The other day, Tom Watson blogged that he thought there was no way McCain could overcome Obama this fall. Commenters to Tom's blog scoffed citing the tightening national head-to-head polls. But in truth, there are few things less useful and more distracting than national presidential polls.
The press dutifully reports these polls. Hell, the press even conducts many of them. But American journalism would be better off if it abandoned these polls altogether.
As Democrats were painfully reminded in 2000, we don't elect our Presidents through a national popular vote, we elect our presidents state by state. And, while the internal demographic breakdowns in national polls may offer us some insight, the polls themselves offer precious little foresight, telling us almost nothing about the likely outcome of November's election. To get a sense of exactly where the presidential race stands, and just how strong Obama's current position really is, you need to look at state-by-state polls and the electoral college map.
It will take 270 electoral votes to win the White House in 2008. I've used the excellent interactive electoral college map at 270towin.com and the polling averages for crucial states as compiled by RealClearPolitics.com to parse the current state of the race--assigning a state to a candidate if the polls show that candidate with a lead of 3 points or more and leaving unassigned any state where the race is closer that three points.
My map looks like this:
For Obama: ME, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, MI, IL, WI, IA, MN, NM, WA, OR, CA, HI for a total of 260 electoral votes, or 10 electoral votes short of winning the White House
For McCain: IN, WV, KY, TN, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, AR, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX ID, WY UT, AZ, AK for a total of 186 electoral votes or 84 votes short of winning the White House.
Here are the toss-up states in order from most to fewest electoral votes: FL (27), OH (20), VA (13), MO (11), CO (9), NV (5), NH (4), MT (3).
Given the current map there are 8 current combinations of victories in the battleground states that would work for Obama from simply winning one of the states with double digit electoral votes to winning, say, CO and NH.
By contrast, there are only two possible scenarios that work for McCain--win all of the big toss up states plus CO, and either NV or NH.
Obviously, as it stands today, Obama has a significant advantage over McCain whose path to the White House is looking narrow, rocky and nearly impassable (especially given that current polling in the toss-up states shows Obama ahead in OH, VA, CO, NV, NH. With those states in the bag Obama would be sitting on top of a 311 electoral vote landslide.)
It should go without saying that there are still three months until election day and many things can happen between now and then. Clearly--and I think correctly--the McCain brain trust has concluded that their candidate's only strategy for victory is to beat down Obama in an effort to make people feel uncomfortable voting for him. It's not a great strategy, but it's the only one McCain's got. (Sure, negative campaigning works, but you have to offer some positive reason for voters to choose you as well and McCain and the GOP in general seem to be at loss on that score.)
Over the next couple of days I'll look at some other aspect of the presidential race as it relates to the map--like the VP sweepstakes. But for now let me just say, the chance of an Obama landslide is looking greater and greater no matter what the national polls show.
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 20 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
susan
Posted by: mvymvy | August 01, 2008 at 12:58 PM