Let’s talk electoral college and the general election.
Each candidate has a different source of strength, which will determine what that candidate considers as battleground states. Some are constants: a lot wind up being dependent on the specific candidate match-up, and what needs to be done to get to 270 electoral votes. This is a LONG diary, because I want to look at it from three perspectives: a Clinton nomination, a Sanders nomination and a generic Republican goal.
Starting assumptions:
- Any given campaign will play offense in 7-9 states. This is because there is a limited amount of money – and the opponent may or may not agree on what a ‘battleground’ state is.
- The GOP will attempt a populist campaign, either as Trump or Cruz. (if Rubio or an establishment candidate starts looking possible after Super Tues, I’ll re-look at assumptions)
- Campaigns will look back at previous Presidential wins to help identify what their battlegrounds should be.
Starting with a Clinton strategy here. The Clinton campaign will likely begin from the 1992 map, or at least make assumptions about message based on a combination of that and 2008.
If you compare the 1992 map to today’s electoral college, it’s a bit different. This map produced a 370-168 Democratic win. In today’s electoral college, it would produce a 357-181 blowout. However, there are a number of states that have not gone Democratic since, including GA, TN, KY, MT, WV, LA and AR.
Clinton’s likely campaign strategy would be to start from here, but swap competing in Appalacia for competing in VA and possibly NC. Starting assumptions give Dem’s 246 EVs to 175 GOP. Battleground states: OH, IA, FL, VA, NV, CO, NM (these are likely to be battlegrounds for any campaign). If there is campaign money left over, Clinton will campaign in MO, AR and NC. Yes, it’s 10 states. Trying to determine between the last three is hard – I’m inclined to say she would compete in MO and AR, and abandon NC due to money issues.
What does this do to the EC? Starting assumptions are 246-190: Clinton needs 24 EVs to win. The most likely strategies in order:
- Win FL (275 EVs)
- Win the Midwest (IA, MO, AR), which brings 268 EVs, and any other state.
- Win OH, which brings to 264, and any state other than NM.
- Win the SW (NV, CO, NM), which hits 266 EVs, and any other state.
Longshot strategies may include playing for NC or going for Appalacia again: states that the Clintons believe they have an advantage in, compared to President Obama. Of course, just like Obama contesting NC, that’s a good indicator that they’re just trying to run up the score (a very good place to be).
Looking at a Sander’s campaign, the starting point is more likely to be from the 2008 election – with a similar strategy.
The nine battleground states here are likely to be NV, AZ, CO, NM, IA, OH, VA, NC and FL. Yes, a lot of commonalities here. This starts Sanders off with the same 246 EVs to 180 GOP. The big swap is MO and AR for NC and AZ as battlegrounds: which gives different electoral combinations.
Likely Electoral strategies:
- Win SW (NV, CO, NM, AZ), which gives 277 EVs
- Win OH and a SW state (CO or NV), which gives 270 or 273 EVs
- Win VA and OH, which gives 277 EVs
- Win VA and NC, which gives 274 EVs.
- Win IA and OH (270) or IA and any 3 SW states (272-278 EVs)
- Win FL (275 EVs)
What are Sanders’ long-shot states? Given his message and the current demographics, I’m inclined to say TX, Appalachia or the upper Midwest (ND, SD, MT, WY). The message of ‘us against the big money’ is likely to have a lot of sway in either Appalachia or the upper Midwest (I’m a Midwesterner, currently living in TX).
Now let’s look at things from the GOP side. The starting point is likely to be the 2000 Electoral map.
This was a squeaker, but worked. The likely starting point would be different here, though. The GOP are likely to consider these as the battleground states: FL, VA, OH, IA, NV, CO, NM, WI and NH. This produces a starting map at 232-206: still not a good place to be for the GOP. It shows just how much the demographics have affected their ability to play in Presidential elections. They need 64 EVs to win, in this case, out of the 100 available.
Winning strategies:
- FL, VA, OH and IA or NH (270-272 EVs)
- SW and NH, along with either FL or OH and WI (271-272)
- Midwest, FL and either VA or NH (273-282 EVs)
- Midwest, SW and either VA or FL (273-289 EVs)
What here are the GOP’s long-shot states? Here, a populist GOP would look to the Rust Belt: MI, and possibly PA or even IL, where jobs have been lost since NAFTA to either globalization or coal mining decreases (Southern IL is much more conservative than people out of state recognize, and the state does elect GOP governors on a semi-regular basis). ME and VT may also be in play against a Clinton nomination, due to the libertarian and independent streak in the upper NE.
In short: the Democratic party has a good chance of winning the election, whether Clinton or Sanders is nominated. However, there are more long-shot options against a Clinton candidacy. The bigger challenge comes down to campaigning ability. Neither Clinton’s nor Sanders’ electoral strategies rely on states that have very high AA populations: but do on states with heavier latino populations. Does this affect the primaries? No. The delegates are apportioned as they are already. However, based on these maps my primary concerns are going to be how the candidates do in their respective swing and long-shot states…and how they do with both working class and latino voters.
The GOP strategy is also a populist one, which I believe will be more effective against a Clinton than a Sanders candidacy, especially if Trump is the nominee. He would have the ability to come out strongly isolationist/protectionist, which would play well in the Rust Belt and SW, and Clinton is unlikely to be able to respond as well against those attacks given the first Clinton presidency and NAFTA, as well as the number of statements Clinton made in support of TPP while Secretary of State. I’m not going to argue about whether or not this is fair, because fair doesn’t matter. I also personally feel that GOP voter enthusiasm will be stronger against a Candidate Clinton, simply due to how long the Clintons have been demonized by the GOP and related media.
The greatest arguments a Trump or Cruz candidacy will make against Sanders is likely to be focused on the democratic socialist label. This is a fair concern, but I believe is much less effective than it might be due to how long the GOP has used it against President Obama. I personally believe that ‘socialist’ no longer has much meaning to much of the electorate: they are desensitized.
Personal opinion: Candidate Sanders has a stronger starting point than Candidate Clinton. He has lower negatives and a more resonant message in this campaign cycle. Sec. Clinton has establishment support, but I’ve not been impressed with her campaign strategy in terms of messaging/etc. I have an opinion on who I’d rather see as President, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with this post.