sheldon-us election primer 2008

8/14/2019 Sheldon-US Election Primer 2008

1/13

1

To wake as president: There is no ceremony more splendid than the inauguration of an American President. Yet Inauguration is

a ceremony of state, of the visible majesty of power. And though the powers of the office are unique, even more spectacular and

novel in the sight of history is the method of transfer of those powers the free choice by a free people, one by one, in secrecy, of

a single national leader.

Whether Americans have chosen this leader well or badly is of the most immense importance not only to them but to the destiny

of the human race. Yet, well or badly done, no bells ring at any given hour across the nation when the voting is over, nor do any

purple-robed priests wait that night to anoint the man who will soon be the most powerful individual in the free world. The

power passes invisibly in the night as election day ends; the national vigil includes all citizens; and when consensus is reached, the

successful candidate must accept the decision in the same rough, ragged, and turbulent fashion in which he has conducted the

campaign that has brought him to power. He is still half-man, half-President, not yet separated from the companions of

campaign who have helped make him great, nor walled off from the throngs he has caused to crowd and touch him over the

many months.

The Making of the President, 1960, Theodore H. White

On November 4th, 2008, approximately 120 million US citizens (and likely some non-citizens) will, in the poetic words

of Theodore White, silently transfer presidential power from George W. Bush to either Barack Obama or John McCain.

Irrespective of the victor, this will be an election of firsts in many respects:

For the first time since 1960 - and for only the second time in US history - a sitting senator will be inaugurated as

President. The presidential annals have been historically fraught with Governors and Vice Presidents with

Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy the two notable exceptions.

If Obama prevails, he will be the first non-Caucasian president in history (duh).

If McCain is victorious, a woman will assume the Vice Presidency for the first time in history. (The first woman on

a major presidential ticket was Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. The Congresswoman from New York was given the

nod by the Democratic nominee Walter Mondale, but the hapless Democratic team was trounced by 20 points by

Reagan re-election campaign.)

A Republican victory would also make McCain the oldest individual to be inaugurated as a first term president.

Furthermore, it would represent the largest age differential between the president and the VP (28 years).

Irrespective of the winner, the 2008 election cycle will be the most expensive election ever. Using data from

previous elections and the recent primary contests, experts estimate that anywhere between 8 to 12 billion

dollars will be spent by various interests groups and independent parties as well as the presidential, senate, and

party campaigns, to influence the makeup of the US federal government in 2009. Furthermore, towards the end of

the contest, the McCain and Obama campaigns will each spend roughly 30 million dollars a day on advertising.

By comparison, all five political parties in Canada will collectively spend halfthis amount money for the entire

2008 Canadian election.

On the first Tuesday in November of every four years, however, the expensive electoral machinery ceases and ordinary

citizens take over. In community centers, libraries and even churches, individuals will be faced with a plethora of

questions relating to the makeup of their federal government: their choice for president, for senator, for congressman,and so forth.

Long before a single vote is cast, pundits and prognosticators will attempt to extrapolate the eventual outcome based on

exit polls, statistical models, historical data, and plain intuition. In the main, their estimations will be framed in the

context of the three questions we now examine:

How does someone become President of the United States?

Do the nuances of the system favor one candidate or another in this particular election cycle?

What questions should we be asking on Election Day (i.e. , what are the predictive data-points)?

U.S Election Primer for 2008By Sheldon Fernandez


2/13

2

The Election Process

As was popularized in the protracted election of 2000, the President of the United States is not chosen by a national

popular vote. Instead, the presidency is decided by the Electoral College, a body of representatives who elect the

president in Congress on January 6th months after the general election is held. Unbeknownst to most of the population,

U.S citizens do notcast their vote for a presidential candidate, but rather for a body of political party representatives

(electors) who in turn vote for that candidate on January 6th.

For years, these details have been obscured from the election process because previous contests were so lopsided. In

1996, for example, Bill Clinton trounced Bob Dole by 8 million votes and defeated him in the Electoral College 379 to

159. Similarly, the first president Bush overwhelmed challenger Michael Dukakis by 7 million popular votes and

prevailed in the Electoral College 426 to 111. Every year, however, academics would hint towards an unusual

possibility: that a candidate might win the Electoral College yet lose the popular vote (i.e., that the man elected

president would receive fewer votes than his opponent.) In the 2000 election, their warnings were finally realized:

despite receiving more than a half million more votes than his opponent, the Democratic nominee Al Gore lost the

Electoral College and hence the White House to the current president, George W. Bush.

In a close race, therefore, it is important to recognize that the national polls so often quoted by the media are

unreliable predictors of the election because they fail to capture the nuances of the Electoral College . As with the

2000 election, a candidate may win the popular vote and lose the presidency.

This point is particularly applicable in the context of the upcoming Election. Statisticians generally maintain that once

the national spread gets beyond 5 or 6 points, an Electoral College win by the popular vote loser is extremely unlikely

(see:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/29/opinion/main4135237.shtml) However, as of this writing, most

polls have the two candidates within a few points of one another and within the margin of error.

A most disastrous outcome for liberals would be a popular vote win for Obama but an Electoral College defeat (while

the reverse case would undoubtedly unnerve conservatives, it would likely not spark the same outrage since George

Bushs 2000 election victory was achieved under these very circumstances).

In light of these details, a most obvious question arises: what the hell? Doesnt the election go to the guy with the most

votes?

