Why The Big States Matter

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:20:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

I am asked why the big contested states should matter so much to me? I think it is pretty obvious but let me try it this way:

California - 55 EVs. Texas - 34 EVs. (A GOP stronghold) New York - 31 EVs. (A Dem stronghold) Florida - 27 EVs. (Thanks Howard and Donna.) Illinois - 21 EVs. (A Dem stronghold.) Pennsylvania - 21 EVs. Ohio - 20 EVs. Georgia - 15 EVS. (a GOP stronghold.) North Carolina - 15 EVs. (a GOP stronghold) New Jersey - 15 EVs. Virginia - 13 EVs. Mass - 12 EVs.

And a few others down the list -

Minnesota - 10. Wisconsin - 10. Iowa - 7. Nevada - 5. Colorado - 9. Oregon - 7. Arkansas - 6.

Obama is perceived to have a meaningful General Election advantage in Virginia and the states I list below, save Arkansas. That is 61 EVs.

In my view, Clinton has a perceived advantage, for many reasons including the DNC's idiotic behavior, in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, New Jersey and Arkansas. That adds up to 144 EVs.

Obama NEEDS to prove he can win electoral vote rich states that Dems can win, like Ohio and Pennsylvania. This election will NOT be won in Utah, Alabama and North Dakota.

That is why the big contested states matter.

< Ohio: Now A Contest Too | Exit Polls: Why The Media Is A Joke >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Why The Big States Matter | 117 comments (117 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Nor will the GE be won by Texas (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:27:03 PM EST

I agree with your analysis.

But can you explain this? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:30:20 PM EST

Mark Penn notes, and it seems pretty reasonable imho, that winning big states doesn't mean anything, because almost every Democratic nominee lately has won the big states -- and yet, other than Bill Clinton all of them have lost in the last 30 years.

My point is this: Even though Obama lost California to Clinton, do we really think that California will not vote for Obama when going against McCain? Similarly, Clinton lost Connecticut to Obama, do we really think that Conn. will not vote for Clinton when going against McCain?

You say that:

Obama NEEDS to prove he can win electoral vote rich states that Dems can win

But he needs to prove he can win them against McCain, not Clinton!

Sure. (none / 0) (#11)
by ajain on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:38:15 PM EST

California could vote for McCain. I mean just because the Hollywood Hills are the first thing that comes to mind does not mean it is Dem stronghold. Latinos might as well give a decent portion of their vote to McCain and even if they don't, conservative democrats might.


i don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:39:41 PM EST

we hate Bush, and McCain loves Bush. We have war, and Mccain loves war.

No, the only thing McCain will get from California is money.


: Yes, but (none / 0) (#79)
by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST

I also didn't think we'd end up with the Terminator as Governor, and look where that got us.

Huh? (none / 0) (#87)
by xjt on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:57:27 PM EST

I live in California. Maybe you can explain to me what you are talking about because it is very confusing, and I have no idea what you are trying to say.


Mark Penn noted that? (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:48:44 PM EST

Proves he is still an idiot.

As for proving he can win, beat Clinton first, the best test available right now.

McCain is the GE.

Do not follow your point at all.


my point is this: (none / 0) (#50)
by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:02:39 PM EST

Winning Dem primaries doesn't tell you how you will do in the general election.

Didn't Kerry and Gore and Dukakis and McGovern all win the California primaries? Did it help any of them win the GE? Did it help Dukakis or McGovern win California in the GE?

Let me state it another way:

If 2.3 million vote for Dem-X
and 1.9 million vote for Dem-Y
and 2.4 million voted for all of the GOP

and if, as polls say, approx 80% of Clinton supporters will vote for Obama and vice versa, then how could either Dem-X or Dem-Y lose against GOP-Z?

(The math: if Dem-Y gets 80% of Dem-X's vote, then he will get 3.7 million votes. If all the GOP's vote for the GOP in addition to the 20% of Dem-X, then GOP-guy will get 2.8 million votes -- almost a full million fewer than the weaker Dem).


You think it has no value (none / 0) (#56)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:08:03 PM EST

for determining who will win the state in a GE?

That's interesting. I do.


big states? (none / 0) (#63)
by manish on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:14:49 PM EST

Hey BTD,

Do you think that the Clinton voters in California, New York, etc. won't vote for Obama in the general? Do you really think that losing to Hillary is a sign of Obama losing in the general?

I think the bigger barometer is who can win the purple states. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, etc. are what really matter.


