|
[NOTE: Bugs in Soapblox have prevented me from publishing this in its original form earlier this morning. Now with JPEGs in place of HTML tables.... ]
Surprise! Surprise! The conventional wisdom around BOTH Democratic candidates is wrong.
Following up on Chris's post earlier this week, "New General Election Maps From Survey USA", here are a couple of maps visually displaying his breakdown into tiers, (and another pair of maps with furhter analysis in Part 2), with accompanying tables. The big winner is.... Tom Schaller (see Whistling Past Dixie).
Schaller's non-Southern Strategy of isolating the GOP as an extremist regional party of the South is significantly furthered by Barack Obama, despite Obama's Kumbayah rhetoric to the contrary. And this analysis will show just how much stronger this approach is than trying to win back the South as our top priority.
This is the one thing that's immediately evident--much more than with the simple who-wins-where maps. It's not just that Obama's strengths alone reflect Tom Shaller's Non-Southern strategy. It's a comparative thing: Clinton probably won't lose Oregon and Washington--those only lean McCain--but she'll have to fight for them, even as Obama continues the process of putting them away, while giving us a good shot at Nevada and beginning the process of solidifying New Mexico and Colorado. Obama is going with the natural flow that Schaller has laid out. In this sense, his strength is not that he's exceptional, but that his exceptional appeal is channelled in the normal direction for the Democratic Party to grow.
Clinton vs. McCain
Obama vs. McCain
OTOH, Clinton is clearly stronger in the South, winning two states to Obama's one, while putting Tennessee in play, just as he does North Carolina. Most tellingly, however, is how many Southern states are solid for McCain vs. Obama--TEN!--as opposed for McCain vs. Clinton--just one!
This result is particularly ironic, given (a) Obama's earlier claim that he could win Southern states that Clinton couldn't by increasing Southern black turnout and (b) the CW that Southern man are particularly hostile to Hillary Clinton, so she's death to the party in the South.
On the flip, tables to go with these maps. AND, making the case even strong, maps and tables showing a comparison of Dem gains--and losses from 2004, which makes the pattern even stronger. |
| Here are the tables to go with the maps above. First, with the states in alphabetical order, then in descending order of Democratic margins, and finally in descending order of Democratic margins within regions.
Sorting by Dem margin, we readily see that Clinton has margins of 10 or more in 9 states, compared to 14 for McCain. And for margins of 6 or more, McCain's lead explodes to 22-12.
Again, sorting by Dem margin, we Obama has margins of 10 or more in 12 states, compared to 13 for McCain. But for margins of 6 or more, Obama beats McCain 19 to 17.
Sorting within the regions makes it easier to compare how relative strengths differ geographically. The only region Clinton dominates is the Northeast, 5-0 in states with 10-point margins or more. McCain takes the Midwest 4-2, the South 4-1, and the West 6-1. Although Clinton beats McCain under this scenario, we are back to being a regional party of the Northeast, plus California, in terms of where our base is.
With Obama, the story is radically different. He sweeps the Midwest, 3-0, while doing even better than Clinton in the Northeast, 6-0, compared to her 5-0. He's weaker in the South, where McCain crushes him 9-0. But he plays to a near standstill in the West, 3-4. This represents real progress toward the goal Schaller lays out of isolating the GOP as a regional party of the South.
These tables alone are enough to show that Obama is well on his way to delivering real momentum in the direction of isolating the GOP in the South, which Tom Shaller calls for in Whistling Past Dixie. This is, quite naturally, complicated considerably by Obama's stance of reaching out to these very same monsters. (Sorry, Samantha!)
But the picture gets even clearer, if we shift out focus....
Margin Shifts--Clinton vs. McCain
We get an even clearer picture of the long-term trends the two candidates portend by focusing on how they compare to 2004. On the regional level, what we find only further reinforces what we've already seen.
Margin Shifts--Obama vs. McCain
In addition to what we've seen above the fold, we see that Obama makes heavy gains in virtually all the plains and mountain states that remain red--just the sort of trend that's needed to help the state parties, so they in turn can help national candidates in elections to come. From this perspective, his lead in North Dakota, rather than just being a fluke, is more of a leading indicator of where the whole region may be headed, if we play our cards right.
Of course, it's my thesis that this is a realigning election, the downside of which is that places we don't flip this time around may be harder for us in the future, just as it should be easier to hold those that we do flip. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, of course. Much depends on how we govern, and this is where Schaller's theory--to isolate the GOP as a georgraphically insular, isolated party--comes into its own, provided, of course, that it's actually followed. While most of Obama's rhetoric speaks against his following of Schaller's advice, many supporters think things will play out differently, once it's clearly established that his bipartisan efforts have been rebuffed. We shall see if we shall see.
Here are the tables, sorted in order of Dem margin gains since 2004, first nationwide, then by region. Clinton loses 10 or more points since 2004 in just one state: Vermont. In contrast, she picks up 10 or more points in 12 states.
Obama loses ten points or more in two states, compared to 2004, twice what Clinton does. But he picks up ten points or more in a whopping 22 states!
And, again, sorting within regions makes it easier to see the goegraphic trends.
Clinton cleans up in the South, posting gains of ten points or more in 10 of 15 Southern states. Her only other 10-point-or-more gains come in two Midwest states. She actually loses ground in the Northeast-coming this close to losing two states, not just one.
In 9 of 11 Midwest states, Obama picks up 10 points or more compared to 2004. In the West, it's 7 out of 13. The Northeast-already a Democratic stronghold, is pretty much a wash, with two big gains and two big losses. Though one of the loses is less than ten, it moves Pennsylvania from a win to a loss. In the South, he's 3-1.
A final thought: Clinton's strength in the South can readily be countered by McCain choosing Huckabee as his running mate. But there's no such obvious counter for Obama's non-Southern strength, and Huckabee gives McCain almost nothing in terms of regional help. This serves as another reinforcement for Schaller's strategic thesis, showing a distinct short-term edge for the same candidate who does better in furthering his long-term goal as well.
Naturally, this is just an early set of polls. But the pattern is compelling, and mode of analysis used should prove useful as the campaign continues.
|
© OpenLeft 2007-2008, Powered by 