Liberals ♥ Democracy

By Frank Moraes 

Jonathan Bernstein has written a really interesting article, "Democrats' Electoral College Edge." Who'd a thunk it? I've generally thought of the Electoral College as being something that benefited Republicans because of the tiny red states that get more than their fair share of electoral oomph. But that is no longer true. Political scientist Ben Highton looked at it and, indeed, the Electoral College is good for the Democrats. Very good.

Now what does this mean? If the popular vote comes out evenly divided, the Democrats would win the presidency 80% of the time. And the reason is very interesting. Blue states are getting bluer, so that pushes against Democrats getting an advantage from the Electoral College. But this is more than compensated for by the fact that Red states are getting redder at an even faster pace. To give you an example, the most heavily Obama-voting states were Hawaii and Vermont with 70.55% and 66.57% of the vote. Compare this to the most heavily Romney-voting states of Utah and Wyoming with 72.79% and 68.64%. Admittedly, Utah was hotter for Romney because he was a Mormon, but if you look at 2008, Utah's still number three for the Republican.

What I find fascinating about this is how what is happening to the Republicans on the federal level has long been happening to Democrats on the state level. While it's true that gerrymandering greatly harmed the Democratic Party after 2010, at least as big a problem is that Democrats are clustered in urban areas. So even when congressional districts are reasonably drawn, there is a tendency for the Democratic districts to be very Democratic. Now that same thing is happening on the federal level because increasingly, the hatred of the conservative movement is relegated to little states no one especially wants to visit: Oklahoma, Idaho, West Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Nebraska, Kansas. (For the record: I know there are a lot of fine people in those states.)

Read more »

Gerry-rigging

By Mustang Bobby 

(Ed. note: See also "Republican Electoral College Plan Would Undermine Democracy" by Alan I. Abramowitz at Sabato's Crystal Ball. -- MJWS)

After their vote earlier this week to re-draw the districts of the state, the Virginia legislature is on the verge of voting to change the way their Electoral College votes to favor Republicans:

Legislation that would apportion Virginia's electoral votes by the winner of each congressional district, instead of the current winner-take-all system, emerged from a Senate subcommittee today without a recommendation.

[...]

Critics of the legislation, this time around mostly Democrats, have labeled the bill and others like it "sore losers bills" considering the victory of President Barack Obama in the commonwealth in 2012.

The new same old GOP mantra: If you can't win honestly, then cheat. 

Rachel Maddow has been all over this story.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

GOP plan: If you can't win, cheat

By Mustang Bobby 

The last two presidential elections showed the Republicans that their ideas and candidates are having a tough time winning a majority of the American electorate. The simple solution would be to come up with better ideas and more palatable candidates. So far, though, their solution has make it harder for people to vote with phony scare tactics about voter fraud and gerrymandering districts, sometimes house by house, so that even if the Democrats win the majority of the votes in the state, the GOP still wins the Congressional district.

Now they're working on a way to fix it so that even the presidential election is rigged in their favor: 

The RNC chair is encouraging Republican governors and legislators -- who, thanks to the "Republican wave" election of 2010, still control many battleground states that backed Obama and the Democrats in 2012 -- to game the system.

"I think it's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue [Democratic in presidential politics] that are fully controlled red [Republican in the statehouse] ought to be considering," [Reince] Priebus says with regard to the schemes for distributing electoral votes by district rather than the traditional awarding of the votes of each state (except Nebraska and Maine, which have historically used narrowly defined district plans) to the winner.

Pennsylvania -- the state that has already been to court over its voter ID law that was supposed to "guarantee the election for Mitt Romney" -- is thinking about it, as are several other states like Ohio and Virginia, both of which were won by Barack Obama in the last two elections. (It goes without saying that something will be in the works here in Florida. They've got nothing better to do.)

Democracy: it was fun while it lasted. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Minority president

By Mustang Bobby

Although I don't think it's going to happen, the Villagers are positing that the election could be close enough that Barack Obama could lose the popular vote but win the Electoral College. And they predict consternation if that happens.

One such Villager is Karen Tumulty in The Washington Post:

A win in the electoral college that is not accompanied by one in the popular vote casts a shadow over the president and his ability to govern.

If Obama is re-elected that way, "the Republican base will be screaming that Romney should be president, and Obama doesn't represent the country," McKinnon predicted. "It's going to encourage more hyperpartisanship."

Josh Marshall has a response: Spare me.