: Watch Wisconsin today -- closest state (none / 0) (#111)
by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:40:21 PM EST

in 2004. Some call the swing states the "Superstate of Minnewisowa," including your call for Iowa as a swing state. Problem is that both Iowa and Minnesota had caucuses, and with different processes, so they aren't as predictive of results in a general election. So Wisconsin is useful today -- I hear that the superdelegates are watching it for just your reasoning.

let me ask you this? (none / 0) (#66)
by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM EST

Has it proven to be a determinant in elections past?

I don't see it, which is why I don't think it's important now.

But I am very open to changing my mind, if someone can show me how it mattered in past elections.

But, like I said, the examples of Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, seem to indicate it doesn't matter a whole lot. And, further, I just don't see how either Obama or Clinton can lose Calif/NY to McCain, or how either can win Texas against McCain.

So, again, two questions: (a) has it mattered in past elections? (b) do you really see a danger of Calif, NY, or Texas flipping?


because you cannot base (none / 0) (#57)
by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:08:26 PM EST

ge turnouts on primary turnouts. Many, many people do not even pay attention until candidates are chosen by each party.

Yes, I know it's crazy, but it's true.


in some places (5.00 / 9) (#21)
by Turkana on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:48:55 PM EST

people would be accusing you of saying utah, alabama, and north dakota don't matter...

I know (5.00 / 8) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:55:06 PM EST

that blog has gone insane.

On the FP now.


well... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Turkana on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:53:47 PM EST

meteor blades, kagro, and mcjoan remain bastions of sanity. and a couple others, whom i won't name, so no one will feel left out...


Or you can name the insane ones (5.00 / 2) (#90)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:02:18 PM EST

One is a good friend of mine.

One is an avowed enemy of mine.


: too many to name (5.00 / 2) (#95)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:04:14 PM EST

me? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:03:06 PM EST

: heh (5.00 / 1) (#134)
by Turkana on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:15:04 PM EST

i meant fpers.

Some of us have concluded (5.00 / 5) (#62)
by badger on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:13:48 PM EST

that that blog no longer matters.


I can't give it up (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:23:16 PM EST

but I should


What does a rating of 1 mean (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:13:29 PM EST

around here?

I cannot find an explanation and I thought you migt know, since you seem to use that rating often.


cat got your tongue? (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:25:11 PM EST

Guess I can make up my own meaning (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:47:07 PM EST

It means: Coigue, you are the most brilliant poster I have ever met! I wish I knew how to be as brilliant as you. Humbly yours, Left Talker.


You are so sweet. (5.00 / 0) (#122)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:53:20 PM EST

I have to stop talking to you now, I don't want to be a chatterer. I hope you won't miss me too awful much.


: I really want to know (none / 0) (#135)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:15:53 PM EST

what does a 1 mean? what does a 5 mean? I can't find any FAQ that says.

What weighs more (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:54:03 PM EST

A ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?

BTD, let's assume everything stays the same from 2004 except that New Mexico, Nevada and Iowa switch from Republican to Democrat. 3 small states and the race changes. That's a change of roughly 37,000 votes between those three states which means that 18,500 people would switch their votes and the entire election changes.

Yes, big states matter. But so do small states. Geez...

Let's assume (none / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:55:50 PM EST

Interesting, so this is the Obama 51-49 strategy now?


nothing wrong with it (none / 0) (#44)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:25 PM EST

if it works


: my point exactly (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:00:35 PM EST

Nobody knows how many runs the Red Sox scored in the world series or how big the margins of victory were. But they won!

BTD (none / 0) (#45)
by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:59:03 PM EST

I, like you, have no idea what the Obama strategy is. I'm just saying that winning is all that matters - We've had amazingly close races in the past 48 years that could have been swung by a relatively few votes in 1960, 1976, 1992, 2000 and 2004.

I know this since I "voted" for Buchanan in 2000 in Palm Beach County.

It's not strategy as much as it is elementary math.


A ton of bricks...Oh wait (none / 0) (#41)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:57:01 PM EST

:- P


And Hillary won 2 of 3... (none / 0) (#48)
by znosaro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:00:53 PM EST

ergo...


irrelevant (none / 0) (#51)
by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:03:34 PM EST

since you'd have to assume that those that voted for Hillary would still for Obama in the GE. Let's face it, Hillary won New York but is New York going to vote Republican for the 1st time since....


: Huh? (none / 0) (#94)
by xjt on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:03:18 PM EST

So you're saying it doesn't matter that Obama has lost the big blue states because as long as he gets the nomination the democrats will vote for him in those states. And you're also saying that it's really great that he's winning the red states because he takes them away from McCain?
My God--is that your logic?