The Electoral College

The creators of the U.S. constitution (often referred to as the framers) did not trust the general uneducated populationto choose their president. Instead, they allowed each state to choose electors to vote for a candidate on January 6th in

a gathering known as the Electoral College. As originally envisioned by the framers, a states electors were elites and

aristocrats, chosen by the local government and sent to Congress to choose a president. Gradually, states relinquished

this power to the general population, the last being South Carolina in 1836. Today, citizens vote for electors who in turn

vote for a presidential candidate. These electors are regular citizens and long-time party loyalists and their role is

cosmetic: they simply vote for their partys candidate in Congress on January 6th and return home, honored that theirparty has chosen them to cast a formal vote for president.

Given the closeness of the 2008 race, the arcane details of the Electoral College and its current implementation could

determine the next leader of the free world. The following points offer some insight into this confusing system:

The number of electors allotted to each state is equal to its numerical representation in the Congress the

number of congressmen for each state plus two senators. The number of congressmen for a state is, in turn,

determined by thatstates population. Thus, the most populous state in the Union, California, has 55 electoralvotes (53 congressmen + 2 senators) whereas the least populous state, Wyoming, has 3 votes (1 congressmen + 2

senators). In 1961, the District of Columbia, though not recognized as a state, was given 3 electoral votes so its

citizens could participate in the process of choosing of their president.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/29/opinion/main4135237.shtmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/29/opinion/main4135237.shtmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/29/opinion/main4135237.shtmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/29/opinion/main4135237.shtml


3/13

3

To win the presidency a candidate must receive a majority of the votes in the Electoral College. As the college

consists of 538 members the magic number is 270. If no candidate can obtain a majority the election is thrown

into the Congress the House of Representatives choosing the President, the Senate choosing the Vice President.

Because of the two party system in the United States, an Electoral College stalemate might appear unlikely.

However, one scenario both campaigns will be prepared for on election night is a tie in the Electoral College

with both Obama and McCain receiving 269 electoral votes. For example, if Missouri and Arkansas vote

Democratic and the remaining states fall as they did in 2004, this unlikely scenario will occur. Since congress

will likely be in Democratic hands in 2009, Obama would become president. In a de facto sense, then, Obama

needs 269 votes for the presidency whereas McCain needs 270.

Because every state has two senators, two of the electoral votes allocated to each state are independent of the

states population. This system inherently favors smaller states. California, for example, with a population of37 million people (based on 2007 figures), has roughly 664,000 people per electoral vote. Wyoming, on the

other hand, with a population of 523,000 people has a person-to-electoral vote ratio of 177,000. Thus, in terms

of the presidential election, a voter in Wyoming theoretically yields more influence than a voter in California. As

Republicans tend to carry the smaller southern states and Democrats more populous metropolitan ones, the

current system favors the Republican candidate on aper voter basis.

Forty-eight of the fifty states award their electoral votes using the Winner Take All system (cryptically referred

to as First-past-the-postprocedure). Under this system, whichever candidate receives the most votes in the state is

awarded all of the states electors. Never have the shortcomings of this system been more evident than in the

2000 election: despite winning the state of Florida by only 537 votes (out of 6 million cast), George Bush received

all 25 electoral votes nearly 10% of the votes required to win the presidency.

The two exceptions to the Winner Take All system are Nebraska and Maine. Both states award one elector for

each congressional district and two votes to the state's overall winner. In the 2008 election, the unique nature of

both these states is probably irrelevant: Nebraska is overwhelmingly Republican and will be carried by John

McCain; Maine is disproportionately Democratic and will go for Barack Obama.

As discussed, the Winner Take All System employed by most states allows for the possibility that the candidate

who wins the national popular vote might not win the Electoral College and hence the presidency. This scenario which has occurred four times in American History (1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000) can arise when a candidate

wins a small number of states by a significant margin and loses a large number of states by a slim margin. It is

worth noting thatbecause of the Winner Take All system, the degree to which one wins a state is irrelevant. Forexample, though McCain seems to be doing extremely well in a small, concentrated pool of red states, currentpolls show Obama with smaller (but still substantial) margins in a larger group of blue and purple states.

Finally, it is interesting to note that in most states electors are not legally bound to vote their partys

candidate. In a close election, each campaign might try to stealan opponents elector to swing the contest intheir candidates favor, an idea that political guru Jeff Greenfield explored in his bookThe Peoples Choice.Unlikely? Check out this supremely ironic article from 2000 (authored one weekbefore the actual election):

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2000/11/01/2000-11-01_bush_set_to_fight_an_elector.html

So, is the Electoral College fair or unfair, a model of federalism or a testament to inefficient and immutable

antiquity? See the Appendix for further discussion
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2000/11/01/2000-11-01_bush_set_to_fight_an_elector.htmlhttp://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2000/11/01/2000-11-01_bush_set_to_fight_an_elector.htmlhttp://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2000/11/01/2000-11-01_bush_set_to_fight_an_elector.html


4/13

4

Election Night

By Election Day both political parties will have leveraged over a billion dollars towards a singular goal: to get their man

the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency (this works out, breathtakingly, to almosttwo million dollars per

electoral vote). In political speak, this intricate game of arithmetic is referred to as Electoral Math wherein each

campaign carefully marshals its resources, time, and energy to carry enough states to reach the magic number. Their

strategies are often represented by the Electoral Map shown below:

Political pundits partition the electoral map into blue states and red states those that vote Democratic andRepublican, respectively. As shown above, certain states are more blue or red than others, which reflects the

magnitude to which the state supports a particular candidate. For example, it is all but guaranteed that McCain will

carry Texas and that Obama will triumph in Illinois by healthy margins. Thus, neither candidate will campaign in these

safe states, which seems to nullify one of the primary points of the Electoral College: that it forces candidates to

campaign in a large number of states thus making the contest truly national. Instead, both campaigns will focus on the

so called swing or battleground states that could be carried by either candidate.

