(From the diaries. I love the map. – promoted by DavidNYC)
Now, I know we SSP readers take pride in our downticket (some might say “wide”) stance. But we also are data analysis geeks, and even more than that, lovers of political theater. And there’s plenty going on in those areas with the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries that make them worthy of comment.
Of course, Super Tuesday does not contain many real Swing States in it, so it’s hard to extrapolate to the general election. Time and again, it also fails to achieve its purpose: anointing a frontrunner. The first Super Tuesday, in 1988, consisted of a bloc of Southern states that Al Gore (the old, centrist Al) was to sweep. Except Jesse Jackson won just as many, and neither was the nominee in the end. Although Jesse could then say, “I AM Somebody…who kicked Gore’s ass in Georgia.”
But let’s look at 2008, and check out last night’s map.
GOP RIP
On the Republican side, it’s a hodgepodge, but there’s not much for Democrats to get excited about. McCain did not win many states that could be counted upon to vote Republican in the general. However, that’s actually a sign of his strength; he’ll get those states anyway, even if conservatives stay home in droves.
However, he failed to win Minnesota, which might make our contest there easier. He also failed to win Colorado, which, along with Obama’s win there, is an encouraging development in a rapidly Blue-ing state that will also host the DNC. Perhaps the best news is that McCain received only 1% of the vote in West Virginia in its three-way race, which suggests that state could be persuaded to return to the Democrat column with the right message.
I feel good about our chances against McCain.
Teasin’
The most amazing result in last night’s contest is Missouri. Often called a bellweather state in general elections (and I’ll pass on the history here, because Wolf Blitzer needs to fill some air time later), it was the recipient of much attention. However, on both the Democratic AND Republican sides, the result was within 1%. That’s insane. It also helps Missouri (the “Show Me” state) keep its mystique a bit longer. We have no idea who they like.
Happy political parties are all alike
I don’t want to say I have a preferred candidate on the Democratic side. I don’t get in the middle of Dem-on-Dem beefs. To borrow a phrase form MC Paul Barman, I think LL Cool J and Canibus are both fantastic. To borrow a phrase from VH1 News, the legend and the up-and-coming star are duking it out on the mic. And that’s as it should be. We know drama!
However, a keystone of political drama is spin. The Clinton spin is obvious — she won some big ol’ states, and solidly Democratic ones at that. Certainly, to do less would be failure for someone as well-known, and well-respected by party diehards, as she is. So, good work.
Here’s a possible Obama spin: he won in all sorts of places. He put together a coalition of many kinds of Americans. And, perhaps most interestingly, he did it with big margins. Clinton only won one state (Arkansas) with more than a 30% lead, whereas Obama accomplished that in eight states.
Obama also held down Clinton’s advantage in New York (where she won by 17%) while blowing out Illinois (where he won by 31%), meaning he actually got more delegates in NY + IL than she did. That’s fancy footwork.
And he did all this without the support of the “cultural elite” states that Republicans love to make hay about!
Keeping them in the Union
This leads us into the biggest news, which is the unforeseen Missouri Compromise of 2008. This stipulates that, west of the Mississippi, Hillary Clinton is entitled to all the former “slave states” and Barack Obama to all former “free soil states”. (See map.)
(Moreover, in Nevada, the bit south of the parallel is where Clinton won, and the larger but less populous part of the state to the north is where Obama won.)
I’m not entirely sure what this means, but frankly, I find it a little troubling. The tally is this:
Clinton wins:
- Cultural elite states
- Former slave states under Missouri Compromise
- Arkansas and Tennessee (the two states represented by Clinton-Gore ’92)
Obama wins:
- Illinois, Land of Lincoln (and Hillary Clinton)
- Former free soil states under Missouri Compromise
- Deep South states with substantial black population
- Connecticut, the first Democratic state to hate the DLC en masse
- Delaware, where if they’re willing to consider Biden they sure aren’t voting for Hillary
Neither story is a slam dunk, but on balance, I’d say Clinton’s is worse. Her map is looking like Samuel J. Tilden’s, when what we need is another Franklin Roosevelt.
But as I believe — as do many SSP readers — that the Democratic party’s past may be in the South, but its future is in the West, I find the geographic breakdown between these two candidates, the legend and the up-and-coming star, to be remarkable.
And I wholeheartedly agree about the Democratic future being in the West. I don’t know of any VP candidates from out that way who would be compatible with Hillary, ideologically and temperamentally. But Obama . . . I could definitely see an Obama/Schweitzer ticket!
Interesting, if somewhat disturbing, analysis regarding the Missouri Compromise. Let’s see if the analogy plays out further on Chesapeake Tuesday next week– I have a feeling Maryland and the District will go for Obama . . . but Virginia remains in question.