: Illinois also irrelevant for same reason (none / 0) (#109)
by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:37:16 PM EST

as it will be Dem, no matter what. So take it away, and what big blue state has Obama got? That's the crux.

not by my count (none / 0) (#59)
by Nasarius on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:10:23 PM EST

See here. NV + NM + IA = 17 EVs. Flipping them would produce a new result of Kerry 268, Bush 269. I suppose that's a "change" in that neither would have reached 270, and I believe the House would decide the election. I'm pretty sure that's not how you want Obama to win.


FWIW, from Rasmussen (5.00 / 0) (#70)
by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:23:10 PM EST

MN:
McCain - 47%
Clinton - 42%

Obama - 53%
McCain - 38%

OR:
McCain - 45%
Clinton - 42%

Obama - 49%
McCain - 40%

PA:
McCain - 44%
Clinton - 42%

Obama - 49%
McCain - 39%

Yes, I understand the qualifiers that go with Nov. polls taken in Feb. But I do think this is at least as instructive as whether Clinton or Obama won CA.

: Yeah (none / 0) (#74)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:24:48 PM EST

now the GE head-to-head polls are coming out, it's all the more information that is actually usable.

: FWIW (none / 0) (#83)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:43:33 PM EST

You left out a few.
Florida for one. where Clinton runs better.
Also FWIW, Q poll has Clinton running better than Obama in PA.

: Q Poll (none / 0) (#84)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:44:04 PM EST

has Clinton better in PA.

Wining a Democratic primary (4.00 / 1) (#1)
by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:26:38 PM EST

has nothing to do with with wining in the GE. Look at the head to head polls for Penn. Hillary's way ahead in the primary but loses a in the GE. You can't base primary performance wtih what will happen in the GE. Well you can, but you should't.

hmmm (none / 0) (#3)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:28:44 PM EST

I think that is an oversimplification. Obviously the general will have different dynamics, but there are similarities that can provide clues to how the candidates will do in the general.


IT is preciselty because we are in a primary (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:30:08 PM EST

that I now Clinton can win PA and that she is in a more favroable position than Obama.

Her vote is solid for November. His is not.

Bad argument from you.


solid? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:33:02 PM EST

Is there evidence of that? (I'm not challenging you, just asking).

I know that generally speaking, the latest polls say that right now 79% of those who support Clinton will support Obama if he wins, and 79% of those who support Obama will support Clinton if she wins.

So, I don't see where head-to-head tells us very much, when the opponent is McCain.


: Yes (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:51:47 PM EST

They are Democrats. Dems are solid voters for Dems. Republicans and Indies are not.

That makes little sense. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:42:00 PM EST

Even with record turnout, primary voting is still a fraction of GE turnout. General elections are won with the independants who turn up in greater numbers in Nov. A candidate may be stronger (solid) with Democratic voters, but they are likely to support either Dem. nominee.


It actually makes perfect sense (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:51:17 PM EST

Independents turning out in the GE not coming out for Obama NOW are not liklely to be anti-clinton.

all the anti-clinton vote is apparent NOW.

This is proven by most national polling.


You have polling (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:09 PM EST

that show independent voters who dislke Hillary are voting now and ones who are favorable or indifferent are staying home? Please share.


they might be undecided (none / 0) (#36)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:54:58 PM EST

and end up going for McCain, though


So could the ones showing up to vote for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:56:58 PM EST

: More so in states with open Dem and closed (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:04:16 PM EST

GOP primaries. There must be a model one can use. Break the independent vote out by category: what proportion of Indys that voted for Obama are likely to vote BO in the general, what proportion won't vote, how many will vote for McCain, for Hil, etc.
I hope the superdelegates are furiously trying to figure that out.

A firmer base on which to build, maybe... (none / 0) (#16)
by jr on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:45:47 PM EST

...but less material to build with.


Also (none / 0) (#19)
by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:47:45 PM EST

following this arguement a 49-48 win would not be that much better than a 48-49 loss. Most of your "solid" support is still there.


No (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:50:05 PM EST

You miss the basis of the "solid support" - Indies and Republicans are not solid support for Obama in a General Election.


Ahh (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:52:24 PM EST

The famous poll of one.

Thanks for your insight.


I did not say they were. (none / 0) (#34)
by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:54:14 PM EST

Then what is your point? (none / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:56:29 PM EST

OK let's isolate TX (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:36:53 PM EST

Obama wins TX by 50,000 votes, tepid Obama suporter BTD says "Hoorah, he can win in the GE"

Obama losses TX by 50,000 votes and it's "Tsk-tsk, better do better in PA".

