Can Obama lose Appalachia and win the Presidency?

It's a question that's been on my mind for over a month.  Can Obama just cede all of Appalachia and still pull off a victory?  He ran so weak there in the primaries, as Jay Cost has documented with the first map above.  Appalachia was an ocean of blue--blue for Hillary Clinton.  

What if Obama loses all of Appalachia in the general election?  That is to say, every state with a portion of the region in it, within reason (i.e., excluding NY and Maryland).  This would include the swing states of Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania.  What if McCain wins all three of these, West Virginia, and the southern states he'll win anyway?

This scenario, based on the polling we have today, would give McCain 243 and Obama 219 electoral votes.  There would be 7 swing states left outstanding.  Obama could win 6 out of the 7 and still lose--if McCain won Florida.  So McCain would be pretty close to winning in this scenario; he'd only have to win Florida to clinch it.  Or he could lose Florida, but still win Indiana (Bush won in 04), Nevada (Bush won in 04), Colorado (Bush won in 04), and New Hampshire (Bush lost in 04 by a paltry 9,000 votes).  If McCain picked off Minnesota, where the race has tightened over the summer and is currently tied, and the Dems in the state might be dragged down by Al Franken's Senate candidacy, then he's in even better shape because he could then win with just Indiana and Colorado, or Indiana, New Hampshire, and Nevada.  

Hillary Clinton was a tougher candidate for electoral college reasons.  But so much can change.  I still think Obama could win in a blowout.  McCain cannot win in a blowout.  But I would not be surprised with Obama wining in a blowout.  He is a realigning candidate, which we might see in 2012 even more than now.  But now I'm getting way ahead of myself.  

Obama in WVA?

The front-page story in the Wheeling Intelligencer today is about how great Obama is doing with fundraising in West Virginia--more than double McCain's.

Obama lost to Hillary 67-26 on May 13th. What a drubbing! The article says Hillary outspent him 3-1 in the state, but that's a misprint. Obama massively outspent Hillary and still got creamed.

Can Obama win WVA? A couple polls show him narrowing the gap. In February he was down 53-35 to McCain in a SurveyUSA poll, and a Rasmussen poll a month ago showed it to be 45-37.

WVA is not on my list of swing states. It has five electoral votes, and went for Bush 56-43 in 2004, and also in 2000, 53-46. It's an uphill climb for Obama.

McCain won't win a blowout

McCain is losing Mark McKinnon. He had pledged to leave McCain's campaign if Obama was the Dem nominee. I speculated in February that it might be because McKinnon saw McCain's campaign as a sinking ship that might be able to beat Hillary, but not Obama. Who knows the real reason.

But is Obama the strongest nominee? I've been arguing that Hillary would have an easier time in the general because of her strength in Appalachia. Hillary of course won Kentucky this past week 65-30. Obama won Oregon, 59-41, and passed the majority mark for pledged delegates (that was the headline). The people in Appalachia really don't like like Obama. But voters elsewhere really don't like Hillary. One is tempted to say that the Democratic contest is one between which candidate you dislike the most.

But that's actually not true. A lot of people had negative impressions of Hillary, which along with her October 2002 Iraq vote gave Barack an opening. But both candidates were very strong with very committed supporters who prefer their candidate. And prefer does not mean "hate the other guy/gal."

It might seem like that with the results in Appalachia going against Obama, but as I've emphasized before, those were primary election results, and you can't generalize from them to November. The Politico today has an article on a McCain "blowout" being contemplated by Republicans. It's based on current polling. But of course you can't generalize from polling in May to November. Plus, it's all based on the idea that McCain is stronger than the Republican party, which everyone agrees is in shambles.

In short, I think that Obama is a very strong general election candidate. There is certainly an argument to be made that Hillary is stronger, and I've made it, but that is all based on the leap from primary results to general election results, which is actually a tenuous one. Though it certainly does seem likely that Hillary would have a better chance of winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, this doesn't mean that Obama can't win them. You just can't generalize that. That is not what the primary results mean.

