2012 Is Only Nine Months Away

I guess I've always been something of an election junkie.

As far back as I can remember, I've been fascinated by political campaigns.

I was always interested in history. I guess I was drawn to the exciting stories about the birth of this nation and the decisions that shaped it along the way, but you could rightfully say that just about everything that has happened in America since the Revolutionary War has come to be because of the always–evolving democratic process.

In short, history is about America's leaders and how they carried out the will of the people. It is through a free and democratic election that the will of the people is imposed; thus, elections are the points of origin.

Much of the attention these days is on the Republican prospects for 2012 — who will win the nomination? But, at this point, I think that is still more of a popularity contest, a measure of name recognition, than anything else.

No votes have been cast, other than public opinion polls, which can be useful but have no real affect on the nominating process. No delegates, after all, are committed through the results of opinion polls — other than the polls that count, the ones on Election Day.

Until Iowa holds its caucuses and New Hampshire holds its primaries, no one is leading in either party, not even the incumbent — who, in large part because of foreign policy, may yet draw opposition from within his own party, as Jimmy Carter did in 1980.

It is only natural, I suppose, to speculate about the identities of the nominees, even if one assumes that Obama will be renominated, perhaps unchallenged.

But, at this point in the nominating process, I think it is more instructive to think about what is likely to dominate the political dialogue next year and how it might play with the voters.

I expect the economy to take center stage next year, but I don't expect much to be done about it this year. Anything that is done can only benefit Barack Obama — and Republicans clearly do not want to do anything that will strengthen Obama's hand.

They were cautious at first, unsure of how he would fare as president but conscious of the fact that his initial approval ratings were astronomical; thus, they were hesitant. As those ratings fell, Republicans were emboldened and more inclined to resist White House initiatives.

That wasn't necessarily a problem for Democrats early on. They enjoyed legislative advantages that made it possible for them to enact virtually anything they wished — but, given their disinclination for organization, they were reluctant to seize the moment during the six or seven months in 2009 when all things truly were possible.

They seemed less interested in actually governing and more interested in rationalizing and refining their excuses for why they couldn't do things instead of insisting that they would achieve them — even if it seemed impossible.

That is not leadership. That isn't vision.

It sure isn't "Yes we can." It's more like "Well, we could, but we won't." Or, perhaps, "Turns out we can't."

Democrats can argue, of course, that things are a lot more difficult once you're on the inside than they are when you're still on the outside. But that argument has a limited shelf life. It usually expires in a matter of months, not years.

The time for the Democrats to do something about the economy was between June 2009, when Al Franken's victory was certified in Minnesota, and January 2010, when Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. But Obama dithered and so did the Democrats in Congress, and they squandered their window of opportunity.

Since Democrats no longer have the majority in the House and no longer enjoy a "filibuster–proof" majority in the Senate, any initiative that they present in 2011 is all but certain to go down in flames. Ditto anything the Republicans may propose because Obama and the Democrats will not be inclined to hand them any legislative victories, either.

Today, jobs aren't being lost at the rate they were when Obama first became president, but they aren't being created in large numbers, either. That is a stalemate that seems certain to continue — which probably suits Republicans just fine.

It doesn't let the Democrats off the hook because they haven't been making very many attempts to find some common ground. It's one thing to talk about bipartisanship when you really don't need it to accomplish your goals; it's another to sing its praises when it is the only way to achieve something.

What I'm saying is simple: I really don't expect either side to put any arrows in its quiver this year. Therefore, the records on which they will campaign are set. That campaign is under way.

It is a contentious, polarized time in American politics, a time when — I believe — voters are more likely than ever to return to their historical tendencies.

And I am very interested in Chris Cillizza's recent observations in the Washington Post. He is absolutely right when he points out that the battle for the Senate and the battle for the presidency may be decided by which party wins the same group of states.

Next year, Democrats will have to defend about two–thirds of the Senate seats that are up for election, in addition to trying to defend the White House.

What will it take to win? Which states are most likely to "flip," as the saying goes, in either battle?

Cillizza writes that there are nine states that are likely to play key roles next year.

Some are familiar battlegrounds — Ohio, Florida, Michigan. Others are less so, perhaps because they are smaller (but still potentially significant in a close race) — Missouri, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico.

And there is one — Virginia — that voted for Obama in 2008, but that was only the second time in the last 15 national elections that the "Mother of Presidents" voted for a Democrat. Polls suggest Virginia is gravitating back to the Republican column.

The importance of those nine states in the battles for both the presidency and the Senate cannot be overstated.

"Of the nine states," Cillizza writes, "Obama carried seven in 2008 — losing only Arizona and Missouri — but Republicans had considerable success in several of them in 2010."

And, unless the trend is reversed, they may continue to enjoy success in them — at more than one level.

Last month, Gallup reported that Obama's approval in all nine was below 50%.

That doesn't mean Obama cannot win those states, but the states' voting histories indicate that it may be an uphill battle to win a majority of them.

And if it is a struggle for the president, it is likely to be even tougher for the members of his party who are farther down on the ballot.

Because electoral politics is frequently a "trickle down" contest, how Obama fares in these key states can influence the fortunes of the Democrats who are seeking another term or attempting to hold seats for their party — and that's going to be very important.