The polls suggest that there are roughly 17 states up for grabs in the 2008 election. Listed in order of electoral

significance these are:

Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), North Carolina (15), Virginia (13), Washington (11),

Indiana (11), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Oregon (7), New Mexico (5), Nevada (5) and

New Hampshire (4).

These are the states to watch on Nov 2nd, and on Election Night political observers, campaign strategists and

normal citizens, will ruminate about the jigsaw puzzle of states that might align in order to give either candidate

the 270 electoral vote majority. Lets examine the arithmetic that will determine the next leader of the freeworld

As the 2004 campaign came to its close, most national polls showed Bush with a small but minuscule lead overchallenger John Kerry. At the time, campaign operatives were speaking of The Trifecta the three states they believedwere most central in the election: Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. The prevailing opinion was that whichever candidate

carried two of these states would win the presidency (an assumption that proved accurate as Bush carried both Ohio

and Florida).

Because of new political dynamics and changing demographics, the 2008 electoral map is thornier than in previous

contests. The easiest way to work through the electoral math is to divide the close states into two categories according

to their size: first-tier and second-tier.


5/13

5

The first-tier states are Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), and Michigan (17). As shown by the color codes,

Obama is favored in Pennsylvania and Michigan, McCain in Florida and Ohio. On election night, if either candidate can

steal one first-tier state from his opponent, he becomes the statistical favorite to win the White House. If he can pick off

both (unlikely), the contest is over. If they fall along expected lines, the second-tier (below) states will decide. Some

other details:

By most measures, the state most likely to flip is Ohio. It is electoral lore that no Republican has ever won the

White House without the Buckeye State. This pattern is likely to persist if McCain cant carry Ohio, which willmake this one of the most visited states throughout the election.

It is notable that, unlike the 2004 election, Obama has a plausible path to the White House without Ohio or

Florida. This is largely because of the situation with second-tier states.

Finally, few people expect a cross-over phenomenon whereby each candidate steals a first-tier state from theother (i.e., Obama carries Florida but fails to win Michigan). If anything, the national mood will shift towards

one candidate and they will run the table.

The second-tier states are: Virginia (13), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), Nevada

(5), New Hampshire (4). Within this second group, pundits generally agree that Obama has a chance to steal five of the

states that Bush carried in 2004, which, in order of likelihood are: Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia and Nevada.

McCain by contrast, can only realistically pick-off two second-tier Kerry states: Wisconsin and New Hampshire. Some

observations from the second-tier group:

Obama can win the election without Florida or Ohio by winning a string of second tier states such as Colorado

and Virginia.

Because of prevailing political wins, the electoral battlefield for the Democrats is larger than it was in 2000 or

2004, another advantage for Obama.

McCain will likely need to steal a first-tier state from Obama to win the election, since the second-tier group

seems more accessible to Democrats this time around.

Combining tiers 1 and 2, the key to the election can be found in Ohio, Virginia and Colorado. If McCain carries all three

states, the presidency is likely his. If he loses one of these states, slight advantage Obama. If he loses two, big advantage

Obama. If he loses all three, Obama is president. Make sense?

The electoral math in place, lets turn our attention to those factors that influence the arithmetic. Namely, the politicalcalculus that goes into actually winning a state on Election Day.

The Ground Game

In political speak, aground game refers to mobilization efforts in getting voters - preferably your own supporters - to

the polls on Election Day itself. This ordinary task is in fact extraordinarily difficult and involves an incredible amount

of long-term planning (organization and volunteers) and real-time adaptation (weather models, live interviews and

celebrity appeal to increase turnout in key markets). A finely tuned ground game, according to experts, can be worth 3

to 6 national percentage points. For example, in the days before the 2000 election, most national polls had Bush leading

Gore by 2 to 5 points, but the superior Democratic ground game closed the gap and actually gave Gore a popular vote

win.

In the bitter aftermath of 2004 election, scant attention was paid to the Bush/Cheney ground operation, which by any

measurable standard was the most aggressive and successful get-out-the-vote effort in history. In key states such as

Florida and Ohio, it is telling that although the Kerry campaign exceededtheir own targets by significant margins, they

were still outdone by their Republican counterparts. Despite tepid approval ratings for both the party and the

president, the GOP managed to increase Bushs 2000 numbers by 12 million votes. Howd they do it? Check out the

following articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/magazine/21OHIO.html

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v13n1/carrington-kresge.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/magazine/21OHIO.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/magazine/21OHIO.htmlhttp://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v13n1/carrington-kresge.htmlhttp://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v13n1/carrington-kresge.htmlhttp://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v13n1/carrington-kresge.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/magazine/21OHIO.html


6/13

6

So what does this all mean for the 2008 contest? Even Republican strategists concede that McCains ground game willnot be as savvy or sophisticated as Bushs in 2004 (though the VP nomination of Sarah Palin might infuse it with more

grass-roots support). Obama, on the other hand:

Can leverage an efficient turnout machine that was constructed during the primaries (one that fended offthe very formidable Clinton juggernaut)

Can draw upon considerably more money than the McCain campaign as Obama decided not to acceptpublic financing. So while McCain is limited to only 84 million dollars for the election cycle, Obama canraise - and spend - an unlimited amount of money.

Can leverage a deep and expansive grassroots operation that has been cultivated since the Iowa caucus(the first primary contest), to get voters to the polls.

Has put together a sophisticated recruitment and mobilization effort to target young voters on and offcollege campuses, including hiring activists from recent campus protest movements, student government

leaders and political neophytes. During the summer, the campaign recruited thousands of college students

for a six-week crash course in politics and community organizing in key swing states.