Now, the possibility of election without a national majority exposes a genuine glitch in our system. No doubt. It is also true that these are the rules we play under and there is little reason to think that we'd have just the same result if both candidates were trying to maximize raw vote nationwide. Think how many more votes both candidates would mobilize in New York, California and Texas — not to mention among African-American voters in hopelessly red states in the South. But mainly to those making these arguments I would make the following points: Get over it and most of all STFU.

When a president wins election but doesn't win with a majority of the popular vote (vide Richard Nixon in 1968, Bill Clinton in 1992), he's called a minority president and it's supposed to force him into building a coalition with the other party because he's perceived as not being a strong leader. (In Mr. Obama's case, "minority president" has a little more meaning.) But that didn't happen with Mr. Nixon or Mr. Clinton. They took the oath. They're in the Oval Office. They've got the launch codes.

The last president to lose the popular vote and win the election was George W. Bush in 2000. Not only were the Republicans perfectly happy with that outcome — we heard a lot of "Get over it and most of all STFU" from them — Mr. Bush went ahead and governed as if he had won in a landslide.

It's all a matter of perception. Act like you won big and people will think you did. As for the talk of "hyperpartisanship," all I can say is welcome back to Earth and did you enjoy your four years in the Delta Quadrant?

I would much rather that Barack Obama wins both the popular vote and the Electoral College (and Nate Silver is saying his chances are good that he will), but if he is a minority president, I hope he governs like he beat the snot out of them. The GOP will richly deserve it.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Vote efficiency in the Electoral College system, or why national polls only tell part of the story

By Richard K. Barry

In the news today were stories that Obama did poorly in Democratic primaries in the traditionally conservative states of Kentucky and Arkansas. In Kentucky he took just 57.9% of the vote to 42% who cast a vote for "uncommitted." In Arkansas, with 70% tallied he was beating some no-name by a 59% to 41% margin. The challenger promised to repeal Obamacare.

These are states that McCain took easily in 2008, and in which Hillary Clinton won in the Democratic primaries that year.

They are conservative states, the primary was meaningless so only those with an axe to grind would be highly motivated and Obama has never felt the love in this part of America anyway.

What is interesting about this, though, is the concept of "vote efficiency" that it brings too mind.

Even though national polls have Romney and Obama within the margin of error, it is possible that in many states that Romney takes in November, he will win by a large margin. It is also possible that in many states Obama wins, Romney will be more competitive.

In an Electoral College system which is mostly "winner-take-all" on a state-by-basis, Obama's vote is far more likely to be efficient, meaning he can win more states with less national vote.

Put a different way, 50% plus one of the vote wins you all electoral votes in each state (mostly). And every vote you get over 50% plus one is, in a sense, wasted. Similarly, every vote you get in an attempt that falls short of 50% plus one, is a wasted vote.

Take all the votes in Kentucky and Arkansas. I don't care.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Huffington Post's totally cool interactive Electoral College map

By Richard K. Barry

If you like interactive political maps, you're going to love the Election Dashboard at Huffington Post. You should check it out.

I know it's early, but things simply don't look that good for Mitt Romney. At this point, based on available polling information, this is how HuffPo breaks it down.

270 electoral votes are needed to win. 205 votes are in states in which President Obama is strong and 93 in states that lean towards Obama. That would add up to 298, or a bit more than 270.

They say there are 170 electoral votes in states where Mitt Romney is strong. They also say that, at this point, no additional states lean towards Romney.

70 votes are in states they consider a tossup. Tossup states with electoral votes noted are Arizona (11), Colorado (9), Iowa (6), Missouri(10), North Carolina (15), Nevada (6), Virginia (13).

That would mean that if Romney took all the tossup states (70), plus states where he is strong (170), he would sit at 240 electorate votes with 270 needed to win.

I'm not saying Romney can't win, much too early to say anything that foolish. But if HuffPo is close to right in how they see things, Romney needs to win all the tossup states and then take about 30% of the electoral college votes (30 out of 93) in states where Obama is deemed to have an early advantage.

I guess we'll be looking at those tossup states and those "lean" states pretty closely as events unfold. And the campaigns will be doing the same thing to decide where to spend their time and money.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Obama wins... it's (almost) official!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Oh, the Electoral College. Isn't it hilarious?

In case you missed it, the 538 electors cast their ballots yesterday, and, wouldn't you know it, Obama won!

