There are a lot of interesting aspects to John Helleman’s big piece on the Obama campaign. I want to focus on one of them. Let me throw out a blockquote to get us started.
Back in December, [Obama Campaign Manager, Jim] Messina laid out publicly the ways that advantage gives Obama an upper hand when it comes to the Electoral College: four mathematical scenarios by which he could get to 270 while underperforming 2008. (A fifth scenario involved him expanding the playing field, about which more in a moment.) The safe presumption underlying each is that Obama holds the nineteen states plus the District of Columbia that John Kerry won in 2004—which, recall, did not include Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, or Virginia, all of which Obama carried in 2008, giving the president a base of 246 electoral votes. There’s the western path: Obama holds Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa for a total of 272. There’s the midwestern path: Obama holds Ohio and Iowa (270). There’s the southern path: Obama holds North Carolina and Virginia (274). And there’s the Florida path, in which Obama simply again takes the Sunshine State (275).
I ask Messina if all four avenues are still open. “Absolutely,” he replies.
I apologize if that just made your eyes glaze over…I didn’t write it. What I want to do here is to kind of step back from the current election season and take more of a bird’s-eye view of national politics. We are all familiar with the story of the 2000 election, where Al Gore won the popular vote and was stymied by a variety of factors in Florida (e.g., voter roll purges, bad ballot design in Palm Beach County, and the intervention of the Supreme Court to halt a recount). The 2004 election reprised some of these same problems, notably in Ohio. What people probably don’t focus on enough is how close Kerry came to winning the election even while losing the popular vote by a far larger margin than Bush had lost it four years earlier. Bush won (or stole) two national elections but he did it with the bare minimum of Electoral College votes (271 votes in 2000, 286 votes in 2004). If Kerry had won Ohio, he would have been president.
Mitt Romney is looking at a similar map. There’s a path to victory for him, to be sure, but it’s a path that can do no more than just barely get him over the hump. The Republicans are on the cusp of losing viability as a national party. To be more specific, they cannot afford much more slippage or they may not have a plausible case to make that they can win the presidency. There are signs, yet to be confirmed, that a few former swing states are moving out of their reach. Michigan and Pennsylvania look that way.
Almost all of Romney’s 270 scenarios revolve around a strategy outlined by Karl Rove and dubbed “3-2-1,” in which the GOP reclaims three of the traditionally red states snatched away by Obama (Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia), wins the two perennial mega swing states (Florida and Ohio), and then snags one more from among those up for grabs.
A senior Obama campaign official scoffs at the notion that Romney could pull off such a feat. “To get there,” he says, “they’ve got to take away either Pennsylvania or Michigan, and they can’t do either one of them. Michigan is a motherfucking joke, to think they can do that, because of what he’s done on the auto stuff. And in Pennsylvania, we have a 900,000-person registration advantage. John Kerry had 250,000; we had 900,000 more Democrats than Republicans on the first day.”
The Republicans’ weakness with Latino voters is pushing New Mexico out of the swing state category and is threatening to do the same in Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia. Personally, I think Obama’s mixed-race heritage is giving the Republicans a false sense of confidence. If Obama were white, I don’t think any of the 2008 swing-states other than Indiana would be in play. And his national numbers would look much better. We can see this in the Obama campaign’s disdain for national polling.
[Jim Messina] earned a reputation as a very nice guy who would merrily club you with a truncheon if you crossed him. In addition to not caring about Romney’s candidate skills, he doesn’t give a whit about national polling, in which Obama’s numbers are dragged down by his horrific performance in the Deep South and Appalachia—but is obsessed with the president’s standing in the battleground states, where Obama has “a distinct advantage,” he says, “and everybody, including Mitt Romney, knows it.”
Another thing ‘everyone knows’ is that the president is more unpopular in Appalachia and the Deep South because of his complexion. This keeps his overall approval numbers down. But it masks Republican weakness. Put a white Democrat like, say, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia on the top of the ticket, and suddenly the Democrats’ numbers in Appalachia and the Deep South go up quite a bit, causing their national numbers to go up, and putting more swing states out of play.
Any president who had to run for reelection in a period of high unemployment would face a serious challenge. But no one is suggesting that Obama could possibly fare worse than John Kerry, barring unforeseen events. The Democrats seem to have consolidated a steady bloc of support that is just shy of what is needed to win the presidency. I think this is precisely why the Republicans are acting so aggressively to suppress the vote. You should think of them as like a person who is clinging to a demographic ledge by their fingernails. I think this will be the last presidential election they could potentially win for a little while.
Indeed, if you factor in New Mexico, which the president nabbed in 2008 and is considered safe this time, and Virginia, which has a sizable Latino population, a relatively strong economy, and polls consistently showing Obama ahead, he can hit 270 without winning Iowa, Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, or North Carolina.
This is an amazing fact—and one that throws into stark relief the converse difficulties Romney will have in reaching the magic number.
We need to win this election. If we do, we’ll win the next one and the next one after that. We’ll roll back this insanity that has infected our body politic. The GOP will have to moderate or be consigned to the kind of permanent minority they suffered on a congressional level for most of the 20th-Century.
“The growth of those segments of the electorate and the president’s strength with them have his team brimming with confidence that demographics will trump economics in November–and in the process create a template for Democratic dominance at the presidential level for years to come.”
If only this dominance had shown itself during the midterms.
Midterms are always low turnout affairs and we are always at a disadvantage.
What are the chances that Obama’s campaign machine can be put to effective use in ‘014? They won’t have anything else to do, right?
