It would seem from a look at the future of the electoral college after the 2010 census that Obama's candidacy could not have come at a more timely period. Obama is attempting to make history by putting normally "Red" states in play for the 2008 election. Hillary's argument was that her arguable strength in more traditionally "Blue" states made her more electable.
But, coming in the 2012 election demographic changes will make a "Blue" state strategy even more dubious than ever. An analysis of the Electoral College Map which will be applicable to the next Presidential election, and analysis follows below the fold:
While of course the census for 2010 has not yet been taken and the resulting population increases and decreases have not been apportioned into electoral college votes, I ran across this article on Nate Silver's highly acclaimed site: www.FiveThirtyEight.com :
The Census Bureau does not yet have its current population estimate out for 2008. What we can do, however, is take its 2007 estimate, and then add to it the population gain between 2006 and 2007 to come up with a reasonable estimate for 2008. For example, Texas had 23.5 million people in 2006 and 23.9 million in 2007 -- a gain of about 400,000 persons. We add another 400,000 to account for population growth between 2007 and 2008, which gives us an estimate of 24.3 million for its current population.
If we do this for each state, and then reassign electoral votes based on the new population estimates, I show the following electoral votes changing hands:
- Texas gains three electoral votes.
- Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah each gain one electoral vote.
- Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania each lose one electoral vote.
- Ohio loses two electoral votes.
As you can see, the gains tend to come in Republican-leaning states, and the losses in Democratic-leaning ones.
While Silver uses this math to estimate the effects of population gain/loss on voting trends for this election, I immediately thought, "if this is the electoral college map that will apply in 2012, Democrats had better learn to win some Red states or they will be in a world of pain."
I know the real future electoral college map may not be exactly like this, but it's very likely to be quite similar. We know that Southern states like Texas and Georgia continue to gain population at the expense of Michigan and Ohio for instance.
To give you an idea how the electoral college map has been shifting away from Democrats since 1960, take a look at the following facts.
* In 1960 the states that Al Gore won in 2000 were worth 278 Electoral Votes. Had the 2000 election been held according to the 1960 map, there would have been no Bush Presidency, and the entire Florida controversy would have been utterly irrelevant, because Gore would have had an insurmountable lead going into the election without Florida!
In 2000, the Gore states were worth 266 Electoral Votes, thus Gore came up short by 4 EV of the magic number of 270 after the S.Ct. cut short the Florida count. In the intervening 40 years, the Gore states had already lost 12 electoral votes.
After the 2000 census the Electoral College votes were re-apportioned. The Gore states declined from 266 to 260 Electoral Votes, a further loss of 6 more electoral votes in only 10 years. Kerry was essentially sledding uphill, needing not only to flip Bush states, but losing Electoral Votes from the traditional Democratic states as well.
Kerry lost Iowa and New Mexico from the Gore column, but picked up New Hampshire which had voted for Bush in 2000, for a total net loss 8 electoral votes (none of those states gained or lost electoral votes as a result of the 2000 census), so he wound up with 252 electoral votes.
This election of course has the same electoral college map as the 2004 election, so if you start with the Kerry states, Obama would need to add 18 electoral votes. Or, if he won all the Gore states, he would need an additional 10 votes (260 + 10), which he could pick up for example by winning Colorado plus one other state.
But, what about 2012? If the census figures Silver cites are borne out by the 2010 census, the Democratic states Gore won would decline by six more votes from their current figure of 260 to a new electoral vote figure of 254, making a Democratic victory further away than ever! In 12 years, the "Blue" states would lose 12 electoral votes! That is a HUGE LOSS!
Gore States: Iowa (-1), Massachusetts (-1), Michigan (-1), New Jersey (-1), New York (-1) and Pennsylvania (-1) Total: -6
Bush 2000 States: Louisiana (-1), Texas (+3), Arizona (+1), Florida (+1), Georgia (+1), Nevada (+1), South Carolina (+1), Utah (+1), Ohio (-2). Total: +6.
Now you can see the desperate need to expand the map where Democrats can compete by aggressively targeting Red states! Democrats simply cannot win by targeting the northeast and west coast, plus picking up a few states in the midwest. Even expanding the playing field to Ohio comes just as Ohio goes from 20 to 18 electoral votes making it less of a prize. Thus, a "play it safe" electoral strategy makes a loss virtually certain if a Republican manages to win even one key state in the Midwest (like say Michigan, where McCain is currently leading narrowly in polls).
Key Pickups: Colorado doesn't gain any votes under this scenario, but it doesn't lose any. Nevada becomes more important. Clearly Arizona becomes a much more valuable prize, and Texas becomes more important than ever.
The problem is that demographic changes alone won't flip any of these states. Adding some northerners from Ohio going to Texas, say, won't do anything to change Texas to a Blue state. Growth of the Hispanic population might eventually flip Texas, but there is a LONG way to go before Texas will be ready to vote for a Democratic President.
Overall, it becomes essential to strengthen the Democratic party in the Upper South and West, as well as the Midwest states like Ohio and Indiana. If you add Ohio and Indiana, you will notice that the states Kerry won include all the Northern states during the civil war, and that Bush won the entire former Confederacy. Other analysts can comment on the lingering effects of the Civil War legacy, but the point is that Indiana and Ohio are a starting point.
But, the strategy of targeting Virginia and North Carolina as well as Missouri is going to be essential for Democratic hopes in the next decade and beyond, because electoral power is continually shifting South, and away from traditional Democratic strongholds in the North and far West.