Does that make it official? No. Congress still must confirm the result, and that will be on January 6.

**********

I don't mean to dismiss the significance of yesterday's events. As the AP notes in its article, linked above, "[i]n many states, the formal, staid proceeding was touched with poignance, particularly among people old enough to recall a time when voting alone posed the risk of violence for black Americans."

For many of the 538 electors, that is, a seemingly meaningless act was deeply personal and deeply meaningful.

As former Steelers great Franco Harris, an Obama elector in Pennsylvania, put it, "[t]hat was special. This was the most valuable thing I've ever signed my name to."

Obama won the election on November 4, but every stage of the process is important in its own way, even if the Electoral College process doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense these days.

Riffing on The Reaction

By Carol Gee

Liberalism waxed unbound regarding Republicans yesterday at The Reaction. Our little writers' group did not lack for opinions about party prospects for victory in November, the party convention, and about evening's featured speaker, its nominee for vice president, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. While I, too was preoccupied with Palin, my mind persisted in visualizing what was going on outside of the convention in the Minneapolis streets. That led to visualizing what a Palin presidency might look like. Today my post riffs off of what my co-bloggers contributed during yesterday's big bountiful liberal dialogue, carrying each idea to possibilities presented for the future with Sarah Palin as the POTUS.

Foresee a a fear mongering administration that politicizes, lies and obfuscates, covers up its ineptitude, coddles cronies, punishes domestic enemies, and breaks the law, all in the name of protecting America. Libby Spencer correctly predicted yesterday that, to quote:

Sarah Palin will give a great speech. She will lie her face off.

The GOP base will go wild and proclaim that this proves she is a true reformer who is ready to lead.

They will not see the irony in that they have been accusing Obama of being a candidate who only makes great speeches but is too inexperienced to lead.

The punderati will declare this brilliant stroke a gamechanger.

. . . Somewhere, in an undisclosed location, Karl Rove will be chortling and popping a bottle of champagne.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility to visualize that a Vice-President Palin could be called upon to become the U.S. President. One in three Vice-Presidents have done so in the past. Palin's aggressive personality, Right Wing reactionary beliefs, unstable leadership style, and thin knowledge base would almost certainly guarantee permanent crisis mode for the country. To some it might feel like "the end times." Think about it. The Reaction's editor, Michael J.W. Stickings, revisiting Palin tonight after the speech -- and the predictable pundit commentary -- asked:

Seriously, this person -- I'd say "woman," but the Republicans are so quick to throw around the sexism charge -- is on a national ticket and could be the next vice president? Are you kidding me?

The Supreme Court could decide in a close election, as they did in 2000. Theoretically, in a free and fair election, each vote cast counts just one. The Electoral College will decide the outcome of the election, however, based on which party's nominees win each state. But an election could be stolen, with voter intimidation, electronic voting problems, or unfair campaign advertising. Under certain circumstances Palin is not that far from the presidency. Neither daily tracking polls nor national popularity polls can predict with certainty that Obama and Biden will prevail. My co-blogger Carl did an excellent electoral vote analysis about "How McCain could win," ending it with cautious optimism, however. To quote:

If McCain can hold onto the states currently at least leaning his way, and recapture Iowa, then the election will basically come down to Virginia. I suspect Nevada is less in play than pollsters think (again, that "guns" thing comes into play). Obama does well in the urban and college towns, but if you look at the primary map, the counties that Clinton took west of the Shenandoah are largely Republican.

This is not good news for Obama. Again, guns and religion. Working class folks. Obama will have to make the case over the next months that he's not the scary liberal black man that the Republicans will paint him as, that he's an average American, at least as average as Sarah Palin, with an interesting life story and a rugged upbringing. He has to show he learned something, some common sense.

If he can do that, he will win the election, but it will not be the landslide many are predicting.

The United States of America is on the verge of becoming a theocracy. The current Bush administration is the model upon which the Republican base is building its case. Ever since the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, Republicans have governed using the naturally resulting fears of citizens. And Governor Sarah Palin was chosen in order to solidify the continuation of right wing evangelical government, for the on-going benefit of the rich and powerful. Is it not hard to image "Commander in Chief" Palin, upon becoming President, developing the strategies for leading the mighty U.S. military and maintaining successful foreign relations around the world? Just look at this nominee and look at the last 8 years of our current president. You have all the information necessary. Nothing would change because Palin would be the next Bush. Capt. Fogg posted "Thy will be done" at The Reaction yesterday. To quote the opening and closing graphs:

Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in Vain.