Has it officially been called for Clinton yet? The results that some of the TV networks show are widely different from what I see reported from the newspapers, where they say Clinton is leading by 117 votes with only 4 precincts left to be counted. The TV networks last reported that Obama was leading by about 500 votes with 98% of precincts in, which suggests that there are a bit more than just 4 precincts left to count.
you forgot to color in Alaska. 🙂 Just a minor detail!
Obama won NorCal, I think (Bay Area, Sacto, and North Coast). Clinton won SoCal and San Joaquin Valley. So your red line could be carried right across California and still be accurate.
Of course, that Northwest/Southwest split is a lot more about the relative presence of Hispanics than anything having to do with the Civil War, but it’s still interesting. Obama’s ability to carry lily-white states is something else.
Everyone’s heard that he won the black vote and the white vote in California, but lost the Hispanic vote 2-1 and the Asian vote 3-1?
A clear distinction has to be made in regards to the caucus states where Obama mopped the floor up with Hillary, and where Romney scored most of his wins (and McCain’s 1% showing in West Virginia was the product of a quid pro quo with Huckabee to double-team Romney and deny him a victory). Caucuses are attended by the hardest-core partisan activists and usually aren’t representative of the state’s prevailing political culture. It’s doubtful Barack Obama would have gotten more than 75% of the vote in Idaho in a primary just as Romney’s near-majority in Minnesota wouldn’t have happened without the cherry-picked caucus audience. That’s not necessarily a diss on the caucus process, but it definitely throws off the curve.
True to my “Eeyore” reputation, allow me to look at the asssets and vulnerabilities that each of the Democratic candidate’s numbers spell out to me, without tipping my hand about my personal preference.
Hillary showed some real success with rank-and-file foot soldiers in heavily blue states and in the more conservative noncaucus states. Despite the party activists general dislike for Hillary, it’s hard to deny that she’s the preference of blue-collar Democrats. Even going against the grain of its elder statesmen’s passionate endorsements of Obama, Massachusetts still went for Hillary by double digits.
On the other hand, her anemic numbers among men and dwindling support among African-Americans poses a real liability for the general election. Even if we assume that most African-Americans will get back on board if the Democrats settle on Hillary, will the enthusiasm be there? And will it be enough to make up for what is likely to be a huge gender gap in a general election?
Barack Obama fires up the party activists and young people (unlike anyone else I’ve ever seen in the latter category) and has proven himself capable of winning in a wide variety of geographic areas, even bucking the northeastern Hillary tide with a win in Connecticut. His 40+% showing among whites in Georgia last night was also encouraging.
His liabilities were also on display last night though, as he got swamped in southern states with small African-American populations like Tennessee and Oklahoma. It’s not clear whether racism was the prevailing factor denying him support in those states (it may have simply been proximity to Hillary’s home state of Arkansas), but to the unsuspecting eye it suggests that Obama might have as big of downballot countercoattail liability in certain parts of the country as everyone suspects Hillary does. His lack of support among older voters, the fastest-growing and most politically active demographic of Americans, could also be a huge problem if geriatric John McCain is the Republican nominee.
And speaking of the devil, McCain is almost certainly the Republican nominee at this point. His landslide support in blue states suggests a problem for Democrats. I saw a poll last year that put McCain one point ahead of Hillary Clinton in Massachusetts. It’s gonna be hard to make independents fall out of love with this guy, and although Massachusetts is very unlikely to be within his grasp, are Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maine so far-fetched? He’s also a perfect challenger on paper to both Hillary and Obama given that he represents the “experience” alternative to Obama’s youth, and the “straight-shooting tough guy” alternative to the caricature of Hillary.
McCain has a serious problem with his base though, as we saw with his abysmal sub-40% showing in virtually every red state. He lost most of the crimson states of the South to a man without any money to advertise or campaign. Conservative antipathy to McCain could suppress turnout enough to deny him a win in less hard-core red states like Virginia, Arkansas, and Florida, leaving him an almost nonexistent path to the Presidency. And even McCain’s weak percentages in many of his wins are the product of weak turnouts in these Republican primaries. GOP turnout vastly underperformed Democratic turnout last night and in nearly all of the contests thus far, suggesting McCain is winning over smaller percentages of a crowd that pales in comparison to the Democratic crowd. Those numbers suggest real arithmatic problems for McCain’s campaign to overcome.
Just some passing thoughts based on last night’s numbers. I’m less prepared than ever to predict on who comes out the Democratic contest wearing the nomination crown with last night’s results muddling things further with even more conflicting information to chew on.
except, ok, to nit-pick (I can’t resist).
The Missouri Compromise applied to the territory of the Louisana Purchase – so, all or part of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, North Dakota, and Minnesota on your map.
And Missouri was a slave state, so the analogy breaks down there as well.
Just saying. Love the map though.