Instead of “campaign machine” I probably should have said “GOTV machine.”
Sorry to be the bearer of a bucket of cold water, but if Obama wins this fall, expect Republicans to win seats in the ’14 congressional elections. (An off-year election six years into a presidency combines all the disadvantages of incumbency with none of the advantages.)
We don’t have to automatically cede those gains to them, though. BHO has so much organizational firepower, it seems to me that not using it in the midterms means throwing away a potentially huge advantage, especially if the key difference is turnout due to voter enthusiasm. Even if BHO suffers the disadvantages of incumbency he can still work hard to fire up his supporters and boost turnout.
I assume there are good reasons against it, but you don’t see the GOP leadership sitting out the midterms.
FWIW, I’ll be out there in 2014 working with my OFA team to GOTV for our congressional, state and local candidates. Even if there’s not a lot of hope of denying a seat to a teabagger, I want them to have to pay dearly for it.
Thanks for the reply. I agree there’s no reason for Obama (assuming he’s re-elected) and the Democratic leadership (whoever it is) to “sit out” the 2014 elections. And based on past experience (e.g., 1974, 1986, 2006) I don’t expect they will.
I’m just noting that, for whatever mix of reasons, 6 years into a presidency, the incumbent’s party tends to lose seats in Congress. Which makes Booman’s point about the importance of winning this fall even more urgent.
Re-elect Obama this fall, and even if 2014 is a Republican year, he’ll be able to blunt the worst of their legislative offensive. Either way, by 2016, about 16 million new young voters will be eligible. If roughly half of them vote, that’s 8 million new voters who (if they vote like their older brothers and sisters are voting) will provide a net gain nationally of somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.6 – 2 million votes for the Democratic presidential candidate.
Gingrich’s failure to exploit the six-year itch in ’98 cost him his speakership, and his job.
It’s hard to screw it up, and he managed.
Newt: truly a world-historical figure.
On your midterm point, as long as Fox is out there stirring up the the right’s base, the midterms will always be in their reach. Dems simply have no messaging machine comparable to the right’s fearmongering machine, and Dems are motivated by other things – like puppies, kittens, pretty clouds, decency, fairness, and good governance. I saw polling out of Massachusetts the other day with a majority of dems saying it would be a good thing to have one Dem and one repub Senator. In this scorched earth climate, dems still unreasonably trying to be reasonable. It is our Achille’s Heel.
It’s not just Fox and company. Republican voters are older, whiter, more affluent and more conservative. All four characteristics tend to correlate with higher and more regular voting percentages than the population as a whole.
I hope this is true. I’ve felt pretty down about the political situation in this country since before I could vote. Though I saw an interesting talk about this today that makes me think we’re (as a society) maybe starting to head in a new direction. (I’d post a diary about it but since I post extremely infrequently I don’t have enough karma (or whatever the term is) to make a diary post (damn spammers).
I made a post over at my personal blog instead.
Random Thought: Software as a precipitate; Management as catalyst
I’ve been thinking about government as a form of management in the context of how it affects society. Government tries to act as a catalyst (though policy) on the way in which society functions. And all of this railing against regulation is madness… since that is the mechanism through with government functions. We deregulated banking and then the chemical reaction got away from society and wiped people out.
Ben
I play around with 270 to win all the time. I think Willard can get Indiana and North Carolina. I go over – with about as much neutrality as I can muster, in trying to figure out a scenario – even with the ID Laws in place – where the GOP flips Ohio, PA, and the Midwest. See, the thing is, you can only steal elections if it’s close. if the margins aren’t close, you can’t.
This. Here’s another scenario: Mitt flips IA, IN, OH, NC, NH and FL.
He still loses 275-263.
(http://www.270towin.com/)
Obama’s appeal to Latinos is complicated by the DHS and DOJ program of increased deportations over Obama’s term of office. There is a debate that is between “what he says” and “what he does” that is going on in the Latino community — at least in Chicago. It’s not unlike the similar debate among some progressive Democrats.
The demographics are definitely against the Republicans, but President Obama’s team has not moved strongly to swing them toward the Democrats. There’s too much dependence on a “where’re ya gonna go” strategy and some folks might just sit it out.
What else could the Republicans do? In the face of a long term demographic trend that favors Dems, they can’t keep their two main coalitions (moderate and TPers) together without extreme measures.
I think this is also the reason the Repubs are willing to go overboard on tactics such as the debt ceiling game of chicken or the hold on votes for appointments.
It’s an extension of the Gingrich strategy of the 90s. Make government fail in order to stake a claim as the party that will rescue the country from incompetent government, make otherwise reasonable people cynical and apathetic about voting. “Burn the government in order to save it” (for themselves).
If the dems win big they need to make the first item on their agenda the end of congressional obstruction. The people would have elected a representative majority to enact and enforce laws to provide for the public welfare. They expect it to do so.
Unless the DOJ acts quickly (like yesterday), the ongoing voter purge in Florida will deliver the state to Romney — remember what happened in 2000.
In which case, screw fixing the Electoral College.
The filibuster, on the other hand…
All well and good but as wvng says, “Dems simply have no messaging machine comparable to the right’s fear-mongering machine…”
Be prepared for a messaging blitz the like of which the world has never seen. The GOP has access to massive amounts of money and they will spend it on a massive, fraudulent, and ugly media campaign. Remember how Romney won his “presumptive nominee” status. We need to open up our wallets, commit to the campaign and fight like hell.