"I think God's will has to be done," said Sarah Palin.

...We quibble about her experience. We pretend she's intelligent and honest and moral. We pretend the press which never asks embarrassing questions or investigates any claim is giving her a hard time -- because they're liberal.

I no longer ask how insane things have to get before anybody notices. I no longer ask how a democracy gives its consent to tyranny. I know the answer, we're living the answer.

Based on her past limited record, visualizing a Palin administration that deeply respects the Constitution, routinely protects civil liberties and adheres to the rule of law is difficult. Palin is currently being investigated for ethics violations, if the probe is allowed to go forward, which is doubtful. Palin's police were, allegedly, seen by her as tools to be used for personal purposes. And I venture to guess that a President Palin would view the Bible as trumping the Constitution in a close call. Quoting my own post at The Reaction yesterday, "Reflections On an Emerging Election Process":

Regarding protest and the police state in Minnesota, the news about the health of the U.S. Constitution is not good. Professor Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild, posted this full analysis today at Dandelion Salad: "Police State Methods: Preemptive Strikes Against Protest at the Republican National Convention." It is not clear that the Constitution is even on life support, according to Glenn Greenwald's full and updated expose of the government's involvement at Salon.com. Pam's House Blend (9/2/08) reported "Donna Brazile pepper sprayed,"* and Greg Palast (on 9/1/08) headlined "Amy Goodman arrested."* Lindsay Beyerstein reported today at firedoglake/CampaignSilo that, "Police Gas Docile Crowd Outside the RNC." The ACLU reports, "More from the RNC."

Visualizing Governor Sarah Palin as the President of the United States is important to a rational and realistic election process. One's imagination does not need to be stretched very much because the current events can yield good clues. My co-bloggers contributions reinforce the vision I have tried to present in the light of today: Think about ranks of police in riot gear, arresting journalists for conspiracy to riot. Think about the gap between rich and poor widening. Believe that drilling for oil in Alaska will bring down gasoline prices. Give up your belief in evolution. Be willing to let go of your woman's right to choose what happens to your own body. Understand that "reform" would be a cruel illusion. And be very aware that most voters cast their presidential votes using gut instinct. Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin should be vetted by visualizing voters. The four candidates have just two months to vie for the leadership of the free world. The outcome will be either a continuation of the current corporatocracy or a true change of direction.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Whatever happened to summer vacation?

By Carl

Wow. I mean, wow. When did you start reading about a political campaign in earnest before Labor Day?

Items in the news today:

Obama heads to Iraq - Well, you sort of knew this was coming. I mean, McCain is going to hammer Obama on his Iraq votes and his lack of experience, so why not inoculate yourself a bit?

Giuliani and McCain attend Yankees game - Speculation is rife that Rudy is on the short list. This ticket would be a dream come true for Obama. Imagine Rudy being forced to answer questions regarding racism in New York (Amadou Diallou, Patrick Dorismond and Abner Louima happened on his watch) in the context of running against a black candidate.

James Dobson to endorse McCain? - Certified wingnut & living room gibbon James Dobson, who once famously said "I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience," has apparently sold his conscience off.

In a related story, McCain and Obama agree to meet in megachurch forum - It's not so much a debate as sequential interviews with the minister, but it's close enough to the first debate you'll see between the two.

Netroots Nation (aka YearlyKos, aka Don't Bother Attending This Circlejerk) was shunned by Obama This Year - Again, a sign that Obama is abandoning his faux-liberal stance and his faux-liberal buddies at the Great Orange Satan. Hell, even Nancy Pelosi had the cojones to show up!

No more Electoral College? - Not quite, but there is a movement afoot by states to have their electoral college votes endorse the national popular vote winner. There's nothing unconstitutional about it, either, as the states clearly have the right to apportion their electoral votes as they see fit.

This last one might make for some intriguing possibilities come November 4...

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Electoral history and perspective 2

By Edward Copeland

(Part 1, posted yesterday, is here.)

MAINE (4 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic caucus winner: Obama
GOP caucus winner: Romney
Conclusion: The last four elections, Maine has went Democratic. The five before that, it went GOP. In the most recent polls, Clinton leads McCain by only six percentage points while Obama leads McCain by 14 points. It will probably swing Democratic in November, but even more assuredly if Obama is the standard bearer.

