Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I ran into an old buddy playing poker this weekend and we got into a conversation about the election. He was sure the Democrats were going to win and I said what I've said many times, that while the Democrats started this election with a huge head start given the mood of the country, the turnout of primary voters and the flow of money, I have great confidence in their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
But he made an interesting point when he asked this question: of all the states that went Democratic in 2004, which one do you think could potentially flip to the Republicans? And of all the states that voted Republican in 2004, which ones do you think could potentially flip to the Democrats? That's a good question. And clearly I can name more Republican states from 2004 that are legitimately in play than Democratic ones.
Take a look at the 2004 electoral map. You'll see that the Democrats carried the Northeast, the Northwest, California and the Northern Great Lakes Region; Republican carried everything in the South and between the coasts. But which Democratic states are at serious risk of switching Republican? For polling data, I always turn to Real Clear Politics because they list the results of every poll and average them out, which eliminates outliers.
Michigan is certainly a possibility, with McCain showing a small lead at the moment. New Hampshire is also a possibility, as it always is, but that state only has 4 electoral votes. And that's about it as far as I can see. The rest of the Democratic states from 2004 should be safely in the Democratic fold barring some serious shift in public opinion over the next few months.
Now what of the Republican states? Several Republican states could be in play in November. The polls in Ohio show the candidates in a dead heat. In Iowa, Obama is winning over McCain in every single poll. New Mexico is up for grabs, as are Nevada and Colorado. The winning margin in 2004 was 34 votes. That means if you flip Ohio from red to blue, the Democrats win.
But we can also dig a bit deeper than that by looking at primary turnout. Polls showing statistical preferences don't matter as much as actual turnout at the polls and this primary season has had the Democrats turning up massive numbers to vote compared to the Republicans.
In Ohio, more than twice as many Democrats voted than Republicans - 2.2 million to 1 million. In Colorado, they nearly doubled the number of caucus participants. In New Mexico, about 50% more Democrats than Republicans voted. In Pennsylvania, the Democrats nearly tripled up the Republicans.
You can look even at states thought to be solidly in the Republican column, like Virginia. In that state, the polls show McCain with a small lead, but in the primaries the Democrats more than doubled up on the Republicans in turnout. In North Carolina, where McCain leads by around 5 points on average in the polls, the Democrats more than tripled up on the Republican turnout.
Clearly the Democrats have to keep Michigan in the blue column. Loss of its 17 electoral votes would make it much more difficult to win in November. Michigan has gone Democratic in the last two elections. A change now could be fatal to the Democrats' chances. But if they hold Michigan, I think it's almost impossible for the Republicans to win at this point.
Politics
Comments
"But we can also dig a bit deeper than that by looking at primary turnout. Polls showing statistical preferences don't matter as much as actual turnout at the polls and this primary season has had the Democrats turning up massive numbers to vote compared to the Republicans. "
Right, but the Republican primary season switched from real contest to McCain coronation very quickly relative to the fifteen-round slugfest that was this year's Democrat nomination. From Romney quitting on Feb 7 to Hillary seeing the writing on the wall this past weekend meant that there were four months of primaries that meant nothing for the Republicans and everything to the Democrats.
Posted by: chancelikely | June 9, 2008 10:03 AM
PA. Clinton carried it and the only thing outside of Pittsburgh and Philly that makes money is the defense industry. Obama will need to pander hard to unions and contractors, and even then it's not a sure thing.
Posted by: E | June 9, 2008 10:22 AM
This is the site I like to go to for poll analysis:
www.electoral-vote.com
Posted by: dlw32 | June 9, 2008 10:29 AM
Also, I know Republicans were casting "mischief" votes in the open Democratic primaries because McCain was such a shoo-in.
Perhaps not in such great numbers, but combined with the fact that there was little reason for Republicans to go out and vote in the primaries, it could be misleading.
Posted by: Leni | June 9, 2008 10:51 AM
If I remember correctly, the Democrats were attracting greater numbers even when the Republican contest was still up for grabs.
Posted by: Taz | June 9, 2008 11:00 AM
Wow, according to electoral-vote.com, my state (IN) is tied right now. Wouldn't have seen that one coming. Of course we have a fairly unpopular republican governor who is up for re-election this November, so maybe that is part of the pull to democrat.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 9, 2008 11:07 AM
NC should be in play. Obama is in Raleigh today, indicating he will campaign here. On the other hand, McCain lost lots of Republican votes to Ron Paul (already out of the race at the time) and Other (protest vote). With NC being very libertarian, Bob Barr has a chance to take away quite a lot of McCain votes as well. If Edwards is VP, then NC should be a sure win for the Dems.
