Obama, the Democrats and the Chances of Another Popular Vote Victory and Electoral College Loss

In the looking-way-too-far-ahead department think about this: If Obama is the Democratic Party’s nominee he could convincingly win the popular vote and still lose the Electoral College in November. This split has happened three times before, the latest, of course, when Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the election to George W. Bush.

Although Obama is likely to bring out significantly more voters than Kerry in 2004, this would mean little if the turnout is in states like California and New York which Democrats generally win anyway. Even much higher turnouts of blacks in South Carolina or Georgia, which have large black populations, will pad the popular vote but these states almost certainly will remain red states. So, although Obama could end up with a clear majority of the popular vote, he could do so and still have the same blue-state, Electoral College tally as Kerry.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee the all-important question is, can he win in a purple state like Ohio or Florida? Kerry didn’t, and if Obama does bring out significantly more voters than did Kerry and even wins the popular vote, can he? The March 4 primary in Ohio may give some idea but is unlikely to answer this question definitively.

In support of his argument that Obama would likely do well in the general election, Peter Beinart recently wrote in “Courting Joe Six-Pack,” http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1715282,00.html that the demographics have changed significantly since George McGovern and even Michael Dukakis lost as the Democratic nominees and, as a result of the shifts, Obama is unlikely to be hurt by the white conservative vote because, Beinart writes, “this fall, for the first time in memory, blue-collar whites may not constitute a majority at the polls.” The implication is that blacks, Hispanics, college-educated whites, and other voters more likely to vote for Obama can get him the win that was not possible for McGovern or Dukakis. The demographics certainly have changed since the days of those two but it matters more where they have changed for the general election and how in relation, say, to 2004, the last presidential election. In other words, it isn’t enough to look at the effect of demographics on the popular vote or even the number of states won but rather on swing states and the likelihood of a candidate winning these.

California and Washington State, for example, have changed greatly since 1972, the year McGovern was trounced by Nixon, adding especially more Hispanics to the total population in each state, but these are states that the Democrats have won for some time now. A demographic shift has also occurred in many states in the south that have more Hispanics and blacks relative to white males. These changes should add nicely to Obama’s popular vote but what about the Electoral College votes, and states likes Ohio and Florida which Kerry needed but did not win in 2004? Have the demographics changed so much in these states since the 2004 presidential election to make a difference; can the increase in blacks and Hispanics put him over the top? This would be a much better indication of how Obama will do in November.

Also, in contrast to the implication in Beinart's article, Obama is actually doing pretty well, especially in recent primaries, among those identify themselves as independents and conservatives, groups that have been voting for Obama recently and who are, despite what folks like Beinart imply, essential if the Democratic nominee is to win any of the swing states in November. And if Obama does win in the Ohio or Texas primaries, he almost certainly will do this with the help of conservative and even independent voters who can vote in both primaries. What must be troubling for Democrats, though, is that although these groups have been voting for Obama recently (most recently in the Virginia primary) and could help him in the Ohio and Texas primaries, his political views and voting record are almost certainly unknown to many of those currently voting for him. It is likely that they, like many in the media, appear, instead, to be caught up in all the excitement. As a result, if Obama is the nominee, his soaring rhetoric about change and unity won’t be as compelling when the Republicans draw him into a battle that, ironically, could be one of the most divisive in recent memory.

If Obama is the Democratic Party's nominee it is very possible that the new demographics will not, in fact, enable him to break out of the blue states. Similarly, as more independents and conservatives become aware of his record, courtesy of the Republicans, many of the voters that Obama is getting now may go instead to McCain. If this comes to be, and the 2008 election ends with the Republicans securing another four years in the White House, Democrats will wish that they paid more attention to the issues, the voting records of the Democratic candidates, and had scrutinized claims such as Obama's that wins in the caucus and primaries translate to victories in even red states in the general election. I also suspect that many in the media, who often write so uncritically about Obama's greater electibility, will have a similar wish.