In 2000, 18-to-29-year-old voters split their votes almost evenly between Gore and Bush. In 2004, Kerry

received 54 percent of the youth vote to Bush's 45. In the 2006 Congressional elections, 18-to-29-year-old

voters supported Democratic candidates with 58 percent of their votes - six points higher than the overallvoting age population. Unprecedented youth turnout is one of the primary hopes of the Obama ticket.

Before Democrats start celebrating, however, realists are quick to make the following salient points:

Superior financing and organization did not help Obama in blue-collar states during the primaries, andHillary Clinton promptly clobbered him in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and West Virginia.

A better ground-game was supposedto be Kerrys trump card, and he was shellacked by 3.5 million votes. Obama isblack (see below).

The Bradley effect

The Bradley effect (also referred to as the Wilder effect) refers to discrepancies between opinion polls and actual

election outcomes when a white candidate runs against a non-white one. The term comes from the California governor

race in 1982 when Tom Bradley, an African-American, lost the election despite being substantially ahead in opinion

polls. Furthermore, the exit polls, which survey voters as they leave precincts, also had Bradley ahead.

The explanation offered at the time was that while white voters tell pollsters they are undecided or likely to vote for a

Black candidate, some in fact vote against that candidate in the privacy of the voting booth (privacy breeds soft racism

goes the mantra).

Since 1982 the Bradley aberration has been observed in a number of US elections: 1983 mayoral race in Chicago, the

1988 Wisconsin democratic primary with Jesse Jackson, and most notably, the 1989 Mayoral race in New York, when a

14 point lead by black candidate David Dinkins, translated into only a 2 point victory over Rudy Giuliani on election day.

What does this imply for the Presidential Contest of 2008? The short answer is no one knows. In general, the

Bradley effect has not been observed since the 1990s as demonstrated by 2006 Senate race in Tennessee when the

polls accurately reflected the results. As critics also point out, given the strength of the Republican ticket, racist

voters can justify (to themselves and to pollsters), voting against Obama on grounds other than the color of his

skin (hes too liberal, hes too inexperienced, etc).

Still, there are those who speculate that rural America will vote for McCain in unusually high percentages, which

will result in an overwhelming victory for the Republicans (and a spectacularly symbolic defeat for the

Democrats).


7/13

7

Related to the Bradley phenomena is the issue of Black turnout. Will African Americans go to the polls in

astronomical numbers to elect one of their own, thus making traditionally Republican states such as Georgia andNorth Carolina competitive? And will this, by counterpoint, galvanize white Southern Voters? The following

articles explore some of these questions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/us/politics/16web-elder.html

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/01/the_bradley_eff.html

Down ticket dynamics

A final question to consider on Election Day is the issue ofdown-ticket dynamics. What is this exactly? On

November 4th, individuals not only vote for president, but for other federal candidates (Senate, Congress), as well

as for representatives and amendments in their individual states. The down-ticket phenomenon describes how

these other questions on the ballot mightinfluence voters to the benefit of a particular candidate.

This effect was particularly pronounced in the 2004 election and involved the issue of same-sex marriage.

Specifically, eleven states held referendums to ban gay marriage thanks to the machinations of local state

Republican parties. The result was astonishing, as White Evangelicals accounted for 23 percent of the total vote

compared to only 12 percent in 2000. Furthermore, 78 percent of these voters when for Bush turnout which

proved decisive in swing states such as Ohio and Florida.

Another shrewd move by GOP strategists in 2004 was placing Mel Martinez on the Senate ballot in Florida, which

electrified the Cuban-American community and lessened the Democratic margins in the traditionally blue counties

in Southern Florida, gifting Bush a healthy 5 point win.

Turning to Election 2008, what down-ticket dynamics might influence the presidential race? Might it be the

Affirmative Action referendum in Arizona? Or can Virginia senatorial candidate Mark Warner who is way ahead in

the polls pull-up Obama and turn the state blue for the Democrats (i.e., can Obama ride his coattails)?

Lastly, for those with a penchant for the nitty-gritty, the following offers a state-by-state examination of the

electoral battlegrounds for the 2008 Election.

Florida - 27 electoral votes

The source of the biggest electoral debacle in U.S History, the sunshine state is once against up for grabs this year. Its coveted 27 electors will give

a candidate ten percent of the total votes required for the presidency. The states gradually increasing Hispanic, Latino, and African American

populations, along with a growing senior citizen base, have put this traditionally Republican-leaning state into play. After losing the state in 1992,

Bill Clinton narrowly carried it in 1996, before George Bushs controversial 537-vote win in 2000, followed by his more comfortable 5 point margin

in 2004.

The battle for Florida is a microcosm of the entire election: Democrats are banking on high voter turnout in the metropolitan areas (Miami,

Orlando, etc), which Republicans will try to offset the Democratic strongholds by leveraging the Dixies small rural towns in the middle of Florida

where voters are traditionally Southern, conservative, and reliability Republican.

Florida is a lynchpin for McCain as the chances of him winning the presidency without it border on infinitesimal. To this end, he his helped by

relative ambivalence of the Jewish community - who turned out in astronomical numbers for the Gore/Lieberman 2000 ticket - towards Obama.

Unless Obama can galvanize this voting block and bring out the black community with unprecedented force, his chances of carrying this state are

slim.

Most polls show McCain with a 3 to 7 point in Florida. Obamas strategy in Florida might be one of simple tactics: keep the polls close in Sunshine

State in order to force McCain to spend time and money resources that would otherwise be spent in other swing states.

Pennsylvania 21 electoral votes

Pennsylvania is another swing sate both candidates desperately want to win, and might very well be the lynchpin for Obama. The states recent

track record has generally been one of narrow Democratic wins. Democrats hold a registration advantage in Pennsylvania (48% - 42%) and have

carried the state in 7 of the past 11 elections. Al Gore won the state by four percentage points in 2000, Kerry by three in 2004.