Democrats hold seven of the Senate seats that will be on the ballots in those states next year — Bill Nelson (Florida), Debbie Stabenow (Michigan), Claire McCaskill (Missouri), Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Herb Kohl (Wisconsin) and Jim Webb (Virginia).

Webb has already announced that he will not seek another term, and Kohl may choose not to run, either. Republican senators in Arizona and Nevada have announced they won't run in 2012.

The dynamics are different in Senate races, but they can be influenced by the president's performance.

Don't believe it? Just look at the results from November 1980, when nine Democratic senators were defeated and three open seats that were held by Democrats swung to the Republicans.

A Look at 'The Map'

During the weekend, I wrote about the Electoral College and how it works (read: how it really elects the president), and I made my first assessment of Barack Obama and John McCain in their head-to-head matchup in the Electoral College about a month ago.

Today, Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics weighed in.

"[E]xcept for the guessing game about the vice presidential nominations," Sabato writes, "there's no greater fun to be had in July."

And he affirms some of the points I've been making.

For example ...

Sabato concedes that "[i]t is highly likely that a half-dozen or more states will flip sides," but he confirms my point, which has been that past election results are a pretty good way to assess the chances that a party's nominee has of winning a given state.

If, as Sabato says, "a half-dozen or more" states switch party allegiances this fall, "that suggests that around 40 states may keep the same color scheme."

And, Sabato writes, "If November unexpectedly becomes a landslide for one party, then many states may temporarily defect from their usual allegiances."

The key word in that sentence, whether you're Obama or McCain, is "temporarily." The winner of such a state can't count on its support when the next presidential election campaign rolls around.

For example, if Obama carries Colorado, as many people are suggesting that he might, that would be a significant shift in voting behavior. Colorado has voted for every Republican since 1968 — with the solitary exception of voting for Bill Clinton in 1992 (but the voters there resumed their Republican pattern when Clinton ran for re-election).

At this stage of the campaign — nearly four months before Election Day without knowing the identities of either running mate or what may happen in the world before the voters go to the polls — Sabato says it is necessary "to assume that the election will be basically competitive, let's say with the winner receiving 52% or less of the two-party vote."

A lot can happen in four months, and Sabato says "If one candidate's proportion of the vote climbs above 52%, then virtually all the swing states will move in his direction."

In Sabato's current scenario, there are eight states worth a total of 99 electoral votes that qualify as "swing states" — Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. It's a mix of small states (New Hampshire and Nevada), mid-sized states (Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin) and large states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania).

If these states are still the swing states by the middle of October, states like New Hampshire and Nevada can expect to get as much attention from both parties as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

If this race is as close as it was in 2000, every electoral vote will matter.

Which leads me to another interesting point that Sabato makes.

"History also suggests that the Electoral College system is only critical when the popular vote is reasonably close or disputed. That is, the College can potentially or actually upend the popular vote just in elections where the major-party candidates are within a point or two of one another."

---

---

So where does Sabato think things stand on July 10?

Well, he starts with the states that appear to be "solid" for one party or another.

Obama has 13 states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and D.C. in that column, worth 183 electoral votes.

McCain has 17 "solid" states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming) worth 144 electoral votes.

Sabato thinks it would be futile for either candidate to make much of an effort to win any of the "solid" states from the other, and I'm inclined to agree.

I think Sabato is right when he says McCain "will end up wasting a lot of money" if he tries to win a state like California. And I also think Sabato is right when he says he "will be surprised" if Obama is successful at capturing any of McCain's "solid" states — although he acknowledges the possibility that Obama could win Indiana if he puts Sen. Evan Bayh on his ticket.

From the "solid" states, we move on to the ones where the candidates are "likely" to win. These are also states where the chances are better for the opponent to pull off an upset.

Sabato lists only two "likely" states for Obama — Oregon and Minnesota — worth 17 votes (that gives Obama a total of 200 electoral votes from 15 states and D.C.). He lists five "likely" states — Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, Montana and North Dakota — worth 30 electoral votes for McCain (and that gives him 174 electoral votes from 22 states).

From Obama's list, Sabato says McCain's best shot at an upset is in Oregon. "The only way McCain could steal Minnesota is by picking Gov. Tim Pawlenty as his running mate," Sabato says. "However, even a McCain-Pawlenty ticket would have a 50-50 chance, at best, of carrying Minnesota."

Sabato rates Obama's chances of winning some of McCain's "likely" states as better than his opponent's chances, but he's skeptical about the claim that Obama can produce enough of a turnout among blacks to reverse voting patterns of four decades in the South.

"If Libertarian nominee and former Georgia GOP Congressman Bob Barr wins his projected 6 to 8% in the Peach State, or if Obama chooses former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, Obama could have a shot at a plurality victory," Sabato says, "but for now we'll bet on McCain ... A giant African-American turnout might shift Mississippi (38% black) to Obama, but that is not our gamble."

That leaves the states that are "leaning" in one direction or another.

