"The 2010 Colorado electorate was a total outlier (67 percent with a B.A. or more), while Ohio was a near–microcosm of the national presidential electorate. Every Midwestern state for which exit polls are available looked pretty much like Ohio."
William Galston
The New Republic
Gallup reports that Barack Obama's popularity is down across the board.
His highest approval ratings come from Hawaii, where he was born, and Washington, D.C., two places that are about as secure for a Democratic presidential nominee as any in the United States. Hawaii has supported the Republican nominee twice in its 50 years as a state; D.C. never has.
For a president who is midway through a term that began with approval ratings well into the 60s, those are the only places that exceed 60% approval less than two years before he must face the voters again — and, as high as the approval ratings are for Obama in those two states (84% in D.C., nearly 66% in Hawaii), they're still lower than they were a year ago.
Thus, if this was Election Day 2012, Obama presumably could count on at least seven electoral votes, needing a mere 263 to wrap up a second term.
In fairness to Obama, several states are reporting approval ratings that exceed 50% — right now. That may or may not be true in November 2012, but right now New York, Delaware, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Illinois and Vermont give Obama approval ratings in the 50s — the state of Washington barely gives the president a majority.
(The flip side is that Obama's approval has dropped by more than 10% in seven of those states in the last year — and all the exceptions also report declines. If he keeps hemorrhaging support at that rate, many of those currently supportive states could be in jeopardy as well. )
If Obama carries all those states (most of which, it should be noted, are in the Northeast), that would result in a total of 144 additional electoral votes. With the ones from Hawaii and D.C., Obama would have 151 electoral votes — but that still leaves him needing 119 to win. Where will they come from?
That brings me to an intriguing article by William Galston in The New Republic about two possible campaign strategies for Obama — only one of which, he says, can succeed.
But, before I get into that, let me point out that those states currently giving Obama majority approval in Gallup's survey are states that have been inclined to support the Democratic nominee in recent years. The last time a Democrat did not carry California, Illinois, Vermont, Connecticut, Delaware or Maryland was in 1988. New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Washington last voted Republican in the Reagan landslide of 1984.
Anyway, back to Galston's article.
He starts off by observing that, in presidential politics, the economy tends to trump everything else — and, with unemployment still staggeringly high, gas in the $3–plus range and food prices surging, it seems all but certain that the economy will be the dominant topic in next year's election.
A whole bunch of things could happen between now and November 2012, Galston concedes.
"The economy could over– or under–perform current projections; the Republicans could choose a nominee who's too conservative or lacks credibility as a potential president," he writes.
"But it's more likely that both the economy and the presidential nomination contest will yield results in the zone where strategic choices could prove decisive. In that context, two recent events are alarming, because they offer clues to what may well become President Obama's re–election strategy."
One of those events, Galston says, was David Axelrod's remark that Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet's triumph in last fall's Colorado Senate race was "particularly instructive."
The other was the choice of Charlotte, N.C., over places like St. Louis, Minneapolis and Cleveland as the site for the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
These two events, Galston says, "focus more on the Democratic periphery — territory newly won in 2008 — than on the heartland, where elections have been won and lost for the past half–century."
This, he says, has the potential to be "a mistake of epic proportions" because the U.S. has much more in common with Ohio than Colorado.
True, Obama carried Colorado in 2008, but it was the second time in the last 15 presidential elections that Colorado was in the Democratic column. It may occasionally elect Democrats to statewide offices, but it remains, at heart, a red state, and I believe it is a longshot to support the president's re–election campaign.
After all, Colorado voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, but it opposed his re–election in 1996.
And I wouldn't necessarily say that there was anything especially instructive about the Senate race in that state. Republicans nominated a terrible candidate; even so, a shift of 15,000 votes (out of nearly 1.8 million) would have altered the outcome, and many people believe the candidate who lost the GOP nomination, the state's lieutenant governor, would have captured the seat.
In what was clearly a Republican year, Democrats really dodged a bullet in Colorado.
What's more, Galston observes that (according to Gallup) people who lean Democratic or identify with Democrats have declined in every state since 2008.
"The median loss was 6.1 percent," he points out. "And every Midwestern state was at or above the median."
(That includes an 8.2% drop in Obama's home state of Illinois.)
The Democrats' base is shaky at best.
"The Midwest is home to large numbers of white working–class voters, who accounted for nearly 40 percent of all voters nationwide in 2008," Galston writes. "Obama has never done very well with this group, losing them by 2 to 1 against Hillary Clinton in the primaries and by 58 percent to 40 percent against McCain in the general election. And they turned against Democratic candidates in the vast majority of 2010 House and Senate races."
Thus, those 151 electoral votes are not exactly in the bag yet. And, even if they are, I ask again, where will Obama get the other 119?
Then 10 states with the highest disapproval rating for Obama — Wyoming, Idaho, West Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Arkansas and Kansas — all voted for John McCain in 2008. They also voted for George W. Bush twice.
If Obama asked me for my advice, I would tell him to avoid spending much time or money in any of those states. But my guess is that this was already going to be part of the plan. It wouldn't be much of a change from last time, though, since he spent little to no time or money in any of them in 2008.
Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia last voted for a Democrat in 1996. The others haven't voted for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
Gallup says Obama's approval rating in Colorado is currently 45%, approximately the same as Texas and below Mississippi and Georgia, three states with large minority populations that haven't voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter 35 years ago.
Obama's 2008 triumphs in places like Florida, North Carolina and, especially, Virginia raised some eyebrows, but they were clear exceptions to the rule in the South. With Obama's popularity sinking, I doubt that he can expect to retain them, particularly if Republicans nominate a strong candidate next year.
(That might not be imperative. Gallup recently reported that Obama is running even with a generic Republican nominee.)
Back to the question. Where ya gonna get those 119 votes?
Well, let's go back to that strategic question posed by Galston, the tug–o–war he sees between Colorado (and the recently acquired territory) and Ohio (and states that have been voting primarily for Democrats for the last 20 years).
Apparently based only on political considerations, he favors an agenda that is directed at the working–class white, modestly educated voters in Ohio as opposed to the more intellectually inclined voters in Colorado.
Some folks would say that is playing to the lowest common denominator, but Galston thinks it makes sense — and so do I.
Obama swept the Midwestern states by generally wide margins two years ago, but Gallup's numbers show him in a precarious position there.
If approval ratings are any guide, only Illinois would be likely to vote for Obama today. Michigan (49% approve) would be close; so would Minnesota (48%) and Ohio (47%), but Indiana (44%) appears poised to resume voting for Republicans. Barring a dramatic development, I think you'll see Indiana voting for the GOP nominee next year.
The Democrats' decision not to hold their convention in St. Louis may have been a wise move. Now, personally, I love St. Louis, but I don't think Obama can win the Show–Me State, where only 41% approve of his performance as president. There wouldn't have been much to gain there.
Well, he didn't win Missouri last time, anyway. And he did win North Carolina. That is true, but I don't think he will be able to hold North Carolina, even with the convention being held in Charlotte.
What about the other states that voted for Obama?
Those states are torn. If Monday had been Labor Day 2012 instead of Presidents Day 2011, Obama would have had a lot of ground to make up and not a lot of time to do it. His biggest problem is that this is not confined to a single region. It's all over the map — New Mexico's approval is 49%. Nevada's is 47%. Oregon's is 48%. So is Iowa's. Pennsylvania's is 46%.
I guess 2011 will be the year Obama will have to earn his salary.
And a good way for him to keep earning that salary would be to do whatever he can help unemployed Americans start earning salaries, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment