Barack Obama and the Electoral Map

by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math

I want to make it very clear that this is not part of any effort here at Unofficial Edwards Central to sow doubt on the hypothetical Obama candidacy (which currently looks more than hypothetical; I mean, why else have the Sun write a four-pager on your foreign policy advisers?). I don't have an axe to grind with any of the candidates at this point; I think they all might make good Presidents (including Hillary, though obviously the further left-of-center your personal politics are, the less appealing President Hillary is). But I would like to take an as-dispassionate-as-possible look at the Presidential electoral map, to see what the value ad of an Obama candidacy would be from a tactical electoral standpoint. Does he expand the offensive map? Can he put competitive blue states out of Republican reach? Or is the Obama effect actually quite small? For purposes, I've split states into seven categories based on their competitiveness in 2004:

• Midnight Blue: HI, CA, IL, NY, DC, MD, CT, VT, MA, RI, ME  (154 Electoral Votes)
• Royal Blue: WA, DE, NJ, (29 EVs)
• Pale Blue: OR, MN, MI,  (34 EVs)
• Purple: NM, IA, WI, OH, PA, NH (67 EVs)
• Pale red:  NV, CO, FL (41 EVs)
• Ruby red: AZ, MO, VA (34 EVs)
• Crimson red: AK, ID, MT, UT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, AR, LA, TN, MS, AL, KY, IN, WV, GA, NC, SC (179 EVs)

Further, a look at the Bush's November approval ratings shows Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arkansas as the red states most unhappy with Bush. So keep that in mind.

1. What blue states turn a deeper shade of blue?
2. What red states turn a lighter shade of red?
3. Is there any backlash that causes some blue states to become lighter blue, or red states to become deeper red?

Assume McCain does not win the nomination (since McCain changes the map dramatically). This is a discussion thread. Kick start it with my answers below.

I suspect that Obama's candidacy would help immensely in the Royal & Pale Blue states like Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota, which would immediately become uncompetitive. It might also make Wisconsin and Iowa more friendly territory. But without any clue what his message is, it's hard to tell how else he might expand the map, beyond using pure charisma to woo the public to his side. This makes him look more like a Savior than a Counter. But there are some possibilities:

• One possibility is that Obama's candidacy inspires minority voters, particularly African-Americans, to vote in heretofore unseen numbers. That might put parts of the Deep South into play, notably Mississippi (37% African-American), Georgia (30% African-American) and South Carolina (29% African-American), as well parts of the Southwest. However, across the South, there is a direct correlation between the concentration of African-Americans and white preference for the Republican party; the most competitive state for Democrats is Arkansas (16% African-American), the least is Mississippi. So the places where this strategy would raise turnout the most are the state that are currently some of the least competitive in the country. What's more, as Galston and Kamarck detailed back in the '80s, hypermobilization doesn't really work as an electoral strategy; any sufficiently large mobilization effort requires tremendous resources and would attrack national attention, leading the opposition to ramp up their own mobilization efforts. For this strategy to be successful, it would require engaging the Latino population as well, which might put Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and Texas (yes, Texas) into play.
• Another is that gen-Y breaks heavily for Obama, in the way gen-X broke heavily for Bill Clinton (though the Perot portions of gen-X have since become Republicans). But the youth vote is a small portion of the population, and more or less uniformly concentrated throughout the country. So I can't see how that helps him win any particular state either.
• The more intriguing possibility is that Obama pleases the Amy Sullivans of the world and annoys the Duncan Blacks, convincing 10% of the regular church-going population to vote for him through faith-infused appeals on AIDS, poverty, whatever, coupled with vigorous support for voluntary school prayer. That would really change the map substantially, putting Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and perhaps more states into play.
• I can't see any real backlash from the Obama candidacy, but perhaps I am too optimistic about the number of people who would simply refuse to vote for the African-American candidate. Beyond currently uncompetitive states, it might hurt in parts of Ohio, maybe elsewhere in the Midwest. But Obama's "he's so articulate!" persona innoculates him from many race-baiting attacks.

So, I think the gain from an Obama candidacy is really minimal, unless he succeeds in wooing regular church going voters. That does not mean he would have to pander to the absolutist religious right; it just means treating religious issues with respect, framing debates in terms of morality rather than policy, and, yes, not using the phrase "separation of church and state").

Thoughts?