Real Clear Politics Swing State Review: Ohio
Aug 6th, 2008Real Clear Politics has a series of posts examining key swing states and they recently featured Ohio, which became the tipping point state in the 2004 election.
Highlights of the analysis include a great collection of maps and some interesting info:
Since 1960, it has voted with the winning party in every cycle. That’s 11 in a row. Plus, Ohio’s popular vote has tracked closely with the national popular vote. Over those 11 presidential elections, Ohio’s vote has deviated from the national vote by a scant 2%.
What To Watch in the Buckeye State
(1) If the national vote is close, expect Ohio to be close. It’s a bellwether.
(2) Watch the mid-sized cities. They tend to vote with the winner. If Canton, Dayton, Springfield, and metro Toldeo go for the same candidate – he’ll have the edge.
(3) Watch Franklin County (Columbus). If recent history is any guide, it will go for Obama. The question is by how much.
(4) Watch the exurbs. Obama promises to appeal to Republicans. These Republicans here are probably his best bet. McCain should still win the exurban counties of Cincinnati and Columbus, but Obama will be in good shape if he can turn them pink.
(5) Watch the eastern border. There are lots of “working class whites” here, the ones Obama had trouble with in the primaries. But it’s not the strong Democrats he needs to worry about. It’s the swing voters. If they vote McCain, these counties will be a lighter shade of blue than what Obama needs.
(6) Watch the south. It voted heavily for Clinton in the primary, and there are good reasons to expect it to support McCain. The bigger the margins, the better for the GOP.
(7) Watch Hamilton County (Cincinnati). Obama promises game-changing GOTV efforts. If he delivers, the first sign of success should be here. Traditionally, Hamilton County votes Republican, but just barely (and by steadily decreasing margins over the years). If Obama amplifies African American turnout enough to flip it, that’s a sign that his plan’s on track.
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com