Again, there are two states in Obama's column — Iowa and New Mexico — worth 12 electoral votes. If those two states, along with the "likely" states and the "solid" states that Sabato has identified, do indeed vote for Obama, that gives him 212 electoral votes from 17 states and D.C.

McCain has three states "leaning" in his favor — Florida, Missouri, North Carolina — worth 53 electoral votes. If McCain sweeps all the states in his column, he will receive 227 electoral votes from 25 states.

Of the leaners, Sabato seems confident that Obama can hold both Iowa and New Mexico, especially if he puts New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on his ticket.

In McCain's case, Sabato says, "If he loses even one of them, he will be up against the Electoral College wall."

So then it's up to the states that are too close to call.

"If Obama carries Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, he's already at 269 (one vote short), and would need just one of the following states: Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Virginia," Sabato writes.

"Of course, if McCain managed to secure Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Virginia, we'd be at that fabled 269-269 tie."

And, Sabato continues, "If McCain can grab Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, while holding Ohio, he's back in the hunt, with smaller toss-up states proving decisive."

Actually, Sabato's prediction isn't that much different from my own. He allowed himself the luxury of putting the troublesome states in the "toss-up" column. But, excluding the "toss-ups," our predictions were identical.

In my prediction, I gave McCain six of the eight states Sabato lists as "toss-ups" — and, in my scenario, that gave him a 295-243 victory in the Electoral College.

It's all a guessing game right now.

Will the running mates make a difference?

What will happen in the world between now and November 4?

Forget the Money — Show Me the Votes

Missouri is the Show-Me State and, come November, both Barack Obama and John McCain will be hoping that the Show-Me State will show them some votes.

Because Missouri has a century's worth of being on the winning side in presidential elections in its political history.

Since 1904, Missouri has only been on the losing side once (1956 — when it chose challenger Adlai Stevenson over President Dwight Eisenhower).

A presidential nominee would be justified if he believed that winning Missouri would be a good omen.

Neither of the state's senators will be on the ballot this year, so the presidency is virtually the only race in which all the voters in Missouri can participate.

The state will be electing a new governor this year. The incumbent, Republican Matt Blunt, decided not to seek another term when his approval ratings began to mirror George W. Bush's.

Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics says the governor's race in Missouri is shaping up to be a "toss-up."

The Republicans will choose their nominee for governor on Aug. 5. Their options are 9th District Rep. Kenny Hulshof and State Treasurer Sarah Steelman. Apparently, Attorney General Jay Nixon is unopposed on the Democratic side.

Although the Republican governor is unpopular, Sabato says Missouri has been "trending much more Republican in general." And its representation in Congress remained the same (at 5-4 in favor of the Republicans) after the votes were counted in the Democratic year of 2006.

I wish I could say I have as much political knowledge as Michael Barone, the co-author of the biennially published Almanac of American Politics.

I've been reading the Almanac since Richard Nixon was president, and I've learned so much from it. But I don't know as much as Barone does about American voting trends. I really admire the depth of his knowledge.

But, I guess, if there's a place in this country in which I've never lived but I nevertheless feel I know something about, it would be the 9th District of Missouri.

One of my closest friends — in fact, we've called each other "best friend" for more than 30 years — lives in the 9th, which includes most of the northeastern quadrant of the state.

The district excludes the city of St. Louis and the county it occupies, but my friend's home county lies just within the 9th's borders west of St. Louis.

I've visited my friend on several occasions. I was saddened a few months ago to learn of the death of my friend's sister-in-law — a fine lady I'd known since I was 16 who lived in northeastern Missouri all her life.

And I've remained on friendly terms with my friend's ex-wife, who still lives in the area.

And I'm the godfather of their daughter, who also lives in the area.

I have another friend who lived in the 9th district for awhile. He was a Ph.D. student at the University of Missouri so he was in Columbia for a few years, and I had the pleasure of visiting him there.

When you're in Columbia, you're still in Missouri's 9th — just barely. But if you drive just a short distance to the south, you'll find yourself in the 4th. And if you drive a similarly short distance to the west, you'll be in the 6th.

Obviously, from Columbia, it's not exactly a trip to another planet to go to a different congressional district. But, in terms of the people who represent those three districts from Missouri, there can be a world of difference.

Two of the districts (the 6th and the 9th) are represented by Republicans. The 4th has been represented by the same Democrat (Ike Skelton) for more than 30 years.

The 76-year-old Skelton, who has compiled a mostly moderate voting record, seems to be in fine shape to hold the seat as long as he wants. And Sabato says the other two districts are likely to remain represented by Republicans when the new Congress assembles in January:

• In the 6th, incumbent Sam Graves is facing former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes.
  
  To date, the campaign has been aggressive with a heavy barrage of advertisements. But, while "both sides feel this is a competitive race," according to Sabato the district is "likely Republican."
  
  And Graves' increasingly conservative voting record doesn't seem to hurt him with the voters of the 6th.


• It probably helps to have an incumbent in the race. In the 9th, as I said earlier, Hulshof, who has represented the district since 1996, decided to run for governor when Gov. Blunt chose not to seek another term.
  
  And that leaves an open seat in the 9th.
  
  "[T]his race is as crowded as Arrowhead Stadium on a November Sunday," Sabato writes, observing that five Republicans and four Democrats will be competing for the nominations next month.
  
