« The 'Draft Brad' movement suffers a setback | Main | Michael on the Confederate flag »
Friday, 18 July 2008
Obama's Southern hopes
A WashPost blog called "Behind the Numbers" has thrown cold water on an Associated Press projection "that if Barack Obama lives up to his pledge to boost African American turnout by 30 percent, he would score big wins across the south."
I had heard of the AP analysis until I read this. I thought y'all might be interested -- especially since Obama has indicated he wants to contest South Carolina -- so I call it to your attention. An excerpt:
Taking Georgia as an example: George W. Bush beat John Kerry by 17 points in 2004, a massive margin, and better than his 12-point victory in 2000. Average GOP advantage: 425,796 votes. But add in 1996 (when Bob Dole beat Clinton by a single point) and 1992 (a narrow Clinton win), and the average drops to 216,218 votes, a much lower threshold. Using the CPS data further confounds the issue. The 2000 CPS estimate for black turnout in Georgia exceeds the total number of African American registered voters in the Georgia Secretary of State's database by more than 27,000.
Substituting the 2000-2004 average for the 1992-2004 average and using estimates of black voter turnout from the state government, shows that black turnout would have to go up by 81 percent to put Obama over the top; again assuming all else remained the same. Compared with 2004 alone, black turnout would have to about double (increase 96 percent) to give Obama the state's 15 Electoral College votes.
Well, it makes my head spin -- but perhaps y'all will get something out of it.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 11:35 AM in 2008 Presidential, Barack Obama, Blogosphere, Democrats, Elections, Public opinion, Race, South Carolina
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/337487/31372194
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama's Southern hopes:
Comments
Could be. But an increased 'black vote' plus those of us who are sick of the Bush administrations, and frustrated by McCain's apparent promises to continue those polices, might well carry Obama to a win in SC. Not all of SC is libertarian or racist.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Jul 18, 2008 11:45:59 AM
Obama will probably give a token effort here in the Palmetto State as a favor to those voters who put him on track to secure the nomination. That's just good politics. But he has no realistic chance of winning. If Obama comes within 5 point here that would be an outstanding showing. To get that close all the various stars would have to line up. But, if he can force McCain on the defensive it could sap some of his efforts elsewhere.
Southern states that are in play include Florida, Virginia and North Carolina. A victory in any of those states would likely be enough to give Obama the election. The math for McCain just does not allow for any defectors from the solid south.
Even without any southern states Obama can win if he gets all the Kerry states plus the two states that switched from Gore in 2000 to Bush in 2004 (NM and IA) plus any other Bush state with at least 9 electorial votes. That would include Colorado, Ohio or Indiana all states within reach. Even super red states like Montana and the Dakotas are polling essentially even right now.
McCain's best bet is to focus on the states that Bush won in both 2000 and 2004. He would eke out a narrow victory without any of the true blue states. Flipping any of these states is looking increasingly unlikely.
Then again, it's really far too soon to get into the electoral math. Some huge economic development could dramatically change the mood in a place such as Michigan that could possibly bring it into play. Or perhaps Pennsylvania, close in 2004, could shift a bit red. I suspect there will be plenty of movement both ways in the coming months. It will make for an interesting Fall.
Posted by: bud | Jul 18, 2008 12:16:26 PM
Karen's got it right. That analysis is basically worthless because it does not and cannot account for other factors like Bush fatigue, the economy, the far right's lack of enthusiams for McCain's pseudo-conservatism, etc.
And we've got four months of campaigning left where each candidate can (and probably will) shoot himself in the foot multiple times.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Jul 18, 2008 12:30:59 PM
For whatever a poll is worth, look at Zogby's most recent Electoral College map for SC at http://www.zogby.com/50state/
I'm doubtful that the numbers will hold up on November 4. Since Obama has already spent considerable time here, he has probably peaked. Here's hoping Barr pulls a significant percentage in our state.
Posted by: Norm | Jul 18, 2008 12:55:53 PM
You can't get Obama supporters to be specific about what they hope to get out of having him in power. Exactly what issue drives any of the supporters, and what do they know about Obama that makes him better on that issue - they can't tell you, or they won't, just like Obama can't or won't.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Jul 18, 2008 1:58:44 PM
I can't wait to see how McCain will try to spin Bush's agreement to a "time horizon" instead of a "timetable" for withdrawal.
The PR flack who came up with Time Horizon must have been the same one who came up with "Mission Accomplished"
Posted by: Doug Ross | Jul 18, 2008 5:03:43 PM
"You can't get Obama supporters to be specific about what they hope to get out of having him in power."
