I like Tom Schaller and admire his work but I don’t understand why he submitted such a light piece of analytical work to the New York Times. Schaller argues that Obama has no chance to win in North Carolina, Georgia, or Mississippi. He might be right, but all he uses to justify his opinion are demographics and history. What little analysis he offers he reserves for Mississippi.
Mississippi, the state with the nation’s highest percentage of African-Americans in its population, illustrates how difficult Mr. Obama’s task will be in the South. Four years ago, President Bush beat John Kerry there by 20 points. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Mr. Obama could increase black turnout in Mississippi to 39 percent of the statewide electorate, up from 34 percent in 2004, according to exit polls. And let’s assume that Mr. Obama will win 95 percent of those voters, up from the 90 percent who voted for Mr. Kerry four years ago.
If that happened, the black vote would yield Mr. Obama 37 percent of Mississippi’s statewide votes. To get the last 13 percent he needs for a majority, Mr. Obama would need to persuade a mere 21 percent of white voters in Mississippi to support him. Sounds easy, right?
But only 14 percent of white voters in the state supported Mr. Kerry. Mr. Obama would need to increase that number by 7 percentage points — a 50 percent increase. Mr. Obama struggled to attract white Democrats in states like Ohio and South Dakota. It strains credulity to believe that he will attract three white voters in Mississippi for every two that Mr. Kerry did.
The 2004 results in Mississippi were a straight up 60-40 advantage for George W. Bush. The third party candidates combined failed to gain one percent of the vote. Schaller doesn’t speculate about the potential impact of third-party candidates in this year’s election. The Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, is a southerner who might peel a few percentage points off John McCain’s edge. Here are some other factors that Schaller ignores.
Most obviously, there is current polling in the state. The latest Rasmussen poll shows McCain up by a mere 50-44. And the FiveThirtyEight projection has McCain leading by 53-44.
Schaller doesn’t consider any benefit that Obama may have derived from the organization he did in the state during the primary. He doesn’t discuss the competitive senate race between Roger Wicker and former governor Ronnie Musgrove. He doesn’t even acknowledge the recent upset in Mississippi’s First District special election, where a Democrat won carrying several counties that Bush carried with over 70% of the vote. Schaller doesn’t mention Bush’s 39% approval rating in the state, nor does he mention the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the GOP brand in the state.
Schaller’s analysis takes no account of Obama’s superior political skills that far outrun what John Kerry had to offer. And, very tellingly, Schaller doesn’t acknowledge that John Kerry made zero effort in Mississippi, while Obama plans to ask the people for their votes. In particular, as today’s New York Times reports, Obama has an aggressive outreach program to evangelical Christians.
Schaller also fails to mention John McCain’s weaknesses. McCain is not a southerner and does not connect easily with the South’s religious culture. He’s called some leading evangelicals ‘agents of intolerance’ in the past, and has rebuked other evangelical leaders in this election cycle. Polls show that people are concerned about his age and that he will not represent a significant change from Bush’s policies. He has less money to spend, and he isn’t organized in Mississippi, where the primary came long after he had secured the nomination.
There are many factors that differentiate 2004 from 2008, especially in a state like Mississippi that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Schaller only acknowledges the possibility of increased black turnout as significant game changer.
His analysis of North Carolina and Georgia is short and to the point.
Mr. Obama can write off Georgia and North Carolina for the same reasons that Mississippi is beyond his reach — although the math in those two states is slightly less daunting.
The last two polls out of North Carolina have Obama down by 2 and 4 points, respectively…both within the margin of error of the poll. Neither of them assume that Obama will get 95% of the black vote, as Schaller assumes in Mississippi. Schaller’s analysis is so thin that he’s really just begging the question. As for Georgia, it’s too early to tell how Bob Barr will do there, but it is his homestate.
I’m not saying that Obama will win any southern states for certain. But he has an excellent chance to win Virginia and North Carolina. And I think Obama can compete in Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi. At the very least, readers of the New York Times deserve a more robust analysis than that provided by Schaller.
