Professor Schaff posts on a current analysis of the electoral college, which appears to favor McCain over Obama. This will please Republicans given to wishful thinking. Something else that will please them is John Judis' article in The New Republic.
To win in November, a Democratic presidential candidate has to carry most of the industrial heartland states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Missouri. That becomes even more imperative if a Democrat can't carry Florida--and because of his relative weakness in South Florida, Obama is unlikely to do so against McCain. Ruy Teixeira and I have calculated that in the heartland states, a Democratic presidential candidate has to win from 45 to 48 percent of the white working class vote. In some states, like West Virginia and Kentucky, the percentage is well over a majority.
Some Democrats insist that Obama need not worry about these states because he will be able to make up for a defeat in Ohio or even Pennsylvania with a victory in Virginia or Colorado. But in Virginia, McCain will be able to draw upon coastal suburbanites closely tied to the military. These voters backed Democrats like Chuck Robb and Jim Webb, who are both veterans, but they may not go for Obama. And in the Southwest, McCain will be able to challenge Obama among Hispanics. So to win in November, Obama will have to win almost all of these heartland states. Which is a problem, because even before he uttered his infamous words about these voters "clinging" to guns, religion, abortion, and fears about free trade, Obama looked vulnerable in the region.
It is a standard product warning on any electoral analysis done before the summer conventions that all of this may change at any moment. Political analysts are very prone to predicting the results of previous elections instead of the one they are trying to game. But it's not clear that everything has changed in recent years, and past trends do show some ominous signs for Obama.
Like or not, Obama is certainly a very liberal candidate coming out of a very radical social environment. It is frequently said that he presents himself as a moderate, but I don't think that is true. Up until now he has presented himself as a change agent, a breath of fresh air. That has worked very well against a Clinton, of whom we have all see plenty. It would work equally well against George W., if he were running for a third term. But of course he ain't because he cain't.
John Kerry had a shot against George W. in 2004 largely because of his war record. That explains his bouncing up to the stage and reporting for duty. But Kerry's war record had a flip side with a lot of long hair rock and roll on it. Being anti-war is perfectly respectable, but it's not the same thing as being for something, and Kerry could never tell us what he was for. Kerry couldn't win Ohio, or Florida, and so he couldn't win.
Obama can't even carry a majority of the Democrats in those two states or, one expects, in Pennsylvania. Can he carry them against McCain, a war hero with no baggage? Yes, if McCain collapses. If his age or something else becomes a crippling issue, then Obama wins. If McCain is as strong or stronger in November than he is now, if he continues to appeal to independents, I am not sure how Obama wins.
Recent Comments