Posted by: Coturnix | June 9, 2008 11:14 AM
http://www.electionprojection.com/president08.shtml
The guy who runs this site is a conservative Christian, but apparently also very honest. His projections for the last two election cycles were quite accurate. Updated weekly, he's currently got Obama with 304 electoral votes to McCain's 234. (He also publishes his "formulas" for the projections.)
Posted by: chezjake | June 9, 2008 11:36 AM
Here's another electoral vote site. They average the polls but I find their layout a bit clearer than electoral vote or RCP.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Posted by: Plutarch | June 9, 2008 11:46 AM
"If I remember correctly, the Democrats were attracting greater numbers even when the Republican contest was still up for grabs."
Yes. Dem caucus turnout in Iowa more than doubled the GOP turnout and that was back when the CW said Clinton's nomination was inevitable.
Posted by: SeanH | June 9, 2008 11:49 AM
Two points:
1. The turnout at Democratic primaries was much higher than Republican primaries before McCain wrapped up the nomination.
2. Yes, there was some crossover in the primaries with Republicans voting in the Democratic election. But even if you presume that all of those votes were cast as mischief votes (as opposed to registered Republicans who are actually going to vote Democratic this time, like my father likely will), that doesn't come close to making up the gap in turnout. In some major states, as I said, the Democrats were turning out double and even triple the number of voters.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 9, 2008 12:02 PM
Ed, in what ways would you expect the Democratic Party Candidate to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Have you identified common mistakes made by Democratic candidates that tend to loose them elections?
Posted by: Valhar2000 | June 9, 2008 12:32 PM
Obama-Edwards - now that's a super ticket! I'd love to see it, and I think that combination has the potential to send McCain-and-whoever running with their tails between their legs. Maybe not quite to the degree that LBJ kicked Goldwater's ass in 1964, but I can see the possibility of a big win, and maybe a few more Dems riding O&E's coattails into Congress.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 9, 2008 12:36 PM
Ed, those are both good points. I didn't really think the issues I brought up would make much difference- just that it could make us, well me, feel a little safer that we (I) should.
(I'm still smarting from getting burned last time around. I have this fear that on Wednesday 05Nov08 I'm going to wake up in some nightmare bizarro world where Bush managed to win a third term without even being on the damn ticket. Probably via some secret Patriot Act proviso.)
Posted by: Leni | June 9, 2008 1:07 PM
I don't know about Michigan Ed, given the financial issues in the Detroit area combined with the fact that the state hasn't voted Republiican since '88 doesn't make it likely that McCain will win the state.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 9, 2008 1:30 PM
Edwards has stated repeatedly in the past few weeks that he is not a candidate for VP.
Valhar2000: Well, for starters they could nominate a black man with a terrorist name... We're about to find out how far our country has come in the last few years.
Perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic, but I had to live through two Jesse Helms-Harvey Gantt elections here in NC, and the democratic party here in the western mountains is nowhere close to recovering from the experience.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 9, 2008 1:56 PM
Obama versus McCain polling as of right now is not particularly meaningful. (1) The Dems have been battling each other, not McCain yet. McCain has so far been campaigning essentially unopposed. (2) The economy is going to continue to tank big time, and will be attributed to the Repubs. People are still living in a fantasy world in which it might not get too bad.
Posted by: PhysioProf | June 9, 2008 2:01 PM
themadlolscientist - I'd be shocked with Edwards as the VP candidate.
Obama and McCain share a similiar weakness - lack of executive experience. I expect Obama to pick either a successful governor or a General (e.g., Wes Clark out of Hilary's camp) to complement his weakness in this area. Given the excellent job he's done administrating his campaign, I hope he rounds out his lack of foreign policy experience by going with a general.
However, Gen. Clark has not shown any ability to win elections so he might be a long shot, where Obama might pick instead another Senator, VA's James Webb, with foreign policy creds. While Webb has won an election and has executive experience given his being Sec. of the Navy during the Reagan tenure, I am concerned about Webb's temperament.
I really like Webb but his appearance against Sen. George Allen on Meet the Press and a few outbursts since he was elected has me thinking he needs more seasoning before he'd be ready for the prime-time pressure that presidential elections inflict on the four candidates. In fact, I view Webb much like I view Nixon, awfully smart and talented, but with some demons to control. I'm sure Obama's team will properly vett whomever they pick - Obama has already proven a love of process that has this MI Republican already leaning heavily in his favor.
If Obama instead goes with executive domestic experience, I hope it's ex-Gov. Mark Warner from VA - who gives Obama big-time respect from the business community, a McCain weakness. A Warner pick really puts the pressure on Obama against McCain on foreign policy however. Just like Cheney crushed Edwards in their debate given his gravitas, Obama will need to persuade working class voters who are leaning to McCain or supported Hillary Clinton and independents that voted for Bush in 2004 that he has what it takes to properly defend America. This is one debate he's better letting his VP lead in the rust-belt swing states like Ohio, Pennslyvania, and Michigan - again, people like Clark or Webb.