MARYLAND (10 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: One of the biggest Democratic strongholds, going Dem in 7 out of the last 10 elections. Again, Obama is beating McCain by 13 points while Hillary leads only by 9 points. Either way, the Dems should get this one.

MASSACHUSETTS (12 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Clinton
GOP primary winner: Romney
Conclusion: A reliably Democratic state, only going red during both of Reagan's elections. Either Obama or Clinton should win this one easily.

MICHIGAN (17 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: ????????
GOP primary winner: Romney
Conclusion: Michigan has gone Dem for the past four elections, but went GOP the five before that. Recent polls show McCain ahead of both Clinton and Obama by three points, within the margin of error, with sizable undecided numbers. Who can say how this one will really play?

MINNESOTA (10 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic caucus winner: Obama
GOP caucus winner: Romney
Conclusion: The state only went red in 1972 in the past 10 races and this one shouldn't be any different except that in the most recent polls McCain beats Hillary by five points while Obama beats McCain by 15 points.

MISSISSIPPI (6 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: Among the reddest of red states. McCain will get this in a walk over Obama or Clinton.

MISSOURI (11 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: This state usually goes Republican, but it's always close. In fact, that was even true in the primaries, where Obama's victory over Hillary and McCain's over Huckabee were both by 1 percent. This will be one of the main battlegrounds, no matter who the Democratic nominee is. This is borne out in recent polling as well, where McCain leads Hillary by 1 percent and Obama by 2 percent with sizable undecideds. Missouri could well be the decisive state.

MONTANA (3 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary: To be held June 3
GOP caucus winner: Romney
Conclusion: Except for Clinton's 1992 win, this is a solidly Republican state, though McCain finished third behind Romney and Ron Paul. The most recent polls show McCain beating Hillary by 20 points with 14 percent undecided and McCain beating Obama, but only by 8 points with 14 percent undecided. Still, it doesn't much matter because I'm sure it will end up in the red column.

NEBRASKA (5 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic caucus winner: Obama
GOP primary: To be held May 13
Conclusion: For a state that has gone Republican in the 10 past presidential elections, a March poll shows Obama surprisingly close to McCain, losing only by 3 points, within the margin of error. On the other hand, the same poll showed Hillary losing to McCain by 27 points. Could Nebraska actually be in play if Obama is the nominee?

NEW HAMPSHIRE (4 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Clinton
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: New Hampshire went for Kerry and for Bill Clinton twice, but its history has usually been to go for the GOP. Still, N.H. is one of the angriest anti-Dubya states. Despite her primary win, Hillary only leads McCain by 2 points while Obama beats McCain by 13 points.

NEW JERSEY (15 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Clinton
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: New Jersey has been consistently in the Dem column in the past four elections, but before that it went GOP the previous six. Again, though Clinton won the primary, Obama does slightly better in a potential matchup with McCain beating him by 7 points to Hillary's 6 points. Either way, I think N.J. is safe for the Dems.

NEW MEXICO (5 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic caucus winner: Clinton
GOP primary: To be held June 3
Conclusion: Once they finally finished counting, Hillary eked out a 1 point victory over Obama. The general election here is almost always as close. Even though McCain is a next door numbers, polls show Obama winning by 15 points while Hillary only tops McCain by 5 points.

NEW YORK (31 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Clinton
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: Of course, it's important to remember that New York is "a big state" that Hillary won, unlike Illinois which Obama one because Obama is the senator from Illinois, so it doesn't count. The fact that Hillary is the senator of New York is merely coincidental to her win. (Interestingly, she only beat Obama by 17 points in her home state compared to the 32 points beat her in his home state.) Still, New York has been reliably Democratic for the past five elections. Once again though, a recent poll shows Obama win over McCain being bigger in New York (21 points) than Hillary's (11 points). Regardless, either Dem should easily take the state. Oh wait, McCain won the primary. So if Obama is the nominee, that means McCain's better equipped to win the general, right? At least, that's what the Clintonistas would argue.

NORTH CAROLINA (15 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic and GOP primaries: To be held May 6
Conclusion: Surprisingly, for a dyed-in-the-wool red state, a March poll shows Obama only 2 points behind McCain. The same poll shows Hillary 8 points behind McCain. Nevertheless, I imagine it would have to be a true Democratic landslide in November for this state not to go GOP.

