Reversible Electoral Maps

I'm hearing a lot in this election about states "changing colors."

This stems from the typical color coding that TV networks use to indicate how a state has voted in a presidential election.

It's become a cliché to say that a conservative (Republican) state is a "red state," and a liberal (Democratic) state is a "blue state."

But if it makes everything easier to comprehend, I suppose I have no problem with it.

The truth is that most states have established recognizable voting patterns. California and New York, for example, have been voting heavily for Democratic nominees for a couple of decades. Texas has been voting heavily for Republican nominees for three decades.

And it's important to understand that these colors can change from one election to the next. It is possible.

I live in Texas, which has voted for Republican nominees in every presidential election since 1980. Does that mean Texas absolutely will not vote for Barack Obama in November? Not necessarily. People change. Their attitudes and beliefs change. And, sometimes, their votes change.

That's the dynamic nature of a democracy. Until the votes are counted, anything is possible.

But it's also important to remember that just because something is possible does not mean it is probable.

States seldom experience a sudden, long-term, seismic-like shift in party allegiances. When it happens, it is usually the product of a trend that has been a long time in the making.

It almost never occurs out of the blue (so to speak).

It's not the product of wishful thinking.

Ken Herman observes, in the Austin American-Statesman, that "[i]t takes a lot to make a state change color in a presidential election." Indeed. Unless it's going to be a one-time phenomenon (like the state of Colorado, which has voted for Republicans in nine of the last 10 elections — the exception being 1992, when it supported Bill Clinton against George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot), a campaign must devote a lot of resources to winning the hearts and minds of the voters.

Then Herman goes on to point out that, "[f]or all the money spent and speeches made, only ... Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico ... shifted from one column to the other in 2004."

Herman, however, seems determined to make the case that many states are "in play" in this year's election, so much so that he takes a comment from Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, completely out of context.

"It is highly likely that a half-dozen or more states will flip sides in 2008," Herman quotes Sabato, but he gives no time reference, which can lead the reader to conclude that Sabato made this statement in the last few days — perhaps after observing both parties' conventions and witnessing the acceptance speeches of both running mates.

In fact, the line was taken from an article Sabato wrote more than six weeks before either convention, and he posted it at his Crystal Ball '08 website on July 10.

(I knew the sentence Herman quoted sounded familiar. I referred to Sabato's article in my blog on July 10.

(Clearly, Sabato wrote that sentence with the knowledge that the Democrats were going to nominate a black man for president. That much had been established by July 10. But, unless that web-based "crystal ball" of his really is a crystal ball, he had no way of knowing the Republicans were going to nominate a woman for vice president.

(Does the Republican nomination of Sarah Palin for vice president change things in the fall? I'd say the jury is still out on that one.)

And, in the sentence immediately following the one Herman cited in his article, Sabato wrote, "Still, that suggests that around 40 states may keep the same color scheme. If November unexpectedly becomes a landslide for one party, then many states may temporarily defect from their usual allegiances."

In other words, unless something extraordinary happens, don't expect revolutionary reversals.

Enough states may switch sides to lift the Democrats to victory. But the races in the Electoral College have been very close in the last two elections. It wouldn't take a massive shift to reverse the results — a handful of states could turn things around in Obama's favor.

In 2008, we may see another election in which millions of dollars are spent and many speeches are made, only to see four or five states switch parties.

The presidency could hang in the balance while the nation waits for the final tallies in New Hampshire, Colorado and Nevada.

Which states switch sides — and which side benefits from the switch — remain to be seen.