While Cheney has turned out to be a horrible VP, I believe it was a primary reason Bush won in both 2000 and 2004. Obama should learn from this lesson and go with executive experience and strong foreign policy credentials. While Edwards is very pretty and I believe very competent, he pulls Obama leftwards when Obama needs to move to the middle if wants to win big and have a ton of political capital at his inauguration.
I think the McCain VP pick will be a much more interesting process and outcome. With Obama, the math is pretty simple IMHO.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 9, 2008 2:35 PM
Another good place to look for poling and state by state analysis is Larry Sabato's site.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/
He is at the Center for politics at UVA and does a very good job of state by state analysis.
Posted by: mess | June 9, 2008 2:54 PM
Ed: apologies for the OT comment, but I strongly suggest you check out my latest blog post, with a story about Al Gore organizing a rescue operation to get about 270 people out of New Orleans after the flooding. NONE of the major media outlets covered this event, then or now -- just local Tenessee papers and lefty blogs. Care to comment on this? Did the Michigan Messenger ever mention it? (That paper doesn't turn up on the searches I did so far.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 9, 2008 3:21 PM
Valhar-
I think the Rev. Wright thing has done serious damage to Obama and pushed a segment of the population that might otherwise have voted for Obama over to McCain. I think Hillary Clinton's attacks have also weakened him over the last few weeks. The Democratic primary season has been so nasty that the exit polls the last few weeks have shown as high as 30% of Clinton voters say they won't vote for Obama. Now, I don't think that's realistic. I think most of those voters will stay in the Democratic camp. But if 5 or 10% of them follow through on it, that's enough to swing an election. I think Hillary has to campaign very hard for Obama to overcome the damage she's done to him. I think the Democrats started this process with a big head start and they've already given much of that advantage away, though not all of it. They've still got the money advantage and they're still more energized to turn out than the Republicans are. If I had to place a bet one way or the other, I'd bet on Obama. But it's hardly a slam dunk. If the Republicans turn Michigan, it becomes very difficult for the Democrats to win without flipping several other states to their side.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 9, 2008 3:23 PM
Another point: in some key states Dems were elected Governors in 2004 and 2006. Governors control elections, so the Repubs cannot play various shenanigans like they used to.
As for Edwards - nobody says "yes, I would consider a VP position" until they actually announce they ARE selected for VP position. Bad manners, bad politics. Nothing surprising there.
On the other hand, Obama did something great today on that front....
Posted by: Coturnix | June 9, 2008 6:41 PM
I think the money will increase for McCain as election season gets closer.
And isn't Obama turning down the $85 mil of public money? I thought I read that somewhere...
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | June 9, 2008 6:44 PM
One caveat about Democratic turnout: if by the general the only places you see increased turnout are in states that are already safely Democratic, the Dems gain nothing. Under such a scenario, it isn't out of the realm of possibilities that McCain could be decisively crushed in the popular vote but still pull off an electoral vote win.
That would be ugly indeed. It'd make 2000 look like a garden party.
Posted by: protected static | June 9, 2008 7:21 PM
Fortunately, McCain does have two major disadvantages: people like him less the more they know about him, and the fundigelical faction of the Republican Party is spectacularly unenthusiastic about him, so his pandering to that faction will probably look insincere (which is most likely accurate).
Posted by: Turcano | June 9, 2008 7:32 PM
I don't think Jim Webb would be a wise VP choice. 1) He's another 1st term senator. 2) He has a "woman problem" that Obama doesn't need as he draws HC supporters back into the fold.
Posted by: Gerry L | June 9, 2008 9:22 PM
Gerry - good point on #2. Re #1, I think that's why Wes Clark is the better pick, however Webb does have his experience as Sec. of the Navy to go along with freshman senator. Where Web possesses an advantage over Clark is that's he's won an election which Clark has failed to do (I was one of only three voters in my county voting for Clark in the 2004 Dem primary - where I still think I was right about him vs. Kerry). Webb's superior electoral advantage is a point Webb made in a recent Meet the Press appearance where I believe he made signals he wants to be asked for the spot.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 9, 2008 10:23 PM
Michael Heath, what about Obama picking Bill Richardson?
He is an executive (a governor), AND he has copious foreign policy experience (former ambassador to U.N. and negotiated release of hostages et al. in N. Korea, Cuba, and Iraq). Plus he is Hispanic, which might counter any advantages McCain would have being a senator from Arizona, though I don't know how well-liked McCain is among Hispanics.
Posted by: cm | June 10, 2008 1:29 AM
Bill Richardson would be an outstanding choice. I thought he did very well in the debates, and his resume is one of the most impressive of all the candidates.