NORTH DAKOTA (3 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic caucus winner: Obama
GOP caucus winner: Romney
Conclusion: After 10 straight Republican wins in general elections, I imagine you can color this one red, despite a March poll that actually shows Obama 4 points AHEAD of McCain. The same poll shows Hillary 19 points BEHIND McCain. I imagine the Hillary numbers are probably more accurate for both Democrats. At least the state's only worth 3 electoral votes.

OHIO (20 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Clinton
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: Ohio, while it has gone occasionally to Democrats, always tends to break our hearts. February polls show both Clinton and Obama trailing McCain, but not by a lot. Either candidate will have to fight for this one, which they must.

OKLAHOMA (7 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Clinton
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: If this state is going to go Democratic for the first time since 1964, I can't imagine it's this year, even if a native son was a v.p. choice.

OREGON (7 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic and GOP primaries: To be held May 20
Conclusion: While this state has gone Democratic for five straight general elections, it was very close in 2004. February polls showed Obama 1 point up on McCain and Hillary 8 points behind McCain. The Dems need to hold on to this one and I think they should be able to. At least I hope they do.

PENNSYLVANIA (21 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic and GOP primaries: To be held April 22
Conclusion: February polls showed both Clinton and Obama barely ahead of McCain, with a large number of undecided. This is a true swing state. On the plus side, they threw Rick Santorum out of office last time. On the minus side, they elected him to the Senate in the first place and Kerry only beat Dubya there in 2004 by 2 points.

RHODE ISLAND (4 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Clinton
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: For five straight elections, this has landed in the Democrats' column and I can't imagine it will be different this year with either Obama or Hillary at the top of the ticket.

SOUTH CAROLINA (8 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: While I would love to see S.C. break McCain's heart one more time, I can't see the Democrats winning here no matter who is at the top of the ticket.

SOUTH DAKOTA (3 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic and GOP primaries: To be held June 3
Conclusion: I'm afraid McCain will beat either Democrat handily here.

TENNESSEE (11 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Clinton
GOP primary winner: Huckabee
Conclusion: If Gore couldn't even carry his home state, I'd be surprised if the Democrats could do it this year.

TEXAS (34 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Clinton
Democratic caucus winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: Though Texas did vote for Carter and Humphrey in their respective years, this is a state that threw Ann Richards out of office when they liked it for Dubya. Their judgment isn't the best in the world and McCain has this one locked up. Has anyone looked at a Texas ballot lately? Do they even list the Democratic presidential candidate any more?

UTAH (5 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: Romney
Conclusion: Since the state has only gone for the Democrat twice since 1948, I think we can safely assume this one goes to McCain.

VERMONT (3 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: A state that has embraced same-sex marriage and repeatedly votes to impeach Dubya on local and state levels isn't going to vote for McCain. A March poll shows Hillary ahead of him by 10 points and Obama ahead of him by an astounding 34 points.

VIRGINIA (13 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: Even though Virginia hasn't voted for a Democrat since LBJ, its changing demographics have really been to the Democrats' favor and they could turn a historically red state blue: If it's Obama anyway. He's beating McCain there by 6 points. Hillary is losing to McCain there by 3 points. Then again, they may resent her for saying their state is a small state that doesn't matter.

WASHINGTON (11 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic caucus winner: Obama
GOP caucus winner: McCain
Conclusion: Though this state has gone Democratic for the past five elections, March polls shows Obama losing to McCain by 1 point and Hillary losing to McCain by 8 points. I can't believe this will be the case by November, though once again it's a state that Hillary has dissed as unimportant even though they even voted for Dukakis.

WEST VIRGINIA (5 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary: To be held May 13
GOP primary winner: Huckabee
Conclusion: The state has gone blue six out of the last 10 times. A March poll shows Clinton beating McCain by 5 and McCain beating Obama by 19. If Hillary wins the primary, watch how suddenly a mere 5 electoral votes will make it a "bigger" state than Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. You don't have to be logical in the Clinton universe.

WISCONSIN (10 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: The past five elections, it has gone blue. In February polls, Obama only led McCain by 1 point while McCain cleans Hillary's clock by 12 points and that was before she dismissed it as unimportant. It's a swing.

WYOMING (3 ELECTORAL VOTES)

Democratic caucus winner: Obama
GOP caucus winner: Romney
Conclusion: From this state's bowels came Darth Cheney. No way it's going blue.

