to become the majority party in the Senate—four if Trump is re-elected. In the six states of the "core battleground," there are three US Senate races: in Michigan, where Democratic incumbent Gary Peters appears to be safely ahead, and in North Carolina and Arizona, where Republican incumbents are in tight races. The four other states have four competitive Senate races, all with Republican incumbents, including both Georgia seats. In recent history, it's quite unusual for a presidential candidate to carry a state while a US Senate candidate of the same party loses. It happened exactly nowhere in 2016.
(5) Conclusion: Which side do I think has the better case, scairdy cats or optimists? See (1) above.
Comments