Posted by: Leigh | June 10, 2008 5:11 AM
While Bill Richardson has an excellent resume, would help attract demographics Obama is weak on and where McCain is strong, and possesses a great personality, I was surprised to conclude during the debates that he appeared to lack general intelligence. In addition, he appeared to have no sense of history during the debates and certainly proved he knows nothing about the Constitution. I doubt Obama will consider him.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 10, 2008 6:12 AM
Ed, good analysis. I would also add that in several recent special elections, Democrats have won traditionally Republican seats. That they won't be able to hold those seats longterm is less important than what they indicate for November, which is that Republican voters are discouraged, and Democrats are taking in moderate voters.
However, I also worry that the Democrats will manage to lose. How many unconscious racists will refuse to vote for a black man? How many Hillary supporters really are so bitter that they'll stay home? Like you, I don't see any Democratic states going Republican (even our state of Michigan), but do see chances for Republican states to go Dem (and would add Virginia to your list). Still, the Democrats have so often campaigned ineptly over the past 4 decades, and Obama is such an unprecedented candidate, that it's difficult not to be pessimistic.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 10, 2008 7:06 AM
coturnix:
Actually, in most states it's the Attorney General who is in charge of elections. If you're worried about Republicans trying to steal a few states, you might want to check the AG lineup.Re: Edwards. Given Edwards surprisingly poor showing in the primaries, and how little he seemed to help Kerry in '04, I don't see him as a good choice. Certainly that would be the determining factor that would send me into the polls with a vote for McCain. I think Edwards is the epitome of the worst kind of Democratic candidate, someone who has no real experience to think of, who espouses a whole lot of populist feelgood bullshit, and thinks government is a fine tool for solving all problems, rather than just a blunt axe.
On the other hand, he has really good hair. Maybe he and Rick Perry should craft a bipartisan good hair ticket.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 10, 2008 7:24 AM
This could be the first time in 40 years that Indiana would go Democratic.
Posted by: Markus | June 10, 2008 8:16 AM
The thing that worries me about Obama's chances more than anything else is just the natural advantage going negative the Republicans always have. Every election cycle the media talks about how negative politics have become and how wouldn't it be great great if a politician ran a totally positive campaign. But, the problem is that going negative works, almost all the time. Going negative almost single handedly defeated John Kerry in 04, with the Swift Boaters and the flip-flopping drumbeat, not to mention naked appeals to fear.
So, I think, the closer we get the election, just that nastier we'll see things get from the Republicans. I wouldn't be surprised if we see stuff like "The Chicago Community Organizers for Truth" talking about how Obama faked all of his early accomplishments. We'll hear about how the terrorists want Obama to win. And of course we'll hear at ever turn how he's radically far left of Stalin.
As much as I detest these politics, they work and will continue to work. At the very least, because of that, this election will be tight.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | June 10, 2008 10:22 AM
I'm another Hoosier hoping we go blue this year. If Obama picked Evan Bayh, that'd pretty much be a sure thing.
The pick has its advantages:
1) He's got executive and economic creds, having been a very popular governor.
2) He was a hardcore Hillary supporter, which will help heal some wounds.
3) He's fairly moderate.
But it has drawbacks as well:
1) Dems lose another senator, meaning they have to fight that much harder to keep the majority.
2) I don't think he has any foreign policy chops.
3) The progressives would have a hard time being excited about him.
Posted by: MDL | June 10, 2008 11:23 AM
Edwards would be a good VP candidate because he backs everything that Obama does. The economy (he's helped my home state out greatly), the environment, the war, etc. Edwards is not inept, he's just a nice guy that realizes that government needs to stop standing back and start fixing things that the GOP has messed up. Obama/Edwards will save this country from another trillion dollar deficit.
Posted by: JKT | June 10, 2008 11:32 AM
"It's the economy, stupid". Absent a video of Obama smoking crack and torturing puppies with Osama bin Laden, I think he'll romp home.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 6:11 PM
Obama in a landslide. He's the one with significantly more upside than McCain. McCain has been familiar to the population and has had longer for partisan Republicans and Independents to know he's the nominee. Obama is still winning over the Clinton supporters as well as becoming familiar with the rest of the population, and right now it's a tight race. McCain can't reinvent himself, he's stuck trying to hold on to Bush to keep partisans and disassociate for independents, a seemingly zero-sum game.
Barring major shifts in the economy or Iraq (or maybe both) Obama destroys McCain in November. The Obama freight train is just going to pick up steam. I also think when these two share a stage (debates or the discussed joint-town halls) Obama will make McCain look even worse. Add on the seemingly never-ending slips of the tongue (vetoing beers?) to erode the public confidence in McCain... I just don't see McCain polling any better than he does right now without a seismic shift.
Posted by: ks | June 11, 2008 12:33 AM