Here are four for a start...
He is against (so-called) strict constructists. I expect him to appoint justices who believe in a right to privacy (even if they think its a dumb reason to make abortion legal) and a separation of church and state.
He is for abortion rights. I expect him to oppose any attempts to outlaw abortion in the first trimester and in the second trimester if the mother's health is at stake.
He is for having the minimum wage adjust automatically for inflation. I expect him to encourage congress to pass such a bill.
He is for expanding federal funding of stem-cell research to additional lines of cells. I expect him to not veto such a bill when congress inevitably passes it.
... I could keep going through the list.
Posted by: just saying | Jul 18, 2008 6:21:50 PM
This is really just going over the same ground that Karen and Doug and others above have covered...but the key phrase in the passage you quoted is "assuming all else remained the same." Well, what has remained the same since 2004?
Posted by: Phillip | Jul 18, 2008 7:44:13 PM
I found out today that all three TV broadcast network anchors will accompany Obama on his impending trip to Iraq, when none of them has been much of anywhere with McCain, and certainly not the war zone.
Obama gets 2-1 the amount of face time on TV network news than McCain gets.
The Fourth Estate has come up with the perfect answer to right-wing talk radio: Its broadcast brigade has become a Democrat whore, and the air brigade's writing compatriots are standing at parade rest, looking the other way when they're not high-fiving the broadcast buddies they pretend to disdain or know nothing about.
Here's hoping my comma usage didn't confuse anyone.
Posted by: penultimo mcfarland | Jul 18, 2008 10:47:39 PM
Uh, Penultimo, do you know if McCain even ASKED the media to accompany him? Considering that McCain's trips to Iraq have been staged photo ops that border on propaganda, maybe he didn't WANT them along.
Wouldn't want the press to see just how many soldiers/helicopters/etc. were pulled off the front lines to protect him.
In fact, on one of McCain's recent trips, he was not able to go back to an area he had earlier deemed a shining example of how well the surge was working because it was considered too dangerous.
I'll believe the surge is working when McCain walks down the streets of Bagdhad without a kevlar jacket and a platoon of GI's surrounding him. Until then, it's "Mission Accomplished" public relations.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Jul 19, 2008 7:46:23 AM
"McCain's trips to Iraq have been staged photo ops that border on propaganda."
And Obama's is something else? With him towing the networks' talking heads with him? His trip surely can't be a fact-finding mission, because he's already found all the facts he needs to revise his Iraq policy. He's the Democratic nominee, and now he's moved to the middle where he can wiggle in the network sun while they and Mr. Warthen lap at him like puppies at their master.
Obama appears to be as big a hypocrite as Al Gore, IF such a thing is possible. With Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Henry Waxman in positions of power, the Democratic Party is the biggest joke in the history of politics.
Unfortunately, the joke is on the United States, and you, and me.
Posted by: penultimo mcfarland | Jul 19, 2008 10:10:58 AM
The problem with the WashPost column is that is twists what the Associated Press said: If Barack Obama's historic campaign ... boosts black turnout as drastically as he predicts, he could crack decades of Republican dominance across the South. That's a big "if." Recent polls suggest that Virginia and North Carolina are do-able for Obama. If he wins just one of them, the AP thesis is approved: GOP dominance across the South would be cracked. A lot depends, of course, on whether the AP means the dominance "across the South" or whether the cracking would occur across the South. Based on what else the AP said, it would seem to be the former. Thus, it would take only one victory to dent Republican dominance in the area.
Posted by: mike hussein smith | Jul 19, 2008 11:34:32 AM
Some very interesting electoral analysis can be found here at Crystal Ball:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2008071001
The site is run by University of Virginia's Center for Politics. Home address is:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/
Lots of other analysis on the race - go here to find out about Crystal Ball:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/about.php
Sorry for all the links... I just wanted to share the site with others.
Posted by: Claudia | Jul 20, 2008 10:59:03 AM
Well, Sen. Obama clearly has one fan: Sen. Kevin Bryant.
Thanks to NotVeryBright for noticing this lovely picture by our esteemed Sen. Kevin Bryant.
Posted by: Michael Rodgers | Jul 20, 2008 2:30:32 PM
The banner on that aircraft carrier saying, "Mission Accomplished", was not thought up or hung up by the White House, and it did not refer to the invasion of Iraq being finished.
