For Now, Barack Obama Is Not Another John Kerry

posted by Josh Goodman

For the last few weeks, Democrats, with their unique brand of optimism, have been suffering from a severe case of "Here we go again."

The sentiment: Why is Barack Obama blowing it? Why isn't he winning by more? Is he another John Kerry?

The answer to that last question is "no" -- or at least "not yet." Just look at the polling.

Pollster.com aggregates state polling data in all 50 state to come up with an estimate of where the Electoral College stands. The details of their methodology are here. What I've done is compare those numbers to the 2004 results -- meaning compare Obama to Kerry.

So, for example, if George W. Bush won a state 50% to 48% in 2004 and now Obama leads John McCain 47% to 44% in that state, Obama would be running ahead of John Kerry by 5 percentage points (he turned a 2-point deficit into a 3-point advantage). A few general points, before I get to the state-by-state results:

-The overall picture is very favorable for Obama. McCain is only running ahead of Bush's 2004 result in four states. Obama is doing at least 2.46 percentage points better than Kerry in 41 states. In 2004, 2.46 was Bush's margin of victory in the national popular vote.

Another way of thinking about this: If you take the 50 pollster.com figures and then weight them according to the populations of the states (a very crude way of extrapolating a national popular vote forecast from state polling), you end up with Obama 46.4%, McCain 41.6%. In other words, state polling is consistent with the recent Time, AP-Ipsos, and CBS polls that had Obama up by 5-6 points, not with the Gallup poll that gave McCain a four-point advantage. That also means that, nationally, Obama is running a little more than seven points ahead of Kerry. 

One note of caution, though: The state polling aggregations aren't very time sensitive, in large measure because many states aren't polled that often. As a result, if the election has shifted significantly in the last few weeks, these numbers wouldn't entirely reflect that.

-McCain supporters can take heart because their candidate's worst states (or Obama's best states) aren't traditional swing states. Of the ten states where Obama is running furthest ahead of Kerry, none was decided by fewer than 8 percentage points in 2004. In contrast, McCain's second-best state (Nevada), eighth-best state (Michigan) and ninth-best state (Oregon) were all decided by fewer than five points last time around.

-The most fascinating thing about the state-by-state numbers: Every single one of Obama's 12 strongest states when compared to Kerry has an African-American population that is BELOW the national average of 12.4%. This group includes four states -- Montana, Idaho, South Dakota and Wyoming -- that have the four lowest black populations in the country.

You can make a case that this is about McCain and not Obama. Westerners tend to be libertarian-minded, which McCain generally isn't. The immigration legislation that McCain has sponsored in the Senate also might be a problem.

The thing is, though, we saw this dynamic in the primaries too. Obama dominated among white voters in places where there aren't many black voters. He's now vastly overperforming John Kerry with that group too.

Without further ado, here are the state-by-state results. I've placed states that haven't been polled much (or haven't been polled much recently) in bold, just so you know not to read too much into those results.   

States where Obama is running 15 points or more ahead of Kerry:

North Dakota (24.96), Wyoming (23.89), Idaho (23.72), Montana (23.6), Hawaii (21.26), Indiana (20.08), Alaska (19.45), Utah (17.94), Texas (16.46), South Dakota (15.37).

This group includes nine of the most Republican states in the country (at least in terms of recent presidential performance) and one Democratic state -- Hawaii. Hawaii is Obama's birthplace, as well as a place where Kerry underperformed, so it's not surprising.

The question in those other nine states is where does Obama actually win? Even making up 25 points in North Dakota, he still comes up a couple of points short. Obviously, the Electoral College doesn't reward coming close.

Based on Obama's ad expenditures, he seems to be making a real effort in Alaska, Montana, North Dakota and Indiana. Montana is the only one of those four where Obama actually leads, although it, like most of the states in this group, hasn't been polled nearly enough.

States where Obama is running 10 points to 14.9 points ahead of Kerry:

Kansas (13.58), Oklahoma (12.94), Alabama (12.82), Nebraska (11.82), Wisconsin (11.62), Maryland (11.52), Georgia (11.1), Virginia (10.8), Mississippi (10.79), Connecticut (10.63).

This group includes the first traditional (and by "traditional," I mean, "from the past two election cycles") swing state in Wisconsin and another state that is universally regarded as top swing state in Virginia. Virginia was a model of stability the past two election cycles -- Bush won it by 8.03% in 2000 and 8.20% in 2004 -- but, even if McCain wins the election, he probably won't be able to match Bush's performance in the state.

Besides the two swingers, this group is quite a hodgepodge. Three states, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma, are similar to the Obama +15 group above. They've been really, really Republican, which makes it a bit easier for the Democrat to be making up a lot of ground. Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia are Republican states with large African-American populations. Connecticut and Maryland are reliably Democratic.

States where Obama is running 5 points to 9.9 points ahead of Kerry:

North Carolina (9.73), South Carolina (9.58), Minnesota (9.02), New Mexico (8.99), Vermont (8.86), California (8.35), Iowa (7.17), Kentucky (7.06), Pennsylvania (6.6), Maine (6.5), Illinois (6.46), Colorado (6.37), New Jersey (5.92), Ohio (5.71).

Since Obama is running about seven points ahead of Kerry nationally, this group is in some sense the "neutral" states. Obama is gaining points on Kerry in these places, but not more points than he is nationally.

And this neutral group is loaded with swing states: Minnesota, New Mexico, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Ohio. That seems to suggest that a split verdict between the Electoral College and the popular vote is unlikely. If McCain, for example, was far stronger in swing states vis-à-vis Bush 2004 than he was in non-swing states, the prospects of McCain Electoral College win occurring with an Obama popular vote win would look stronger.