  If the money that has been raised is any indication, the November race will be between two state representatives — Democrat Judy Baker and Republican Bob Onder.
  
  Even though the nominees are as yet unknown, Sabato says the district "leans Republican."
  
  That's not an unreasonable assertion. The district is 92% white, more than 50% rural, and it has re-elected Hulshof by comfortable margins. It also voted for Bush both times, giving him better than 55% of its vote.

Missouri is just about in the center of the country — in more ways than one.

It's a state that bears watching on Election Night.

The Outlook from Tobacco Road

North Carolina seems to be an example of the presidential voting trend in most of the South — although the vote hasn't been lopsided, as it has been in some states.

With the solitary exception of its support for Jimmy Carter in 1976, North Carolina has voted for the Republican presidential nominee in every election since 1968. But it's frequently been close in North Carolina — closer than it tends to be in the rest of the South.

There will be a lot of electoral activity in the state this year, with incumbents from both parties seeking re-election. The nature and the competitive level of each race will decide whether Barack Obama or John McCain will be the beneficiary of the activity.

• North Carolina has a couple of statewide races in 2008 — for governor and senator.
  
  The governor, Democrat Mike Easley, is forced by state law to step down after serving two terms. His approval ratings have remained high, and he might be able to win a third term if the law allowed him to seek one.
  
  Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, says the governor’s office is likely to remain in Democratic hands. The state’s Democratic lieutenant governor, Beverly Perdue, will be facing Pat McCrory, the Republican mayor of Charlotte, in the governor’s race in November.
  
  Easley was considered a possible candidate for Elizabeth Dole’s Senate seat this year, but he declined to make the race.
  
  As an experienced governor who will be leaving his office this year, he might be a good choice for running mate for Barack Obama. Easley is more conservative than many Democrats, which could serve to attract independents and Republicans.


• In the South, nearly every state (with the exception of Florida) will have a U.S. Senate seat on the ballot in November.
  
  In most states, the incumbent senators are running for re-election. As usual, some have no opponent — or merely token opposition.
  
  But some are facing competitive challenges for the seats they currently occupy — and some incumbents have chosen to retire, some for health reasons but some simply to avoid the very real possibility of being rejected by the voters.
  
  In North Carolina, Sen. Elizabeth Dole has been mentioned as a vulnerable incumbent, even though North Carolina has been a safe haven for most Republican candidates in recent years.
  
  State senator Kay Hagan won the Democratic nomination in May, and polls at the time showed her in a tight battle for Dole’s seat. One poll even showed her with a narrow lead right after the primaries.
  
  But by mid-June, Sabato was saying that ”[n]ow that the dust has settled and the initial over-excitement has ended, the actual landscape is a little more clear. What once seemed to be a dead heat is probably more like a 8-10% lead for Dole, perilous, but certainly no reason to begin writing her obituary just yet.”
  
  Nevertheless, Sabato says the race merely ”leans Republican” at this point — which appears (on the surface) to be less than a rousing endorsement for Dole’s chances of being re-elected to the seat that Jesse Helms held for three decades.
  
  The fact is, if Dole’s lead is 8-10%, as Sabato says, that puts her at the upper end in the typical range, historically, for Republican Senate candidates in North Carolina. Dole took a 9% triumph, 54% to 45%, when she was first elected to the Senate in 2002. Helms, in his final Senate race in 1996, received 53% of the vote.
  
  And Dole’s colleague in the Senate from North Carolina, Republican Richard Burr, received 52% of the vote when he won the seat that was vacated by Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards in 2004.
  
  Democrats tend to be competitive in North Carolina’s statewide races, but the voters usually support the Republicans — by relatively slim margins. And, even when Democrats win, as Edwards did in the 1998 Senate race and as Easley did in the governor’s races of 2000 and 2004, the margins have tended to be narrow.


• The state’s representation in the House reflects the division between the parties. Before the 2006 elections, Republicans held a 7-6 lead in the House delegation. After the 2006 elections, the Democrats held a 7-6 lead — thanks to Democrat Heath Shuler, the former football player who won the seat in the 11th district against incumbent Republican Charles Taylor.
  
  North Carolina’s 11th district is mountain country. It is nearly 90% white and 56% rural. It has tended to vote Republican in national campaigns — George W. Bush topped 55% of the vote in the district in both 2000 and 2004 — but Michael Barone, co-author of the Almanac of American Politics, has referred to an ”ornery” streak in the 11th district’s voters.
  
  When voters have a reputation for being "ornery," they're apt to do anything.
  
  Even so, Sabato is keeping his eye on only one congressional race in North Carolina this year — and it isn’t Shuler’s seat. So I have to assume that that means Shuler has been meeting the needs of his district.
  
  Sabato is watching the 8th district race, which was decided by less than 400 votes two years ago. The district is in the southwestern portion of the state, along the North Carolina-South Carolina boundary.
  
  It is currently represented by Republican Robin Hayes, who won the seat in 1998. Hayes is in a rematch with the Democrat he defeated last time, high school teacher Larry Kissell, and, as Sabato observes, voters in the 8th will have the opportunity to ”re-write the ending if they choose.”
  