Electoral history and perspective 1

By Edward Copeland

(Ed. note: This post has been divided into two parts. Part 2 will appear later today. -- MJWS)

Now, I'm not going to waste any time trying to convince Carl how wrongheaded his blind support of Hillary Clinton is. That would be like trying to convince the crazies of Fred Phelps' Westboro, Kan., Baptist church that they are wrong to protest the funeral of fallen troops because they blame their deaths on their perception that the U.S. is too tolerant toward homosexuals.

However, I do want to go through all the states and their presidential election history to shoot down the argument by the Clinton campaign that their "big state" wins in Democratic primaries translate into them having a better shot at winning those same states in November than Obama would, when there are no closed primaries and everyone can vote. The sad fact is that since the GOP managed to pick McCain, this won't be the electoral cakewalk for the Dems that it should be for either Obama or Clinton.

ALABAMA (9 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: Huckabee
Conclusion: No Democrat will likely win the state in November since it hasn't voted Democrat since 1976. McCain won't lose just because he lost the primary.


ALASKA (3 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic caucus winner: Obama
GOP caucus winner: Romney
Conclusion: No Democrat will likely win the state in November since it last voted for a Democrat in 1964. McCain won't lose just because he lost the primary.


ARIZONA (10 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic primary winner: Clinton
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion This could have been a potential swing state (it voted for Clinton's re-election) if not for the fact that McCain comes from there and won't likely lose.


ARKANSAS (6 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic primary winner: Clinton
GOP primary winner: Huckabee
Conclusion: This is the one state where Clinton might have a chance in the fall if she were the nominee, though I'd still give the edge to McCain since it's voted Republican recently whenever Bill wasn't the nominee.


CALIFORNIA (55 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic primary winner: Clinton
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: This one will got Democratic no matter who the nominee is. It voted for Bush 41 after the years of favorite son Reagan, but it's been blue ever since.


COLORADO (9 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic caucus winner: Obama
GOP caucus winner: Romney
Last time state voted Democratic: 1992
Conclusion: This will be one of the key swing states due to its rapidly changing demographics and either Democrat has a good shot at putting it in their column. Bill Clinton won here in 1992, though McCain could still pull it out because of its usual GOP trands.


CONNECTICUT (7 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: While it's been reliably Democratic for the four presidential elections, prior to that the GOP took the previous five elections. It's worth remembering that this is also the state that sent Censorin' Joe back to the Senate as an independent and he's endorsed McCain. I still think either Dem will win, but it could be a close one whether it's Obama or Clinton.


DELAWARE (3 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: This is another state that is fairly reliably Democratic, not having went GOP since Bush 41. It even voted for Carter. I think either Dem should take this easily.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (3 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: Hell, even if Mike Gravel were the Democratic nominee, the Dems would win this won. If they lost all 50 states, they'd still get D.C.


FLORIDA (27 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic primary winner: ????????
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: While Florida has been a close battleground in the past two presidential elections, it has only gone Democratic twice in the past 10 presidential elections, most recently for Clinton's re-election. It will probably be close again, but McCain's moderate enough (in appearance) and with popular Gov. Charlie Crist's backing, I have a feeling that Florida will land in the GOP column again.


GEORGIA (15 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: Huckabee
Conclusion: Bill Clinton couldn't even win re-election there against Bob Dole and aside from Clinton's first run and native son Jimmy Carter's two wins, Georgia has been solidly GOP in presidential elections (though in 1968, it went for the third party run of George Wallace). Still, Georgia is one of the Southern states that has been undergoing the biggest changes in its demographics and if you wanted to try to use primary results as a predictor of general election votes, Obama's 35 point victory over Hillary certainly portends a better shot at beating McCain there and 15 electoral votes in a close race is nothing to sneeze at.


HAWAII (4 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic caucus winner: Obama
GOP caucus: To be held May 16
Conclusion: It's not as much of a sure Democratic thing as D.C. (the state went for Reagan in 1984 and Nixon in 1972), but it's damn close.


IDAHO (4 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic caucus winner: Obama
GOP primary: To be held May 27
Conclusion: 1964 is the only time since 1952 that Idaho went for the Democratic presidential candidate. You might as well call this the GOP D.C.


ILLINOIS (21 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: McCain
Conclusion: The Democrats have won this state the past four elections, but the GOP took it the six elections before that. Of course, it is Obama's home state but Hillary has strong roots there as well, though Obama still crushed her by 32 points. I guess 21 electoral votes make it a "small state."