The ground strategy for both campaigns is similar to that of Floridas: Democrats will attempt to run up high numbers in Philadelphia and Pittsburg,

relying on significant labor union and minority turnouts (more so in the latter category given Obamas historic candidacy). The Republicans will
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/us/politics/16web-elder.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/us/politics/16web-elder.htmlhttp://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/01/the_bradley_eff.htmlhttp://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/01/the_bradley_eff.htmlhttp://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/01/the_bradley_eff.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/us/politics/16web-elder.html


8/13

8

focus their get out the vote efforts in the rural areas where the social climate is more conservative, in particular the so-called T the area

between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and along the New York border.

Polls give Obama a slight edge in the state.

Ohio 20 electoral votes

The buckeye state is one of the most pivotal battlegrounds in the entire contest, one that Bush famously carried by two percentage points in wee

hours of 2004 to clinch the presidency.

The numbers are fascinating: 2.66 million Ohioans cast votes for John Kerry the most ever for a Democrat in Ohio. In Cuyahoga County, where thecampaign had set a target of 350,540 votes for Kerry, he received 433,262. In Franklin County, where the goal was 262,895 votes, Kerry had

garnered 275,573.

Why wasn't it enough? Quite simply, because the Bush campaign brought religious voters to the polls with a force unseen in American politics. In

particular, the GOP zeroed in on white, conservative and religious voters in Ohio's growing ring counties so as to mobilize a stunning turnout in

areas where their support was more concentrated than it was in the past. The campaign tapped into a volunteer network using local party

organizations, union rolls, gun clubs and churches, and backed it up with a blizzard of targeted appeals. This effort wasn't visible to Democrats

because it was taking place on an entirely new terrain, in counties that Democrats had some vague notion of, but which they never expected could

generate so many votes. Of the 10 Ohio counties with the highest turnout percentages, all went for Bush, none with a turnout rate less than 75

percent.

Given the economy and Bush's growing unpopularity, can the Democrats make up the missing 2 points from 2004? Perhaps, say pundits, but it will

be a war equal to that waged in Pennsylvania. Though the two states are quite similar, they different in subtle and critical ways. The counties that

adjoin the Ohio River are more Southern culturally than any similar area of Pennsylvania. They border, and resemble, West Virginia, where Obama

was crushed by Clinton in the primaries. Cincinnati and Columbus are far more conservative cities than Pittsburgh or Philadelphia. The Cleveland

suburbs are also a bit less sophisticated and perhaps less taken with the Obama phenomenon.

Polls show this race a dead heat. It is worth noting that no Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio.

Michigan 17 electoral votes

Michigan, an important swing state in the previous election, was carried by John Kerry by four percentage points in 2004 with the help of heavy

union and labor turnout.

There are three interesting questions with respect to Michigan:

1) Will there be a "Lake Effect"? Meaning, can the geographic influence of Obamas Chicago roots travel the 60 miles or so across LakeMichigan and produce better than normal Democratic performance, particularly in Western Michigan?

2) Does McCain's break from Bush on climate change make it difficult if not impossible for him to exploit Obama's embrace of tougherstandards and greenhouse emission standards in this auto-dependent state?

3) The Canadian dynamic - For many years now, trends in the rural/small-town white vote have been linked to latitude. The closer toCanada one gets, the more white voting patterns diverge from those near or below the Mason-Dixon Line. Lately that has meantstronger Democratic performance in presidential elections in the most northern states and regions.

Though these factors portend well for Obama, the McCain campaign is investing considerable resources to put the state into the GOP column.

Most polls show Obama with a slight lead in Michigan and the state is a lynchpin for him.

North Carolina 15 electoral votes

From the outset, North Carolina seems like a long shot for Obama the Kerry/Edwards tickets managed only 43.6 percent of the vote in 2004.

Where would the other 6.5 percent come from?

First, Democrats point to the African American vote, which, if maximized could bring Obama another point bringing him to 44.6. Could Obama

possibly gain the additional 5 percent or so from new voters and the type of moderate whites in the Charlotte suburbs or the Research Triangle

where he performed so well in the primary? Most observers think it unlikely, but probably worth the effort, if for no other reason than to pin some

of McCain's time and money down in at least one Southern state. And because he opted out of public financing, Obama will have a lot more

money to spend than John Kerry and spread it across more states.

Virginia 13 electoral votes

Democrats have made more inroads in Virginia than either North Carolina or West Virginia for one simple reason: the powerful and growing

influence of the Washington, D.C. suburbs. With each passing year, the Northern Virginia suburbs increase in numbers and political importance,

and massive turnout in this area gave Senatorial Jim Webb a razor-thin victory over Republican George Allen.

Nevertheless, McCains heart-wrenching POW story will also appeal to the large bloc of veterans in the state. So, as always, the battle lines are

drawn along regional lines: can Democratic turnout in the suburban areas supersede the opposite in Southern parts of the state?

Most polls show Virginia tied or with McCain with a small but insignificant lead. One of the most critical states in 2008.

Washington 11 electoral votes

Because a large portion of its population consists of independent voters, both campaigns are eyeing Washington and its 11 electoral votes in this


9/13

9

election. However, the political realities in Washington can be distilled into two words: Starbucks and Microsoft. Though its African-American

makeup is negligible, the state dominated by the ethnically diverse and culturally tolerant media market of Seattle, and it is hard to imagine Barack

Obama falling short. If the Democrats are in trouble here, it's lights out nationally.

The state has gone Democratic in the past give elections and the latest polls show Obama with a solid lead.

Minnesota 10 electoral votes

John Kerry carried Minnesota by 4 points in 2004 and polls show a close race between the candidates this time around: McCain trails in all the polls,

but within the margin of error in some samples.