If the primary results in Appalachia meant, "I don't like Obama and won't vote for him in the general," then that would be one thing. But they don't mean that, they mean that between him and Hillary Democratic voters preferred Hillary. But that is meaningless for a general election against McCain with all voters. It's two completely different situations.

The exit poll results reveal otherwise: 41.7% of Democratic voters in the Kentucky primary said they would not vote for Obama in November, and 39.43% of Democratic voters in the West Virginia primary said the same. That reveals a strong level of dislike. However, it's dislike in the current context of a heated primary race. Things will be very different in November, as the sources in the Politico's story admit.

In a heated primary race I'll say that I won't vote for the other guy/gal in the general. But the general election has not be framed yet. When McCain is in the hot seat rather than the Democratic candidates, it'll be another story. That is to say, when it's a contest between a Republican and a Democrat, it's a completely different animal.

And memories are short. What we have here is precisely the situation McCain himself was in a year ago. In the summer of '07 McCain's campaign tanked, and everyone was seeing the negatives with it--trying to win over Republican voters with issue-positions they disagree with. As with Obama now--his negatives with Appalachian voters resound strongly. But he has time to deal with them, like McCain did. And he doesn't have to beat Hillary Clinton in the general, he has to beat John McCain. The comparison's the important thing. McCain has an edge on Obama that he wouldn't have on Hillary, but that's an edge now, not an edge in November.

The NYT reports of dissatisfaction of Republicans with the disorder of McCain's campaign. It certainly seems like it's falling apart at the seams, with lots of advisers leaving. But this could be a strategic housecleaning, as the Washington Times points out.

Hillary a strong general election candidate, Obama a realigning candidate

First of all, the stunning special election in Mississippi's 1st district. In the last two elections the Republican won with over 70% of the vote, and Bush won 59% in 2000 and 62% in 2004. But yesterday the Democrat won by 8 points. DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen said this: "For the first time in more than 30 years the Democratic Party has picked up three Republican seats in special elections in one cycle. The NRCC broke the bank and spent nearly 20 percent of their cash on hand on a ruby red district."

Now to the blowout in West Virginia. It's clear that Hillary is the strongest general election candidate. And here's why--she wins Appalachia. The second picture above show's Hillary's wins in dark blue (from Jay Cost who got it from Sean Oxendine). You can mentally fill in the white West Virginia cutout with a lot more dark blue.

The Democratic candidate needs to win these states. The swing states are pictured in the top map. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia are in Appalachia. If Hillary wins these states and Arkansas, then all she has to win is New Hampshire or Wisconsin (both of which John Kerry won in 2004), to be elected president. The path to the presidency is pretty clear for Hillary if she wins Arkansas and Appalachia.

Without Appalachia it's difficult. Kerry came 19 electoral votes short. Adding to what he won without Appalachia (and Arkansas) would mean either winning Florida (Kerry lost by 5%) or a combination of Iowa (7 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 1%), Missouri (11 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 7%), Colorado (9 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 5%), Nevada (5 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 3%), or New Mexico (5 electoral votes, Kerry lost be 1%).

This means, hold all the states that Kerry won, and then go on and win the three states in which Kerry got close (Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada), or get the bigger but tougher states Missouri or Colorado. That's definitely more of an uphill battle if you are Obama. Hillary's path to the presidency is much, much easier.

Yet Obama's probably going to be the nominee. Which might not be such a bad thing for Democrats long-term. New voters coming into the fold is always a plus, and young people are identifying with Obama. He did the better with them than any other demographic group last night in WVA (save those with "some postgraduate study"). Obama's the candidate of the future, Clinton the candidate of the past. Obama's the candidate of inspiration, Clinton's the candidate of short-term political calculations. At least that's the image.

There's only one answer for Obama: add Jim Webb to the ticket.

Obama looks like an elitist snob

Right now, all the news stories are on Clinton's side. An AP poll out today has Hillary with a comfortable lead over McCain, while Obama ties him. SC Gov Mike Easley is endorsing Hillary. Obama has to endure all the Pastor Wright coverage.

