Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WESTERN DISCOVERIES
Because both John McCain and Barack Obama have been touring the Interior West, I’m getting a lot of calls this week about regional strategies for the Electoral College and reaching the magical 270 threshold. I’m relieved analysts are finally discovering that, among other things, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico combined have almost the same number of electors (19) as Ohio (20) and that adding those to John Kerry’s 252 total from 2004 would put Obama over the top, however narrowly.
Allow me three quick observations. First, the two most competitive regions during the past two elections are the (Upper) Midwest and the Southwest and we have a contest appropriately fought between a man hailing from the Midwest’s largest city and the Southwest’s largest city for the hearts and minds of voters from those two regions. Second, because the demography of these regions entails a battle for Independents and Hispanics (among others) in the Southwest, and white Catholics and suburban women (among others) in the Midwest, I continue to find all this fuss about working-class white males from rural Appalachia to be overwrought.
Finally, it was made clear to me by western state Democrats I interviewed in 2005 for my book, Whistling Past Dixie, that both Al Gore and Kerry fought hard in the Midwest (Kerry much harder than Gore in Ohio, however) but largely ignored the Southwest. So far, at least, Obama shows no signs of making this mistake again. He needs to do some work to reach out to Hispanic voters, and I’ve heard from some Hispanic leaders that they feel neglected by him and his campaign. (N.B.: Patty Solis Doyle, disposed and scapegoated campaign manager for Hillary Clinton, may end up helping Obama, and he’d be smart to give her whatever resources and authority she needs.) But, overall, his team is showing every sign of understanding where -- and among whom -- he needs to win if he wants to get to 270.
--Tom Schaller
COMMENTS (13)
I'm sure the man can add. He HAS to find votes in the southwest because he runs fairly poorly in the midwest and Ohio valley. No mystery there.
The question is whether or not it will work. I've been surprised to see some of the punditocracy thinking that Obama would run stronger than Hillary in NV and NM, especially considering that she does much better among Latinos, whose vote is crucial in both states.
Frankly, I doubt it. In fact, I live in CO and the Latinos I know may come around, but they haven't yet.
Posted by: John Petty | May 30, 2008 10:50 AM
"I've been surprised to see some of the punditocracy thinking that Obama would run stronger than Hillary in NV and NM..."
Well, here's the thing: he doesn't have to run stronger than Clinton; he just has to run stronger than McCain.
As for the Latino vote, I suspect the majority will move to Obama once Clinton drops out, particularly if she and Bill do so graciously and offer their full support for Obama.
Posted by: PaulB | May 30, 2008 10:58 AM
"I’ve heard from some Hispanic leaders that they feel neglected by him and his campaign"
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with these people? Do they honestly think that they are better off with a President McCain?
It's like buying off a bunch of five-year-olds with a piece of candy. You, too, Hispanics, have some responsibility for the choices that you make and the consequences of those choices.
As the man once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
This is why Hillary runs well with these people. They love the pandering politicians who will promise them the moon and the stars to get their vote, and they're too stupid to remember that there is a whole list of unfulfilled promises from the last time around when they fell for the same scam.
No wonder America is fucked; we're a nation of emotional ten-year-olds.
Posted by: brewmn | May 30, 2008 11:00 AM
"He HAS to find votes in the southwest because he runs fairly poorly in the midwest and Ohio valley."
Yes, the fact that he's currently ahead by near double digits in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio and Penssylvania shows he's doomed in the Midwest and Ohio Valley.
Dipshit.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2008 11:04 AM
Obama supporters are on another "charm offensive," I see.
If you don't genuflect to All Things Obama you're an emotional 10 year old and a dipshit.
Just keep talking, political geniuses. We'll see how that works for you.
(Obama is behind in OH and WI.)
Posted by: John Petty | May 30, 2008 11:34 AM
"Obama supporters are on another "charm offensive," I see."
Fuck you. Stop attacking our candidate and we'll stop defending him.
And, according to RCP, Obama is up in both of those states, you lying sack of shit.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2008 12:14 PM
Some of the Obama supporters, like the ones in this tread, really need to chill out. You can make your point across without resorting to using inflammatory language.
Posted by: Micheline | May 30, 2008 12:49 PM
Ah youth!
Here's a question for you: Did I attack Sen. Obama?
Posted by: John Petty | May 30, 2008 1:41 PM
"Ah youth!
Here's a question for you: Did I attack Sen. Obama?"
Look, ass, I'm familiar with all of the Clinton supporters bullshit on these sites, so don't play coy. You're alluding to Obama being black, excuse me, "unelectable" because of his problems with the racists, excuse me, "working class" in greater Appalachia.
And your assumtion that I'm young is also condescending in the extreme. Go fuck yourself.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2008 2:06 PM
I'd also like to point out that all three of those states be adding electors after the 2010 census, so it's a good long-term strategy as well.
Posted by: scythia | May 30, 2008 5:49 PM
As a New Mexican, I can say that even if Clinton might have done better here than Obama, I still thing that Obama will win New Mexico by a small but comfortable margin. New Mexico is easiest the "bluest" of the Southwestern and Mountain states and I don't think it's going to go to a GOP candidate again in a long, long time.
Posted by: Keith M Ellis | May 30, 2008 6:36 PM
Hope! Unity! Go f*ck yourself!
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2008 8:02 PM
A: Things that should never be in the same place.
Q: What are brewmn, candy and children?
Posted by: time to check the NSOR | May 31, 2008 5:40 AM