Rothenberg Sees Few Changes in Electoral Map

The other day, I wrote that historical voting trends suggest to me that there won't be many changes in the electoral map this year. This morning, Stuart Rothenberg is expressing a similar opinion.

Rothenberg writes, in the Rothenberg Political Report, that he isn't expecting major changes, either.

"There will be changes," he writes, "but don’t expect the 2008 presidential map to look wildly different from those of 2000 and 2004."

The last two elections were exceedingly close -- by historical standards -- in the Electoral College, so a shift by any state, large or small, is viewed as important -- even though it may not turn out to be when all the votes have been counted.

In 2004, for example, network analysts spent a lot of time in the early evening hours discussing the ramifications of New Hampshire's shift to the Democrats. Because of a handful of later shifts in the Republicans' favor, New Hampshire's change of heart ended up meaning nothing.

This year, Rothenberg points out, "Three states that were once competitive -- Kentucky, West Virginia and Tennessee -- no longer seem so."

And he says that voting trends refute another claim that Democrats have made.

"[S]o far there is no evidence that red states in the Deep South are potentially winnable for Obama because of their large black population," Rothenberg writes.

He also makes what could be a worrisome observation for anyone -- Republican or Democrat -- who remembers 2000.

"A close electoral map invariably raises the specter of a possible split decision -- with one nominee winning the popular vote and the other winning an Electoral College majority," Rothenberg writes.

"As in 2000, this seems like a serious possibility."

I don't think anyone wants to revisit that.

A 'Near-Perfect' Pick?

Hardly a week goes by that there isn't a column by someone who claims to know the best choice John McCain can make for running mate. Stuart Rothenberg is no exception.

Rothenberg says, in Roll Call, that he knows who would be a "near-perfect pick" for McCain -- Joe Lieberman.

It's an intriguing notion.

I know there have been times in American history -- primarily in the early days of the republic -- when an individual was elected vice president under two different presidents.

But I believe Lieberman would be in a position to make his own kind of history. I don't think anyone has ever been nominated for vice president by both of the major parties -- and in elections separated by only eight years.

Lieberman could be the first Jewish nominee in both parties. He's already been through one national campaign so he's been thoroughly vetted. No unpleasant surprises in his closet.

And he's devout in his support for the Iraq War -- and McCain. Lieberman, after all, endorsed McCain in December -- when the Arizona senator's chances looked somewhat bleak.

Offhand, though, I can think of a couple of drawbacks. For one, Lieberman is 66 years old. He doesn't exactly add the elements of youth and vigor that the 72-year-old McCain needs in a running mate. And I'm not sure he brings the kind of social conservatism that McCain needs to improve his standing with those voters.

Lieberman has been given a grade of "F" by the National Rifle Association. He has been critical of George W. Bush's veto of embryonic stem cell research. He criticized Bush's Medicare plan. He voted against Bush's Social Security plan.

Yet, he did stand with Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, some Democrats, and the Republican-controlled Congress in opposing the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube three years ago.

Is Rothenberg right? Is Lieberman a "near-perfect pick" for McCain?