  At this point, it’s anyone’s guess whether the 8th district will keep Hayes in office or switch to the Democrat. Nearly 27% of the district’s residents are black, and nearly 70% of the population is urban.
  
  Sabato calls it a toss-up right now.
  
  In national politics, the 8th district voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, both times with 54% of the vote.

My Trickle Up Theory of Virginia Politics

When you look at the presidential voting history in the state of Virginia, it’s almost impossible to imagine that state being in the Democrats’ column in November.

I’ve heard the talk about how Barack Obama’s race will be a factor in black turnout. It may well boost turnout in some states — that remains to be seen. But the black population in Virginia is about 20% while whites account for more than 70% of the state’s population. The black influence on voting patterns isn't as pronounced in Virginia as it is in some Southern states.

So I have to wonder if race will be a factor — and, if it is, which side will it favor?

Granted, Virginia isn’t as Republican as it once was. It elected Democrats governor in 2005 (Tim Kaine, who is barred by state law from running for re-election in 2009) and 2001, and it elected a Democrat senator in 2006 (Jim Webb’s narrow victory over incumbent George Allen). Both Kaine and Webb have been mentioned as vice presidential prospects.

In presidential politics, George W. Bush’s share of the vote in Virginia remained consistent — he won by 8% in 2000 and by 9% in 2004.

Bill Clinton made things difficult for Virginia Republicans. He lost both times — but only by 4 percentage points in 1992, and he narrowed the gap to only 2 percentage points when he lost to Bob Dole in Virginia in 1996.

Before that, well, George H.W. Bush ran well ahead of his national average with 60% of the Virginia vote in 1988. Ronald Reagan had no trouble carrying the state in 1984 (62%) or 1980 (53% to Jimmy Carter’s 40%).

Nevertheless, in both Republican and Democratic years, Virginia has voted for the Republican presidential nominee consistently for more than 40 years. It was the only Southern state, for example, to vote against fellow Southerner Jimmy Carter in 1976.

And, with the exception of Lyndon Johnson's victory in Virginia in 1964, Virginia has voted for the Republican candidate for president in every election since 1952.

So it seems to me that, if there’s going to be a ”coattail” effect that allows Obama to win in Virginia, it’s going to have to be of the trickle up variety — from farther down the ballot. Obama may have to depend on the success of the Virginia Democrats on the ballot with him.

And that may very well be what happens.

But it seems to me that there could be some ticket splitting going on in Virginia in November. And it's hard to tell which candidate that would favor — or even if it does favor one or the other.

On one hand, you’ve got an interesting Senate race for John Warner’s seat.

Senate races, of course, involve the voters of an entire state, and this one matches two of the state’s recent governors — Democrat Mark Warner (no relation to the retiring Republican senator) and Republican Jim Gilmore.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, says the seat is likely to switch to the Democrats.

So, if there’s any validity to a ”reverse coattails” theory, Mark Warner may help attract votes to Obama’s campaign because of what Sabato calls his ”wide appeal among independents.”

And an indication of the strength of Warner’s position may be found in Sabato’s report that Gilmore is ”having trouble funding his candidacy” after an unexpectedly hard-fought race for the Republican nomination.

I’m not ready to proclaim the GOP dead in the Old Dominion. I’m not even ready to predict that Obama can break the GOP’s uninterrupted four-decade grip on Virginia in presidential contests.

But I will concede that Sabato is probably correct when he asserts that ”Virginia’s years as a Republican stronghold are well over.” They certainly seem to be over when it comes to representation in the Senate — assuming that Mark Warner maintains his electoral advantage over Gilmore.

On the other hand, there are the state’s House races. It is the House races that prove Tip O’Neill’s famous political adage — ”All politics is local.”

For, indeed, House races tend to be about local issues, local concerns, and what the candidates can do about them in Washington. That, of course, is the purpose of a member of the House.

Sabato is keeping his eye on four House races in Virginia. Most of the state’s seats in the House went to Republicans in 2006 — the party retained its 8-3 advantage over the Democrats in a year that generally favored Democrats outside the South.

But the four districts Sabato is watching all voted for the Republicans in 2006.

By implication, the three Democratic seats should be safe for the party, as should the other four GOP seats (which includes the district that was represented by Jo Ann Davis, who died of breast cancer last October and was replaced, in a special election, by a Republican who seeks a full term this November).

Sabato says the conditions are favorable for the GOP in three of the districts — the incumbents are seeking re-election in all three.

The fourth race to watch is for the open 11th district seat, being vacated by Tom Davis, who was once considered a leading contender for John Warner’s Senate seat. Sabato says Davis’ House seat is like to go to Democrat Gerry Connolly, chair of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

Again, the ”trickle up” theory may be at work, depending upon how well each party's candidates can encourage voters in their districts to come to the polls and support their bids. How competitive a race is perceived to be can be a driving force for voter turnout.

• In the 2nd District, which as Sabato points out "lies predominantly in the conservative, military-friendly Virginia Beach metropolitan area," Sabato rates the district as only "leans Republican" (for incumbent Thelma Drake) instead of "likely Republican," as he says about the other two districts he's monitoring in which Republican incumbents are seeking re-election.
  