It referred to the mission of that ship and its carrier task group being finished and accomplished, and was ordered by the admiral weeks before President Bush even decided to visit the ship.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Jul 20, 2008 10:48:53 PM
Was it the admiral's idea to have Bush dress up like a naval aviator and pretend to land a jet?
Lee, I have a bridge for sale in which you might be interested. Once stretched across the river from Brooklyn to Manhattan. Barely used. I'll deliver it, even.
Posted by: James D McCallister | Jul 21, 2008 5:23:11 AM
Mr. McCallister,
Why don't you just start with delivering the truth? You can't approach a solution to any problem when you fixate on fantasy and personal hatred.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Jul 21, 2008 12:08:41 PM
The FACTS of Obama's socialism
* Obama wrote a book detailing his contempt for America, and how he developed his attitudes from his family and their friends being Muslims and communists.
* Obama's father was a Muslim and a supporter of communist dictators and radical like Jomo Kenyatta.
* Obama's uncle and brother are also communists and radical Muslims
* Obama is not his original, legal name; it is his made-up name to disassociate himself from his given, Christian, American name, which he considered to be imposed upon him by evil whites people.
* Obama's longtime friends include terrorist Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, Angela Davis, socialist Saul Alinsky, communist Ron Dellums, etc.
* Obama's platform includes a bunch of old socialist ideas from the 1930s:
- national service as a civiliam military (Hitler and FDR)
- socialist seizure of more medical care
- mandatory purchase of health insurance at $2,800 a year per household, to start
- more taxes on entrepreneurs and investors
- subordination of US sovereignty to world organizations under various pretexts, such as "global warming"
- letting up military pressure on our Muslim enemies just as we are finishing them off and have them totally contained in their own lands
Posted by: Lee Muller | Jul 21, 2008 2:32:22 PM
The banner on that aircraft carrier saying, "Mission Accomplished", was not thought up or hung up by the White House, and it did not refer to the invasion of Iraq being finished.
-Lee
That's just hillareous. Really Lee you are not serious are you? Are you that damn stupid or do you just like to push people's buttons. Of course the White House had the banner hung. The president eventually even acknowledged as much.
Posted by: bud | Jul 21, 2008 3:15:45 PM
You're just sore that John Kerry was outed as a phony hero who conned some medals and stooge of the KGB. After Al Gore the doper and Bill Clinton the KGB draft dodger, too.
And that GW Bush was a fighter pilot with excessive drill and flying hours in the Texas Air National Guard. (Boston Globe)
Posted by: Lee Muller | Jul 21, 2008 4:55:07 PM
For pete's sake people, don't encourage the racist twit by writing back to him! (If you do actually point out a fault in his argument, or answer his questions, he'll just change the subject anyway without aknowledging it).
Posted by: just saying | Jul 21, 2008 6:24:22 PM
Obama is the racist.
Obama is running a racial campaign.
Obama is lying to the drones about how he is going to give them another trillion dollars in welfare by taxing "the rich" (code lingo for whites and Jews), and by runing even larger deficits, which his followers won't have to pay back, because they aren't taxpayers.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Jul 21, 2008 9:30:10 PM
Besides race and age, what's the difference between McCain and Obama? The change I want in the White House is to see someone besides a Republican or a Democrat occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., therefore I'm supporting Bob Barr.
Posted by: Robert | Jul 21, 2008 10:03:50 PM
McCain is really a 1960s Democrat, running as a Republican.
Obama is a 1960s socialist running as a Democrat.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Jul 22, 2008 10:16:36 AM
"Besides race and age, what's the difference between McCain and Obama?"
For starters, policy in Iraq, future make up of the supreme court, and stance on national health care. Those are pretty big issues unless you don't care about our soldiers, right to privacy & separation of church and state, and how are health care is provided.
"The change I want in the White House is to see someone besides a Republican or a Democrat"
We don't have a parliamentary system. Unless one of the two big parties is teetering on oblivion (much less than the 40% or so they collect in votes even in a bad year) then all your vote for a third party does is take support away from the big-two candidate who is closer to you. The time to shape who the two parties will put up is during the primaries. That's the time when those like Barr and Nader could make a difference -- they could endorse the primary candidate closest to them in whichever party (or even both) and encourage their disaffected followers to show up. [If they can't turn out enough people to change the course of a primary, then they assuredly don't have a snow balls chance in hell of winning an actual election]. On the plus side, at least in SC its not like a few percentage points of the voters will change the outcome anyway and you can make a political statement without hurting your interests. (Unlike the morons who voted for Perot or Nader in the swing states).
Posted by: just saying | Jul 22, 2008 1:14:49 PM