In a state neither candidate is likely to win in Nov.


Winning matters (none / 0) (#112)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:40:21 PM EST

BTW, PA better be in the Dem column or we are cooked.


: I agree (none / 0) (#125)
by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:03:08 PM EST

So...

The way I see it... (none / 0) (#9)
by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:36:16 PM EST

... is that Democratic primary voters at this point have every incentive to desert Hillary for Obama, since it would be in the best interests of the party to settle the nomination quickly and cleanly. If they won't do that, I think it suggests they have real reservations about him.


I don't think (none / 0) (#10)
by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:37:52 PM EST

most voters think like that, but spin away.


I don't see how they wouldn't think that way. (none / 0) (#14)
by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:41:22 PM EST

It's not like you can go anywhere without hearing how bad a long, bitter struggle for the nomination would be for the party. And that's the only way Hillary can win. The only way for voters to try to head that off is to support Obama. I'd think people with only a weak preference for Hillary would consider that strongly.


yeah but the line is (none / 0) (#22)
by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:48:59 PM EST

still that they are neck and neck, razor thin, so they think it could go either way.


but if you look in a mirror (none / 0) (#54)
by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:06:38 PM EST

you can see the reverse!

"that Democratic primary voters at this point have every incentive to desert Obama for Hillary, since it would be in the best interests of the party to settle the nomination quickly and cleanly."

Until one or the other has a commanding lead, doesn't the logic work both ways?


: yes i agree with you (none / 0) (#68)
by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:22:47 PM EST

that was my point

LOL oh, that's right (none / 0) (#77)
by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:35:53 PM EST

Don't vote your convictions, vote because Obama says he wants it. Gotcha.


Incidents of the last 24 hours alone (none / 0) (#108)
by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:35:06 PM EST

would suggest that there is need for vetting -- for both of the Obamas -- to see if real reservations grow. So there is reason to wait for the process to take its time.

That ought to be especially important to those here who keep talking about the rules, as the rules are that this is decided at the convention, and based on results from all voters in this primary season.


I'm sorry, (4.00 / 3) (#23)
by NJDem on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:49:28 PM EST

but BO is "rolling the dice." He may be able to fight the GOP, but there's just no evidence of that at this time--and the mud (and I mean real mud, not what's happening now) hasn't even begun.

In 2004 it was Kerry's to loose, and guess what, he did. Who would have predicted a decorated war veteran would have been "swift-boated" by a man who basically dodged the draft.

I don't think Democrats should make the same mistake twice just because it's convenient. I will vote for him in the GE, but I'm not going to just hand it to him because it's easier to do so.

Now, can anyone deny that HRC has been vetted and is a fighter who can/will take on the GOP? And, it seems she's more popular with actual Democrats.

So why is it assumed many moderate Independents/Repubs are going to go with BO when many have probably liked McCain for much longer than they've even known who BO is?

Since Florida, Michigan, Ohio and PA (1.00 / 3) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:46:34 PM EST

are not a part of your calculus, it is rather laughable.

You are ignoring 130 delegates.

Plus, you do realize electoral votes are winner take all.

It is really a silly exercise you have done.

why is it so silly? (5.00 / 0) (#26)
by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:51:09 PM EST

I think the point is that no matter who wins, Texas is still going to the GOP in the GE, and Calif/NY are going to the Dems, and that states that were close in 2004 should matter the most.

But I think this whole thing is moot if most Obama supporters will support Clinton and vice versa (and the latest I read is that 79% of each will support the other).


: Because the Electoral votes (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:53:26 PM EST

are NOT apportioned. It is winner take all.

: 80% isn't very good (none / 0) (#61)
by badger on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:10:46 PM EST

If you assume the Dem base in most states is around 30%, then losing 20% is losing 6% of the total vote in the general election. For some big swing states (like OH, FL) or some smaller states that might replace them (VA, AR, IA, WI) that 6% may be more than the margin.
If Kerry lost 20% of his WI base in 2004, he would have lost the state by 4-5% instead of winning it by 0.5%. He didn't win IA or VA or AR or OH or FL.
The divisiveness supporters of all three of the major candidates (and the DNC) have created in this campaign is not a good thing for Dem chances in November.

all of the candidates were on the ballot (3.66 / 3) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:54:35 PM EST

in Florida and a lot of voters PARTICIPATED in both states.

But this is a DNC problem.

In any event, not thinking about them for WHATEVER REASON is beyond stupid.


: You can't ignore them<