  It's not a stretch to suggest that Drake may have a competitive race on her hands. Drake was elected to the House in 2004 with 55% of the vote, but she could only draw 51% in her re-election bid in 2006. So far, her only challenger is a diplomat with extremely low name recognition, which, as Sabato observes, should change as he "introduces himself to voters."
  
  Still, in the all-important area of campaign financing, Drake apparently has raised four times as much money as her challenger. It may be hard for him to get his message out.
  
  Meanwhile, Drake has compiled a House voting record that is more conservative on foreign policy than on social or economic issues — although her general record suggests a conservative tendency.


• The 5th District occupies central and south-central Virginia. It's an historic district, where Lee surrendered to Grant to end the Civil War — although, in some ways, the war never really ended in southern Virginia, where Harry Byrd Sr. led a resistance effort that shut down some public schools in defiance of desegregation orders nearly a century after the end of the Civil War.
  
  The incumbent, Virgil Goode (rhymes with "mood"), has something of a history himself. He was originally elected as a Democrat in 1996, but he switched to independent status in 2000 and became a Republican in 2002. His share of the vote has fluctuated with the fortunes of the Republican Party, but Sabato rates the district as "likely Republican."
  
  While Goode's opponent has been successful raising money for his campaign, Sabato has a word of caution: "How optimistic should Democrats be? That remains to be seen. But if history is any predictor: not very."
  
  Goode has a voting record that has been increasingly conservative on social issues but more moderate on economic issues and foreign policy. And, as Sabato writes, "The district is GOP country, with only the liberal city of Charlottesville to keep things potentially competitive."


• The 10th district runs along the northern side of Virginia, and it includes part of Fairfax County, which has exploded in population and, by some estimates, is the home of the highest median annual income in the country — more than $71,000. Nevertheless, population seems to have leveled off in the county in recent years.
  
  It is also an increasingly Democratic area, and the competitiveness of the House race may be a factor in whether the party can generate the kind of turnout it needs to flip the state to Obama in November.
  
  The race will be a rematch of the 2006 campaign, in which Republican Frank Wolf, who has been in the House since 1980, defeated Democrat Judy Feder, 57% to 41%. (In 2004, Wolf outperformed George W. Bush in the district, receiving 64% of the vote while the president received only 55% — which was down from his showing in 2000, when Bush got 56% in the 10th.)
  
  Feder, the dean of the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, has raised more than $1 million for the race, and Tom Davis, from the neighboring 11th district, "has warned that Feder's funds have put the seat in play," Sabato writes.
  
  Wolf has compiled a moderate-to-conservative voting record in the House. But Feder apprently will have the active support of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which she didn't have last time.
  
  Sabato says the district is "likely Republican," even though he admits that it is "very much up in the air ... at both the presidential and congressional levels."


• In the aforementioned 11th district, Tom Davis' departure has created a race that "leans Democratic," Sabato writes.
  
  Davis' voting record on social and economic issues tended to be moderate, but he was increasingly conservative on foreign policy. And he polled pretty well in a district in which Bush struggled (Bush barely cleared 50% there in 2004, and he took 52% of the district's vote in 2000).
  
  How heavy the turnout is for the open seat may be a factor in what happens in Virginia in national politics.

Looking Ahead to the General Election

It is about five months until Americans will elect their next president.

The complete tickets haven't been named yet (neither Barack Obama nor John McCain are likely to announce their choices for running mates for at least a couple of months) so there's no way to know what kind of electoral advantages (or disadvantages) need to be factored in on either side.

And many things can happen between now and November -- more things than most humans can imagine.

Dan Balz says, in the Washington Post, that McCain and Obama are going to redraw the electoral map.

But I honestly don't think the map will look significantly different this year than it's looked over the last few decades.

Based on past voting results and conventional wisdom, here's how I see things shaping up.

Northeast

I've put 11 states and the District of Columbia in this group, worth a total of 117 electoral votes.

If voting patterns hold up, Obama is likely to win most of the states in the Northeast. From Maine to Maryland (and as far west as Pennsylvania), it should be a sea of blue states -- with the possible exception of New Hampshire, a state that has always marched to the beat of its own drum.

McCain's march to the nomination started with his victory in the New Hampshire primary, and he won the primary there eight years ago, setting up a brutal battle with George W. Bush in the GOP's South Carolina primary.

I'm going to predict that McCain will win New Hampshire in the general election -- possibly while the voters there are splitting their ballots and electing a Democrat to the Senate.

If McCain takes New Hampshire, he gets 4 electoral votes. The remaining 113 (from Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont) I expect to go to Obama.

South

In the 12 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia) I've lumped into this category, the historical pattern seems to favor McCain in all of them.

Some things might change, depending on variables we know nothing about right now.

For example, Obama might carry Virginia if his running mate turns out to be Sen. Jim Webb or Gov. Tim Kaine. Or there may be other Democrats from Southern states who might be chosen -- and consequently put their states into play.

But otherwise I see McCain winning all 160 electoral votes.

Industrial Midwest

Obama's home region has seven states and has been a battleground in recent elections. It will probably be a battleground again this year.