Democrats have been increasingly squeaking by in this state, even though it has voted against the GOP for the past eight elections. The Northern

influence on the state does favor Obama, but volatility in the state suburbs may help McCain. Small-town Minnesota tends to follow established

voting patterns, but the burgeoning Twin Cities metropolitan area produces a lot more variation. This is somewhat alarming for Obama as the last

Republican to carry the state was Richard Nixon (furthermore, it was the onlystate that voted Democratic in Ronald Reagans mammoth victory in

1984).

Like Washington, Minnesota voters are independent and fickle: McCains image as a maverick and reformer has made the race for this reliably

Democratic state alarmingly close. And, of course, the Republican convention was in Minnesota this year.

Wisconsin 10 electoral votes

It is worth remembering that Wisconsin was the state in which Obama broke through in the primaries. In addition to winning liberal and campus

counties like Madison and Milwaukee, he also won by often by stunning margins blue-collar areas such as Green Bay, Sheboygan, Appleton and

Oshkosh. Nevertheless, the Obama campaign cannot afford to get complacent in the state come November.

First, Gore and Kerry each won by fewer than 11,000 votes in the last two elections. Second, of all the major metropolitan areas from St. Louis to

New York (essentially the entire northeast quadrant of the country) the only place where Democrats have failed to make major gains at the

presidential level over the past 20 years is Milwaukee. Those suburbs, particularly to the north and west, remain overwhelmingly Republican. If

Obama can crack them to any degree he probably wins the state by several points.

Most polls show Obama with a small but clear lead in the state.

Colorado 9 electoral votes

Many observers think Colorado represents Obamas best chance to steal a large Bush-state, despite the fact that only three Democrats since

FDR have carried it (Truman, Johnson, and Clinton against Senior Bush- with a hearty thanks to Perot taking 23% of the tally). John Kerry won 47

percent of the vote here in 2004, a 3 point gain from Al Gore's 2000 total.

In unraveling the dynamics of Colorado, experts point to a phenomenon called the Homogeneity Syndrome, which states that minority candidates

win a higher proportion of the white vote the lower the African-American population is in that state or city. The logic is pretty simple. With

exceptions, where white voters, be they in Chicago, Philadelphia or Alabama, feel threatened by a large black population, they bind together

against the embodiment of that threat (i.e., a minority candidate). Where the minority population is few and far between the perceived threat

dissipates and so does much of the motivation for an anti-minority vote.

Barack Obama will need to win nearly half of the white vote in most Western states in order to carry them this fall and yet he is heavily favored

in Oregon and Washington, and has a good chance in Colorado and Nevada. Colorado just elected someone who is not a white male to the Senate,

but he is Hispanic, which points to another conundrum. Latino Democrats preferred Hillary Clinton by wide margins in the primaries, and there is

clearly some black-brown tensions in the community. The primary question is whether the recent Democratic gains among Hispanics, fueled by

Republican obsession with the immigration issue, will survive in 2008.

Another factor in Obamas favor is the nature of the urban sprawl of greater Denver, whose environmentally conscious, socially tolerant population

is culturally in tune with Obama's change message. However, Colorado is still, after all, the West, and John McCain of Arizona will attempt to appeal

to voters throughout his home region with his own version of the distrust Washington/federal government/pioneer spirit/individualist regional

message.

The polls show a dead heat in the state.

Iowa

7 electoral votes

The best shot for a Democratic pickup in the Midwest is probably Iowa. Gore won the state narrowly, and Kerry lost it narrowly. It has vacillated

between solidly Democratic and barely Democratic for 20 years. This would appear to be a year where a solid win is more likely as Obama became

the Democratic front-runner with a surprising caucus victory, while McCain has essentially ignored the state both times he has run for president.

The Illinois influence is large in Eastern Iowa and the state is littered with both Cubs and Bears fans. The only drawbacks are age and demography.

Iowa has one of the nation's oldest populations (like Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania and Arkansas) and lacks the type of large suburban population

that contributes to Obama's popularity in the Northeast.

Polls show Obama with a clear lead

Oregon 7 electoral votes


10/13

10

The land of Nike has hovered between true tossup and strongly Democratic for the past 25 years. In recent years, the state's blue-collar, timber

industry roots have faded, leaving a fairly suburban and nearly all-white voting base. The battle in Oregon is, for the most part, a fight over the

educated and affluent, and unless the roof is caving in, one would suspect that Obama has a distinct edge over McCain. It is much harder for

McCain to play the patriotic/values card here than in, say, Missouri or even New Mexico.

Most polls give Obama a 5 to 7 point lead in Iowa, and the McCain forces appear to be directing their resources to other states such as Wisconsin

and Minnesota. Nevertheless, if McCain appears to be doing well in the East Coast on Election Day a tidal-wave affect whereby election

results from the East Coast galvanize conservative voters and demoralize liberals could swing the state to the Republicans.

New Mexico 5 electoral votes

No state, not even Florida, was closer than New Mexico in the 2000 election, which Al Gore carried by only 366 votes. Moreover, the state

has deviated a total of 1 percentage point from the winner's share of the vote in the last three elections combined, by far the closest collective

finish of any state.

Though the Hispanic population represents 30 percent of the vote in the state, it has always been counterbalanced by suburban voters around

Albuquerque and also Little Texas - the conservative ranching communities to the east. Will Hispanics turn out in larger numbers for an African-

American nominee? Or will John McCain's Southwestern roots improve Republican hopes among Anglos enough to stem any Democratic turnout

tide?

Polls give Obama a 3 to 5 points in New Mexico.

