Path To The White House Leads Entirely Through Blue States

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 17:30


As a result of gians made in the 2006 elections, the path to the White House now leads entirely through blue states. If one adds Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico to the states Kerry won in the 2004 election, there is now an easy, non-Ohio, non-Florida path to victory for Democrats. The new, natural governing map now looks like this:

"Easy" Or "Firewall" Map: Obama 273--265 McCain

This is the easy path to victory, and it requires neither Ohio nor Florida. Here are some worthwhile facts about these twenty-two states, plus D.C.:

  1. Democrats control both branches in 20 of the 22 state legislatures: In every state except Michigan and Pennsylvania, Democrats control both branches of the state legislature.

  2. Democrats control a majority of 22 of the 23 congressional delegations (note: some errors follow--update below): If the members of the House and Senate are combined, Democrats control the majority of congressional delegations in every single one of these states except Michigan, where Democrats trail by only an eight to nine margin.

  3. Obama leads in all 23 states: Obama currently leads by 5.5% or more in all 23 jurisdictions, except in Colorado where he leads by 4.0%. I has been more than a month since even a single poll has shown McCain either ahead or tied in any of these states. The last was a poll Michigan, on May 27th. Since hat time, three Michigan polls have shown Obama ahead by 3%, 6%, and 9% respectively.

  4. Democratic dominance in three new states: In Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, Democrats hold the trifecta--both branches of the state legislature and the Governorship. Democrats have picked up four of the fifteen seats in the U.S. House in these three states over the last four years, and are poised to pickup even more this time (NM-01 is a particularly strong pickup). Democrats picked up a U.S. Senate seat in Colorado in 2004, and are set to pick up tow more Senate seats this year, with the Udalls poised for a Colorado and New Mexico sweep.

In other words, thanks to large local gains in the 2006 elections, Democrats now completely dominate local politics in enough non-southern states to win the Electoral College. There are now enough "naturally" Democratic states in order to win the White House.

Unlike Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004, Obama does not have to go through Republican states in order to win the Presidency. He doesn't have to win Ohio, and he doesn't have to win Florida. Basically, all he has to do is hold states where, other than Michigan, Democrats have been completely dominant lately. If we lose this election, it will be because we lost at least one blue state, and picked up no red states. As such, we now win unless something abnormal happens. The Presidency is now ours for the taking.

Update: Oh yeah, Republicans still technically control the New York State Senate, for at least another couple of months. I forgot that Bruno's retirement didn't automatically and immediately hand over control. Also, Democrats do control the Michigan State House, while Republicans control the Delaware and Wisconsin State Houses. See it all here. Democrats have two of three (Sate House, State Senate and Governor) in all of the blue states listed above.  

Chris Bowers :: Path To The White House Leads Entirely Through Blue States

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Good analysis (0.00 / 0)
But the GOP controls one house in the NY, WI, and DE state legislatures. The point that Dems are dominant in these states still holds.

Not for long in NY n/t (0.00 / 0)


"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority." -William Jennings Bryan

[ Parent ]
Ohio (4.00 / 1)
One thing this immediately makes me think of is Ohio.  It's obviously shifting our way.  So what's the overall lay of the land and what will it take to move the state solidly into the blue column?

If can move Ohio and Virginia both solidly into the blue column be the time redistricting rolls around, that will be a very big help indeed.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


Battleground VA in '09 (4.00 / 4)
It's a bit tiring, but we have elections every year here in VA -- federal races in even years, state races in odd years. Next year, all three major state executive positions (Gov, Lt. Gov, and AG) are up for election as well as all 100 House of Delegate seats. The state Senate is 21-19 Dem after '07, so, barring a death or retirement, we are guaranteed at least one seat at the table in reapportionment (state Senate seats will only be up for re-election again in '11).

We need to pick up at least 6 Delegate seats in order to re-take that chamber in time for reapportionment, and then hold on to the Governor's mansion in order to control the whole process.

I think both are doable, but it will take a lot of work, especially considering the way the Delegate districts were drawn.

I think we're going to pick up 4 House seats in VA this fall (2, 5, 10, 11), which would put us at 7 - 4 Dems in our federal House delegation. Good redistricting can probably make us competitive for one extra seat, to get us to 8 - 3 (although VA's 4th may even be competitive this year b/c of demographics and the coattails at the top of the ticket). Beyond that, I think we're quite a ways from having Dems competitive in much of the areas of the 1st, 6th, and 7th, but it's worth fighting for.  


[ Parent ]
Thanks For The Info! (4.00 / 1)
Now, that's some more party-building work that Obama ought to be thinking about.

And, of course, I can't imagine that Edwards would be totally wasted helping out there, either.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Especially (0.00 / 0)
a lot of Democratic states are going to lose seats next time around (like NY, PA, IA, MN, NJ, MA, IL, MI, and maybe even CA). So we'll need to make up for some of those lost electoral votes. Places like NV, NC, VA, and of course OH would be good places to look.  

[ Parent ]
Agree we should emphasize Ohio (4.00 / 1)
Part of the problem last time was Ken Blackwell, GOP Sec of State and candidate fpr Governor.  Now we have a Dem Governor and Sec of State, and one thing they are doing is try to get resources to Cleveland and other places where they are needed.  Plus this time we have 4, maybe 5 competitive GOP-held seats, OH 01, 02, 15 and 16, maybe07 and 14.  In 2010 a Senate seat will be up, and we picked the other one up (with Gov) in 2006.  So it is worth the resources, and should pay off this time.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Maybe 6 seats (0.00 / 0)
As I understand it, OH-3 might be competitive too. Ohio Daily Blog has a good rundown.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer, whose editorial board leans Republican, has an interesting editorial today: "Ohio Republicans need to get over being flustered" that says in part, referring to an American Spectator article:

According to Associate Editor W. James Antle III, "the Buckeye State GOP is in the doldrums, and some of its problems may have implications for the national party," even if Ohio goes for Republican presidential candidate John McCain this November.