If there's one state in this group that's surprising, it's North Carolina. You'd expect the Democratic performance in 2004 to be inflated from John Edwards' presence on the ticket. Yet Obama is still running nearly ten points ahead of it, which has raised the outside possibility that he could turn the Tarheel State Carolina blue. Not to hit Edwards when he's down, but that really proves how running mates don't always (or, as it turns out, often) bring many home state voters.

States where Obama is running fewer than 5 points ahead of Kerry:

New Hampshire (4.73), Washington (4.72), Missouri (4.4), Florida (3.91), New York (3.01), Rhode Island (2.95), Arkansas (2.66), Oregon (2.24), Michigan (1.98), Delaware (1.41), Louisiana (1.11), Arizona (0.07).

Even though Obama is running slightly ahead of Kerry here, these are states where I'd argue McCain is doing well -- or at least doing better than he is in most of the country. It's an interesting bunch.

There are two states that have a connection to McCain dating from his 2000 campaign (New Hampshire and Michigan). You have the two states that had disputed primaries on the Democratic side (Michigan and Florida). And, perhaps most importantly, you have a good number of swing states: Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire and Oregon.

For better or for worse, McCain is a candidate without any particular regional strength. Every part of the country is represented here -- the Northeast, the South, the Midwest and the West Coast -- except the Great Plains.

Oregon and Washington are might-have-been states for McCain. It really looked like he could put them in play if Hillary Clinton had been the Democratic nominee. Against Obama, though, that seems less likely, even though McCain is holding his own in both.

States where Obama is running behind Kerry:

Tennessee (-0.43), West Virginia (-0.64), Nevada (-1.01), Massachusetts (-6.56)

McCain's four strongest states give some hint of an Appalachian problem for Obama. More interesting to me, though, is the idea that Obama is weakest in places where he didn't do much primary campaigning.

Tennessee was a Super Tuesday state that Obama largely ignored. He steered clear of West Virginia, knowing that it would be a big win for Clinton. Massachusetts doesn't fit that mold, but it is John Kerry's home state, so it would be tough for Obama to match the 2004 Democratic performance there.

By far the most important state on this list, however, is Nevada. Nevada is the state that came closest to mirroring to national result in 2004. Bush won it by 2.59%. In other words, it's as swingy as they get.

So why is McCain doing so well in Nevada? I'm not sure. It is worth noting that Nevada has been one of the most under-polled swing states around. The most recent poll, conducted almost a month ago, actually showed Obama with a two-point lead.

All of these numbers have implications for down-ballot elections. They give a sense of where Obama and McCain will help their party mates running for lower office and where they'll be a drag. But, I'll leave that discussion for another day.

Comments

[susan]

The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

[NR]

Keep in mind that Nevada is notoriously difficult to poll. Lots of people in the Vegas and Reno areas work shifts other than the traditional 9-to-5, so they're either asleep or not home during the usual times that pollsters call. I wouldn't put much stock in Nevada polling for that reason.

[David Poole]

May an (amateur) psephologist in the U.K.offer a comment on your highlighting Obama's standing in states with few Afro-Americans? There are parallels with UK elections over 1885- 1924 in the Conservative-Liberal era here. Religion, (protestant or catholic) was a major factor in some regions of the mainland (leaving aside N.Ireland) where the catholics were concentrated. In areas with few catholics the swing to the Liberals in some elections was clearly higher than in areas with more catholics which even moved in the opposite direction to the rest of the country. In the latter, where the population split socially on religious lines, the Conservatives exploited protestant fears about housing allocation, schools etc so that "working class" people in eg W.Lancashire & Liverpool voted differently to those in the rest of the country. This seems to be mirrored in the % white/black residents in American states with higher swings to Obama where Afro-Americans are small in numbers & so not perceived as a "threat" compared to eg the Deep South. In the U.K. this had major implications for the election strategy and image of the parties.

[FOSHAFFER]

Just a couple of comments:

1) The reason that the founding father saw fit to not have it just a popularity elections is because:

a)It gave dispropotional advantage to the states with the largest cities. The president would enact policies that would be primarily for urban dwellers as that is where the votes are (and so would ignore states like WV, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming).

b) He is the President of the UNITED STATES - not the population but over the soverign entities that had rights of their own. The problem is that the Federal Gov. has grown so large that it has taken most of the rights of the states away.

And it's funny how now that Obama is running neck and neck in the polls on electorial votes - another "Obama as the chosen one" has to be published..this time highlighting that - even if he is losing a state he is doing better than Kerry.

How about an article about his lack of understanding of the basics of ecomonics (lets inflate our tires instead of drilling) or his lack of understanding of the basics of the US (ALL 57 States) or his lack of Judgement (Wright, Ayers, SDS, USCP, Rezko) or his willingness to cow tow to the rest of the world instead of standing up for AMERICA.

Naa...that would mean you guys would have to be honest for a change

[Steve]

Shouldn't we be comparing, not Obama's performance now to Kerry's in November 2004, but Obama's performance now to Kerry's in August 2004, when the Swift Boat stuff was just starting? My memory has it that Kerry ran better in August than he did on Election Day... which would put Obama at this point in the campaign perhaps even with or even behind Kerry in a number of swing states. On the other hand the Swift Boat BS had an immediate impact in the polls...there's not a whole lot of motion in many polls over the past couple of weeks, and what there is may be as much a matter of Obama coming 'back to Earth' after his European trip as a matter of McCain's sleazy ads working. We'll see.

[susan]

The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.

Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).

Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.

The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York's use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming—both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.

Evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because a competitor has a 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois.
Although no one can predict exactly how a presidential campaign would be run if every vote were equal throughout the United States, it is clear that candidates could not ignore voters in any part of any state.

see www.NationalPopularVote.com