Nevada 5 electoral votes

Since 1964, Republicans have won Nevada in every election except when Clinton barley carried the state in 1992 and 1996. Although the state is

evenly divided in terms of party registration, the manufacturing bent of the states economy gives the electorate a conservative flavor and the

Republicans an accordingly slight advantage. Obama has a wellspring of younger, unaffiliated voters to draw upon, but McCain does enjoy a closer

proximity and shared desert identity.

Polls give McCain a 3 to 5 point lead.

New Hampshire 4 electoral votes

If Ralph Nader had not siphoned 4% of New Hampshire vote from Al Gore in the 2000 election, the latter would have won New Hampshire and the

Presidency. Notably, this was the only red-state the John Kerry managed to win in 2004.

Increasingly suburban, full of Boston transplants, New Hampshire has plenty of bedroom voters and a boatload of independents. It is also a

Northern state with almost no African-American population, making Obama's job of winning the white vote much easier (i.e, the previously

mentioned Homogeneity Syndrome). And yet it is in many ways it is John McCain's second home. New Hampshire propelled his campaign forward

in 2000 and rescued him from near-oblivion this time. He is the GOP nominee because of New Hampshire. If there is to be any Northeastern

defection from a solid blue front, it will happen here.

Polls show the race in New Hampshire a dead heat.

Some useful web resources:

Real Clear Politics: the canonical bible for political junkies that collects, on a bi-daily basis, articles from across the news

media and political spectrum as well as the latest polls: www.realclearpolitics.com

Slate: intriguing, if bias, political commentary:www.slate.com

New York Times Magazine: good leftist commentary: www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/

The Atlantic Monthly Magazine: equally good conservative commentary: www.theatlantic.com/

Drudge:the political gossip site on the web :www.drudgereport.com

www.fivethirtyeight.com: A site devoted to 2008 electoral math; updated daily according to new polls and statstical

regression.

www.pollster.com: Similar to the site above, but usually a slightly different methodology to arrive at its calculations (based

more on current polls than trend lines).

http://www.270towin.com: a site to compute your own electoral math for the 2008 race.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/http://www.realclearpolitics.com/http://www.realclearpolitics.com/http://www.slate.com/http://www.slate.com/http://www.slate.com/http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/http://www.theatlantic.com/http://www.theatlantic.com/http://www.drudgereport.com/http://www.drudgereport.com/http://www.drudgereport.com/http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/http://www.pollster.com/http://www.pollster.com/http://www.270towin.com/http://www.270towin.com/http://www.270towin.com/http://www.pollster.com/http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/http://www.drudgereport.com/http://www.theatlantic.com/http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/http://www.slate.com/http://www.realclearpolitics.com/


11/13

11

Appendix: The Electoral College Controversy

Ever since the 2000 election, the validity and fairness of the Electoral College has been a topic of vigorous debate from

all sides of the political spectrum. The following two articles offer dramatically different perspectives on the current

system for choosing the US President. The first was written for Slate magazine before the 2004 election; the second was

an Op-Ed piece that appeared in the NY Times shortly after the 2000 contest.

Popularity Contest: In defense of the Electoral CollegeBy Walter Dellinger

Posted Monday, Nov. 1, 2004

Article URL:http://www.slate.com/id/2108991/

Once again, the candidate "chosen by the people of the United States" on Election Day may not become president. As in

2000, the election now appears to be so close that either candidate could lose the national popular vote and yet be

sworn in as president by virtue of claiming more electoral votes than his opponent. If that happens, it will once again be

important for the "popular-vote winner" and his followers to recognize that the electoral-vote winner sworn in on

January 20, 2005, is indeed the fully legitimate president.

Al Gore won the national popular vote in 2000 by more than half a million votes over George Bush, who nonethelessbecame president by winning the electoral vote 271 to 266. Because the riveting dispute over Florida's electoral votes

drew all the post-election attention, the undisputed fact that Al Gore had defeated George Bush in the national popular

vote did not itself produce a major outcry. But if this happens againand especially if President Bush is returned for

four more years after being rejected yet again by a national majority of votersthe Electoral College systemwill bewidely denounced as a nutty anachronism, and there will be widespread demands for a constitutional amendment to

replace the electoral vote with popular election

There are very substantial arguments for such a revision, and I might ultimately find them persuasive. The important

point for the present moment, however, is that a president chosen by the present system has a fully legitimate claim to

govern.

First and foremost, he will have been chosen by the constitutional rules currently in place. This alone is a source of

legitimacy. Moreover, we simply do not and cannot know who would have won a national popular-vote contest had onebeen held. In such a case, both candidates would have run fundamentally different campaigns, emphasizing different

issues and appearing frequently in states like California, New York, and Texas. Who can know how people in those

states would have responded had they been as informed by exposure to the candidates and their ads as citizens in

Wisconsin and Ohio? One cannot persuasively impeach the electoral vote with a national popular-vote number that was

wholly irrelevant to the campaign that was actually run. The hypothetical question of who would have won a national

popular-vote contest if one had been held is thus completely unanswerable. (One note: It seems odd to hear

commentators from England, Canada, or other parliamentary countries criticize the electoral-vote system when, in their

own countries, it sometimes happens that one party receives more total votes nationally for its parliamentary

candidates, yet the other party with fewer total votes elects more members and thus chooses the nation's prime

minister.)

The other basis for questioning the outcome of an electoral-vote contest is to argue that the candidate taking office was

chosen by an archaic and wholly irrational system. Even if the electoral systemshould be replaced with a nationalpopular-vote election, however, the electoral-vote system is by no means so irrational that a president should be

embarrassed at being chosen by this process.