The subprime mortgage fiasco has devastated Ohio's cities and manufacturing is still declining. The Tom Noe-coingate corruption scandal is still on folks' minds. Lots of people are angry and ready for change.



[ Parent ]
Yeah, I Know The High-Profile, Big Picture Stuff (0.00 / 0)
I was hoping someone could fill us in on the state lege state of play.  Given how many House seats were in play, but how many came up empty, I'm particularly keen to hear more detail at the state lege level.  From afar it would seem to be quite promising.  But that's just from afar.

Are there good turnover prospects?  Strong prospective candidates? As many scandals in the GOP ranks at that level as there are higher up?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Good points (4.00 / 1)
This is Obama's path to victory for sure. However I don't think that means he shouldn't aggressively go after Ohio, Virgina, Missouri and Nevada where he isn't doing quite as well but is targeting hard/ If he wins those states then he wins big time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...


John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


Firewall, yes -- Easy, no . . . (4.00 / 1)
This is the Firewall -- but if comes down to these states, it will not be Easy, nor will Obama have a mandate as President.

But as a base to build on, this is a great map -- build from here to a 300+ EV majority.


Size (of victory) doesn't matter. (0.00 / 0)
Mandates? There are no mandates. There is only power. And power derives from winning. Seriously, has the outcome of any political battle ever been determined by reference to the size of a president's victory? Lord knows it didn't matter for Bush after 2000.

What will matter for Obama's chances to effect real legislative change are: 1) Whether he wins; and 2) the size of his Congressional majority.


[ Parent ]
Size Certainly DOES Matter (4.00 / 3)
The 2000 election was stolen with the media as an accomplice.  So it's not exactly representative.  But even then, Bush was basically dead in the water nine months into his term.  How much of a mandate was that?  He got his mandate from Osama bin Laden.

Ordinarily, you want to shake things up, you go out and win by 20 points.  That shakes things up.

Especially if you have coattails.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
mebbe (0.00 / 0)
You probably know more about the historical precendents for Big Wins than me. But the way I remember 2000 is: Bush got kind of a honeymoon at the beginning of his first term, as all new Presidents do. Then he decided there should be arsenic in drinking water. And generally pushed a pro-corporate agenda that nobody liked. And then his popularity went down. I.e., he showed himself to be a lousy president. (Maybe the popularity of the president at any given time makes a difference.)

As for "having coattails": that certainly is important, but only in so far as it reduces to "the size of the congressional majority."


[ Parent ]
If you win by a landslide (0.00 / 0)
the opposition will be more cautious about attacking you because they know that popular will has been expressed by electing you. And therefore if you go against the landslide winner, you are in effect going against popular will and your own constituents, who will then potentially have a reason to run you out of office. This is especially the case if your landslide was due to a specific issue, like UHC.

[ Parent ]
Wisconsin (0.00 / 0)
>In every state except Michigan and Pennsylvania, Democrats control both branches of the state legislature.

Wrong.  The Wisconsin House of Representatives is controlled by the GOP - though the betting is it won't be after November.


One more correction (0.00 / 0)
The Michigan congressional delegation is split 9R - 6D not 9R to 8D.  

I'm including the Senate (n/t) (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I'm including the Senate (n/t) (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Take away New Mexico and add Arkansas? (0.00 / 0)
If Wes Clark is Veep.

Republicans still control NM's congressional delegation (0.00 / 0)
2-1 Republican in the House, and 1-1 in the Senate. Of course, there's a decent chance that it'll be 100% Democratic in the next Congress.

273? (0.00 / 0)
If 273 EVs is all Obama can get against a weak, weak, WEAK candidate like McCain, then he screwed up royally somewhere along the way. I mean, cripes, McCain can't even hit 50% in his home state according to Rasmussen. The Democrats are playing against the Republicans' JV squad this cycle. They better be able to run up the score or it portends for a bad four years ahead.

You may want to use... (4.00 / 1)
the 2008 table instead of the 2007 table of state legislatures, as the Virginia and Mississippi state senates are now under Democratic control.  And since then, New Jersey's state house has gone slightly more Republican, and both of Louisiana's houses lost Democrats, though Democrats still control those houses.  But it looks quite tenuous down in Louisiana.

The problem is (0.00 / 0)
after the 2010 reapportionment, those states won't be an electoral majority anymore.

Also, even in this election, running for 273 EVs leaves basically no margin for error. I'm glad that Obama is contesting a lot more EVs than this.


SOS? (0.00 / 0)
how about secretaries of state?  history has proven they can move the numbers by a couple of percent if they are abusive enough...

blackwell and harris are out of the picture thank god.  

Can kurt browning in FL make mcsame into a president the way harris did with bush?  


Don't forget down ticket races (0.00 / 0)
It looks like Obama has a solid base to build from.    However, I still want to see vigorous efforts in KY, NC, AK and MS where there will be good chances to pick up Senate seats.    He will have big coat tales - primarily due to his ability to attract new voters.      

electoral vote analysis (0.00 / 0)
FYI: a new website that analyzes the probability of winning the election and expected electoral vote distribution based on recent poll data.

 http://election-projection.net/

It also includes an analysis called "Battle Rank" of the states most likely to change the outcome.  All things being equal (and of course they never are), these are the states where it is most important to focus resources.  For more information, see http://election-projection.net...


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search