Jay Cost has a wonderful post on Obama's problems in Appalachia. This is troubling for Obama-backers, because the Democrats need to win these states (and their electoral votes): Ohio (20), PA (21), West Virginia (5), Arkansas (6), and Missouri (11). John Kerry won only PA, and fell 19 electoral votes shy of taking the White House. Ohio would have done it for him. But so would have a combination of the other three: Missouri (where he lost by 7%), Arkansas (where he lost by 9%), and West Virginia (13%). Al Gore, who also won PA, would have won with any one of those states.

Obama has a big culture problem. He's getting hammered right now as an elitist snob. The article I cited yesterday also said this: "Obama is a Harvard-trained lawyer. Clinton went to Yale. Both pitch their economic message to middle America, but it’s often Obama who attracts college-educated, affluent voters and Clinton who pulls the working class." The same article had a picture of Obama playing hoops. This was what I suggested he do a little while back.

It's a clubby ivy-league elite that runs this country, and it's in the Appalachian culture trait, derived from their Scotch-Irish political culture, to be at odds with this Eastern establishment. To win these voters you need to get off your high horse and at least look like you are one of the people. If Hillary Clinton wins this primary election, she will have an enormous advantage in the general election, because she will automatically appeal to this group. She's their candidate; they voted her candidacy to victory.

This is a plus that was not at all obvious for Hillary going into this race. If she had sweeped to victory, she would not be as strong of a general election candidate as she might be if she eaks this thing out. She'll have a built-in appeal to just the group she needs to win in the general, which is precisely the group with which she seems like an awkward NY liberal.

Obama has not learned the Bush lesson. The Bush lesson is that you move to Texas, buy a ranch, acquire a Texas accent, and strain every nerve to appear as one of the people. Then everybody forgets your uber-privileged blue-blood background. Obama didn't have anything handed to him, so he doesn't see the issue with elitism. But as Karl Rove said in Newsweek: "It's not where you start in life, it's where you end up."

Democrat advantage in the general

On Meet the Press Sunday, Howard Dean stated that he wanted the nomination battle ended by June. He stated that it takes about 3 months to stitch things back together. July-August-September, that's what the Dems need to come into the November election unified against the Republicans. "The only thing that's going to beat us is if we aren't unified," Dean said. That argument is persuasive--this is the Dem's year, but they'll be seriously hurt if this goes to the convention at the end of August. The reason the convention is so late is to jigger with campaign-finance rules that cut off fundraising when the candidate is officially nominated (if the party accepts the $70 million government handout, and both parties do). This could come back to haunt the Dems if it does go to the convention. Then McCain has a fighting chance. The Dems need time to shine the bright spotlight on McCain. McCain will wilt in that light. No doubts there. He's got a super-long record, and he will be hit hard by the Dems. But they need time. I had a fascinating conversation with a friend who is politically attuned this weekend, and he said that the key for the Dems in the general is to look like the nice guy/gal. If they can portray McCain as mean, then it's all over for McCain.

So how's the campaign looking? "It's essentially pretty much a tie" right now, Dean said. The superdelegates want to wait things out. They are simply in no position to tell Hillary to leave the race.

Now that Hillary's security-blanket Mark Penn finally got the ax, Bill Clinton is serving as Hillary's de facto chief strategist.

Only primaries are left. So Obama's advantage in caucuses is neutralized.

Fox News: "All seven remaining states on the primary calendar fall below the U.S. average for household income. The average in West Virginia is the second lowest in the country."

Obama is still likely to win if it comes down to superdelegates, according to a statistical model. But you don't need a statistical model, but just common sense: the superdelegates simply don't want to disillusion the new voters Obama appeals to, as well as black voters. So the lower-classes that are voting for Clinton will get the shaft. But they will come back and vote for the Democrat, if the Dems can make the case that McCain is just more of the same. The Dems have a great advantage in the general in that they can just attack a very unpopular president, with a bad economy and an unpopular war, which the Republican is identified with. Bush did this in 2000, attacking Clinton, even when Clinton was all that unpopular and the economy was better and Gore distanced himself from Clinton. The Dems will have a *much* easier time doing it with McCain.