The Electoral College systemworks today essentially as the Framers of the Constitution intended. It is a myth that the

Framers designed an "electoral college" with the idea that an elite set of men would gather to choose the person they

thought should be president. Quite the contrarythe electoral systemwas advanced by at least some delegates who in

theory favored direct election of the president. Upon seeing the plan, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, a tireless advocate

for direct popular election, proclaimed that it was what he had hoped to seeelection of the president "either

immediately or mediately" by the people themselves. The ConstitutionalConvention came within a single vote of
http://www.slate.com/id/2108991/http://www.slate.com/id/2108991/http://www.slate.com/id/2108991/http://www.slate.com/id/2108991/


12/13

12

requiring every state to select electors by popular election, opting instead to let each state legislature choose the

method of selecting electors. It would not have surprised many delegates, however, that by 1828 every state but one

had the people choosing electors who were generally pledged to cast their votes for a particular candidate. (There is

thus no warrant in the original understanding for any elector to exercise independent judgment by voting for his or her

preferred candidate instead of the candidate actually chosen by the voters of the elector's state. Such a faithless act

would be a blight on representative government.)

There are advantages to the electoral-vote systemparticularly its tendency to produce a clear winner. And amendingthe Constitution to alter it would present a series of difficult questions: Will we give great leverage to third partycandidates by requiring the winner to have a majority? Will we have a runoff, which might lead to depressed turnout for

the second vote? Will we create a National Election Agency to run the vote and or leave it with the 51 governments who

now run it? If those states report raw votes, will they somehow artificially increase the number of voters in the state or

pad the totalsa temptation now avoided by having a set number of electoral votes for each state? These are not

insurmountable objections to constitutional change, but they should certainly give pause.

The greatest disadvantage of the present system, of course, is the possibility that the candidate who receives the most

votes from the people nationally may not necessarily take office. That is precisely what happened in 2000, and I do not

underestimate the great power of that point. But there may well be some offsetting value in the fact that the president is

not installed by popular majorities. At the time of Iran-Contra, Oliver North suggested that the president could

legitimately defy the law because he alone was elected by all the people. That of course is wrong, and not just

technically so. A presidential candidate who stands for something in his campaign and wins with a substantial majorityof votes from the American people does, of course, gain a mandate. But the Electoral College systemitself should remind

every president that although he is chosen by a process that involves significant popular input, his selection is not by

virtue of a plebiscite that makes him, like a Juan Peron, the embodiment of the People Themselves. On the contrary, like

the prime minister in a parliamentary system, he is (merely) a constitutional officer chosen by a complex system that

makes him, like all of us, subordinate to the law.

The constitutional system for choosing our president is not perfect, and perhaps we ought to change it. But it is not

crazy, either, and the candidate who emerges with the most electoral votes has a fully legitimate claim to the office for

the next four years.

The Electoral College: Unfair from Day OneNov. 9, 2000By Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale

and author of The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction

As we await results from the Florida recount, two things should be clear. First, if George W. Bush, having apparently lost

the popular vote, does indeed win at least 270 electoral votes when the Electoral College meets, he is the lawful winner,

who played by the Constitution's rules and won.

Second, we must realize that the Electoral College is a hopelessly outdated system and that we must abolish it. Direct

election would resonate far better with the American value of one person, one vote. Indeed, the college was de

signed at the founding of the country to help one group white Southern males and this year, it has apparentlydone just that.

In 1787, as the Constitution was being drafted in Philadelphia, James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed direct election of

the president. But James Madison of Virginia worried that such a system would hurt the South, which would have been

outnumbered by the North in a direct election system. The creation of the Electoral College got around that: it was part

of the deal that Southern states, in computing their share of electoral votes, could count slaves (albeit with a two-fifths

discount), who of course were given none of the privileges of citizenship. Virginia emerged as the big winner, with more

than a quarter of the electors needed to elect a president. A free state like Pennsylvania got fewer electoral votes even

though it had approximately the same free population.


13/13

13

The Constitutions pro-Southern bias quickly became obvious. For 32 of m the Constitution's first 36 years, a white

slaveholding Virginian occupied the x presidency. Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800 against

John Adams from Massachusetts in a race where the slavery skew of the Electoral College was the decisive margin of

victory.

The system's gender bias was also obvious. In a direct presidential election, any state that chose to enfranchise its

women would have automatically doubled its clout. Under the Electoral College, however, a state had no special

incentive to expand suffrage each got a fixed number of electoral votes, regardless of how many citizens were

allowed to vote.

Now fast-forward to Election Night 2000. Al Gore appears to have received the most popular votes nationwide but may

well lose the contest for electoral votes. Once again, the system has tilted toward white Southern males. Exit polls

indicate that Mr. Bush won big among this group and that Mr. Gore won decisively among blacks and women.

The Electoral College began as an unfair system, and remains so. So why keep it? Advocates of the system sloganeer

about "federalism," meaning that presidential candidates are forced to take into account individual state interests and

regional variations in their national campaigns.

But in the current system, candidates don't appeal so much to state interests (what are those, anyway?) as to

demographic groups (elderly voters, soccer moms) within states. And direct popular elections would still encourage

candidates to take into account regional differences, like those between voters in the Midwest and the East. After all,

one cannot win a national majority without getting lots of votes in lots of places.

Direct election could give state governments some incentives to increase turnout, because the more voters a state

turned out, the bigger its role in national elections and tbe bigger its overall share in the national tally. Presidential

candidates would begin to pay more attention to the needs of individual sates that had higher turnouts.

The nation's founders sought to harness governmental competition and rivalry in healthy ways, using checks and

balances within the federal government and preserving roles for state governments. Direct presidential elections would

true to their best concepts democracy and healthy competition rather than to their worst compromises.

sheldon-us election primer 2008

Documents