History tells me that, if the race is close in Indiana, Obama will win the election. But if Indiana gives McCain a big victory, it could be a sign that he's going to win the election.

Right now, I see McCain probably taking five states and Obama taking two. I think McCain will probably win Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia, for a total of 61 electoral votes. I think Obama will win Illinois and Wisconsin for a total of 31 electoral votes.

If those predictions hold up, our totals so far are:

McCain, 18 states, 225 electoral votes.

Obama, 12 states and D.C., 144 electoral votes.

Heartland

In the Heartland region, I've put 11 states; mostly for convenience, this includes most of the remaining states in the interior United States, stopping at the eastern boundaries of Idaho, Utah and Arizona. They are worth 65 electoral votes.

The largest states in the group are Missouri (11 electoral votes) and Minnesota (10 electoral votes). The results in Missouri will be worth watching on Election Night because of Missouri's reputation as a bellwether state.

The remaining nine states are worth less than 10 electoral votes each, and many are worth only 3 or 5 electoral votes. They are typical of the small, rural states in which Republicans have done so well for years.

Historical voting patterns suggest McCain will carry most of these states, and I'm inclined to predict that Missouri will also vote for McCain. But I think Obama will probably carry another bellwether state in this region, New Mexico.

So this may be the election that gives us the bellwether state that is the most reliable when it comes to predicting the outcome of a presidential election.

Colorado is tough for me to predict. It has voted Republican in nine of the last 10 elections, but there have been indications that Democrats are gaining strength in that state. The fate of its 9 electoral votes may remain in doubt until late on Election Night -- and those votes may prove to be crucial to the winner of the election.

Right now, I'm going to predict that Colorado remains in the Republican column.

That gives us three states (Iowa, Minnesota and New Mexico) worth 22 electoral votes for Obama, eight states (Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming) worth 43 electoral votes for McCain.

Running total --

McCain, 26 states, 268 electoral votes

Obama, 15 states and D.C., 166 electoral votes

West/Pacific Coast

This region favors Democrats historically, and Obama should win most of the electoral votes. Of course, that includes the expected Democratic victory in California.

But I've also included in this region five states (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada and Utah) worth 27 electoral votes that I expect to vote for McCain. And that should be more than enough to give him the election.

In addition to California, Obama should carry Hawaii, Oregon and Washington for a total of 77 electoral votes.

Final Tally

McCain, 31 states, 295 electoral votes.

Obama, 19 states and D.C., 243 electoral votes.

A final point ...

Most experts seem to believe that as many as 11 states could go either way -- Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. Those states are worth 120 electoral votes.

Frankly, I hesitate to put Indiana on that list, but, for a variety of reasons, veteran political observers say Indiana will be a battleground state. And I feel the same way about North Carolina and Virginia. They may turn out to be battlegrounds, but I think history suggests that the Democratic ticket won't win in either state.

Let me remind you. These are merely historically based projections, and they are subject to change. It will be several months before I'm ready to make my final 50-state prediction in this race.

This is how it looks to me right now, but, clearly, in June, nothing is written in stone.

Who Is the Best Choice for Democrats?

As the backdrop to the compromise on the Michigan and Florida delegations, Democrats heard talk about "electability" and threats from some Democrats that they will abandon their party if their candidate isn't nominated.

The compromise didn't resolve the matter of which candidate will be nominated -- so it now appears that the decision will be left to the superdelegates.

Who's it going to be, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

When all is said and done, the Democrats can say that it was a virtual split. Obama has a slight edge in popular vote and delegate support, but timing is everything, as the saying goes.

And that leads, inevitably, to "What if ... ?" questions.

What if Texas and Ohio had voted with most of the other states in early February instead of early March?

What if voters in West Virginia and Kentucky had held their primaries in February instead of May? Would Obama have been able to build his remarkable primary/caucus winning streak?

Obama withdrew his membership from his church yesterday. If he had done that earlier, would it have changed the outcome in some of the states that followed? Would he have been able to secure the nomination by leaving his church?

What's the situation in states that will clearly be battleground states in the fall?

Here's a peek at a few of them.

• Clinton appears to give John McCain a tougher fight for Florida's 27 electoral votes than Obama.
  
  Quinnipiac University says Clinton leads McCain in Florida (48% to 41%) but it says McCain leads Obama (45% to 41%). Rasmussen Reports has different margins but identical outcomes -- Clinton over McCain (47% to 41%) and McCain over Obama (50% to 40%).
  
  
• The race for Michigan's 17 electoral votes seems to be favoring McCain, although polls suggest Clinton might be more competitive there than Obama.
  
  Neither Democrat has been leading in recent head-to-head polls.
  
  EPIC-MRA's latest surveys for WXYZ-Action News report that McCain leads both Democratic challengers (44-40 over Obama, 46-37 over Clinton).
  
  According to those results, Obama is more competitive against McCain than Clinton. But it's worth mentioning that EPIC-MRA's survey on McCain-Clinton was completed April 8 and I have found no surveys on that question that are more recent. The survey on McCain-Obama was completed May 22.
  