INDIANA (11 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic and GOP primaries: To be held May 6
Conclusion: Even if Obama or Clinton put Evan Bayh on the ticket, it's doubtful any Democratic ticket will beat the GOP ticket. In recent polls, McCain wins handily there against either Democratic nominee.


IOWA (7 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic caucus winner: Obama
GOP caucus winner: Huckabee
Conclusion: This is one of the definitions of a swing state. In the last 10 elections, it has gone GOP six times and Democratic four times. It's interesting that both Hillary and McCain finished third in the caucuses here (and McCain actually tied, a few votes behind Fred Thompson). Recent polls show Obama beating McCain there by 10 points while McCain beats Hillary there by 11 points. Iowa does have a historical reluctance to vote for female candidates statewide or for national office and the Dems may need those 7 votes to win.


KANSAS (6 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic caucus winner: Obama
GOP caucus winner: Huckabee
Conclusion: Despite the popularity of its Democratic governor Kathleen Sebelius, this is among the reddest of red states, though Obama is surprisingly close (six points) to McCain in the state whereas Hillary loses to McCain by 24 points. Still, I imagine McCain wins in November regardless.


KENTUCKY (8 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic and GOP primary: May 20
Conclusion: Hard to call. The state voted for Carter once and Clinton twice, but it is usually reliably red and recent polls have McCain beating either Hillary or Obama handily.


LOUISIANA (9 ELECTORAL VOTES)
Democratic primary winner: Obama
GOP primary winner: Huckabee
Conclusion: This state bounces between both parties with amazing regularity. Current polling shows McCain beating either Obama or Clinton handily, but I think it could be winnable, especially if Obama is the nominee.


To be continued...

Dueling electoral college measures?

By AviShalom

Next year, Californians may be asked to vote on two conflicting measures to change how the state's presidential electors are allocated. Currently, like all states but Maine and Nebraska, California awards all its electors to the statewide plurality ticket for President and Vice President.

Republicans may throw their support behind a plan to change to the Maine and Nebraska model: one elector for the winner of the plurality in each congressional district, and two for the statewide plurality winner.

Democrats may back an initiative that would enter California into the proposed "National Popular Vote" interstate compact by which the electoral college would be converted into a nationwide plurality direct vote.

The status quo method is awful and should be abolished forthwith. However, is the congressional-district plan favored by some Republicans an improvement? On strictly small-d democratic grounds, absolutely not. Most congressional districts are totally safe for one party--even more than the state itself--and so this plan makes a problem (non-sensitivity to the popular vote) worse, not better.

Of course, on large-D Democratic grounds, the congressional-district plan is a major threat. It would essentially compensate the GOP for its likely loss of Ohio's 21 electoral votes in 2008. And the measure would be effective in the 2008 election were it to be on the ballot in February (presidential primary) or June (regular state primary), and were it to pass.

While a poll recently suggests 47% would favor the congressional-district measure and 35% oppose it, an actual vote is unlikely to result in 50% support, once statewide voters (most of whom have favored Democrats by wide margins in elections in which Arnold Schwarzenegger was not a candidate) catch wind of what is a pure partisan vote-grab.

The other measure would not take effect in 2008, but only after other states whose electoral votes sum to the 270 needed to elect a president had likewise signed on to the compact. At that point, states with enough to ensure victory in the electoral college to the popular-vote winning ticket would have bound themselves legally to give all their electoral votes to that ticket.

A bill to enter the state into the compact passed both houses of the legislature last year but was vetoed by the Governor.

I have discussed the National Popular Vote plan at Fruits & Votes, including making the point that this is not a partisan vote-grab, unlike the California Republicans' congressional-district plan (and to be fair, state Democratic efforts to play the same game in GOP states like North Carolina). In fact, I suspect that the Democratic Party nationally is marginally favored by the current use of statewide plurality in 48 states (and DC). But a direct vote--essentially what the National Popular Vote interstate compact would give us--is preferred democratically (small d).

If both measures in California qualify for the ballot and are approved, the one with the higher vote total would prevail. That's a lousy way to choose from among three alternatives, of course. But for me, as a small-d democrat, it is easy. The status quo is preferable to the congressional district plan, and the national popular vote is vastly preferable to the status quo.

You may read more about the National Popular Vote interstate compact at the movement's website.

(Cross-posted at Fruits & Votes.)