  But Clinton is tied with McCain (44-44) in the latest Rasmussen Reports while Obama trails by 4 points (41-37).
  
  
• It seems likely to me that California (55 electoral votes) will remain in the Democratic column, where it's been since 1992.
  
  Both Clinton and Obama have been leading in every California survey I've seen. The numbers are similar for both candidates -- one may lead McCain by a slightly higher margin than the other, but the polls consistently show the Democrat winning in California.
  
  At this point, I can't see anything changing the outcome in that state.
  
  
• In Ohio, there are 20 electoral votes available. Polls are mixed on Obama vs. McCain, with Obama leading the latest Survey USA poll (48% to 39%) and McCain in front in the latest Quinnipiac University survey (44% to 40%) and Rasmussen Reports (45% to 44%).
  
  Against McCain, Clinton leads Ohio by 7 percentage points in Rasmussen (50% to 43%) and Quinnipiac (48% to 41%).
  
  Survey USA apparently is only asking respondents about Obama-McCain, because I have seen almost no results of a Clinton-McCain inquiry since early April (the exceptions to this are Missouri and North Carolina -- see below).
  
  The advantage in Ohio appears to belong to Clinton.
  
  
• Pennsylvania, with its 21 electoral votes, appears to be favoring the Democrat, whichever one that is.
  
  Obama's lead in the polls is pretty consistent, generally between 6 and 8 points (46-40 in Quinnipiac, 48-40 in Survey USA, 46-39 in Susquehanna Polling), a little narrower in Rasmussen Reports (45-43).
  
  Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania is consistent as well. It's also consistently a little higher than Obama's -- 11 points each in Rasmussen Reports (50-39) and Susquehanna Polling (49-38), 13 points in Quinnipiac (50-37).
  
  I'd say Democrats can expect to carry Pennsylvania for the fifth straight time.
  
  
• Georgia (15 electoral votes) is one of those Southern states in which Obama is expected to benefit from a large black turnout. (Blacks acccount for just under 30% of Georgia's population.)
  
  But the latest surveys of likely voters indicate McCain leads both Democrats by margins in double digits. Rasmussen Reports has McCain leading Clinton, 48% to 37%, and leading Obama, 53% to 39%.
  
  Strategic Vision's latest survey seems to confirm Rasmussen. It has McCain leading Obama, 54% to 40%. Apparently, it didn't ask respondents about McCain vs. Clinton.
  
  
• North Carolina (15 electoral votes) is another Southern state where Obama's race is expected to work in his favor. (About 21% of North Carolina's residents are black.)
  
  And the conservative Washington Times says Sen. Elizabeth Dole faces a tough battle for re-election this year.
  
  But, even though the climate for Republicans isn't good in North Carolina, McCain has been leading in most of the recent polls I've seen. And the only exception has been in Clinton's favor, not Obama's.
  
  Survey USA has McCain leading Obama in North Carolina, 51% to 43%, but it has Clinton leading McCain, 49% to 43%.
  
  Rasmussen Reports has McCain leading both Democrats by 3 points in North Carolina -- 48-45 over Obama and 43-40 over Clinton.
  
  And Public Policy Polling reports that McCain leads both Democrats as well. McCain leads Clinton in that survey, 48% to 40%, and he leads Obama, 49% to 42%.
  
  
• I've heard talk suggesting that Obama should pick Virginia Sen. Jim Webb or Gov. Tim Kaine as his running mate.
  
  The thinking is that a traditionally Republican state like Virginia (13 electoral votes) is a viable Democratic target in the presidential election -- if only because Virginia rejected incumbent Republican Senator George Allen in 2006 and put Webb in the Senate in his place.
  
  That logic may be correct, but the polls aren't all that favorable.
  
  Obama does run closer to McCain than Clinton in Virginia, but the polls still lean Republican in that state.
  
  Rasmussen Reports says McCain leads Obama 47-44 and he leads Clinton 47-41. The latest VCU Communications and Public Relations survey finds McCain leading Obama 44-36 and leading Clinton 47-38.
  
  In the interest of fairness, Obama led McCain in Survey USA 49-42.
  
  
• Missouri (11 electoral votes) is a bellwether state, having voted for the winner of almost every presidential election for a century.
  
  When polls ask voters in that state to choose between Obama and McCain, McCain leads in every survey. Sometimes the lead is slim (48-45 in Survey USA), sometimes it's wider (47-41 in Rasmussen Reports).
  
  But the last time I saw a poll that showed Obama leading McCain head-to-head in Missouri was in a survey from December. That was before the Iowa caucus, which gave Obama the early momentum he needed to overtake then-front runner Clinton.
  
  The results are more mixed when the choice is between Clinton and McCain.
  
  Survey USA apparently asked Missouri voters about Clinton vs. McCain and came up with Clinton 48%, McCain 46%. Rasmussen Reports says McCain leads Clinton, 45% to 43%.
  
  
• Historically, New Mexico (5 electoral votes) is another bellwether state.
  
  Rasmussen Reports found that Clinton leads McCain in his neighboring state, 47% to 41%. Rasmussen says Obama's lead is even higher, 50% to 41%, but Survey USA says Obama and McCain are tied in New Mexico, 44% to 44%.