Cogitamus: The Election Within the Election

Nick Beaudrot on the state-by-state election:

Cogitamus: The Election Within the Election: These maps show the states where John McCain and Barack Obama are within 6, 4, and 2 points of each other based on current pollster.com averages. As you can see, while the election is "close" in a number of states, it's only really close in for our five. Even if you spot Obama New Hampshire, if we assume the Montana results are a fluke of pre-Palin Polling, Nevada still isn't enough to get to 270. Thus, at the moment, Obama needs to win only one out of Colorado, Virginia, Ohio and Florida in order to win the election while holding Michigan. This makes him the overwhelming favorite; in order for the election to be truly 50-50, John McCain would need to have an 85% chance of winning each of those states individually, but polls currently show Obama slightly ahead in three of those four.

Obviously, things can change, but this is where we are today.

I clearly don't understand how these political campaigns work. What is McCain doing in Iowa and Wisconsin today? If Iowa and Wisconsin are close, the Republicans have already won.

If I were Barack Obama and Joe Biden, I would spend the next two months cycling through Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, and Nevada. And I would send JFK, JRE, AAG, and most importantly HRC and WJC to the relatively closest of the base states--New Hampshire, Montana, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, et cetera--to rally the base.

Comments

[down ticketer]

Don't forget about down ticket races. It might not matter so much for McCain -- he needs to focus on winning, but Obama has a good enough chance of winning that he needs to think about governing, which means helping to campaign in winnable senate races as well as trying to win with a decent enough popular vote total to claim to have "a mandate".

[Jim Dallas]

Edwards has taken himself off the trail for this year. So no on JRE.

[MobiusKlein]

Could it be that McCain has already given up, and is aiming to preserve the brand for 2012?

Or to keep it close enough to steal.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Obama should keep in mind that Kerry did a weak job in Ohio.**

And Michigan is not the lock for Obama is would have been had he stayed in the primary. He needs to make up with the UAW and get a big turnout in Wayne County / Detroit.

**Ya, I know all the "election was fixed" conspiracy stories.

[RickDFL]

"If Iowa and Wisconsin are close, the Republicans have already won."
Because, even if you are right, one trip to Iowa does more to increase his chances than an extra trip to some other state. Plus his trip there diverts Dem resources from some other place McCain prefers they not get spent.

"If Iowa and Wisconsin are close, the Republicans have already won." Maybe, in a generally bad GOP year, Iowa gets close for some external factor, like say a local Democratic scandal. Then, McCain needs to be close enough to take advantage of a chance to pick up EVs at which he would not otherwise have had a chance. Rove did something similar with WV in 2000. Everyone thought it was safe D, until a local mineworker union president decided to endorse Bush because he was worried about Gore, global warming, and coal exploration.

Your question is kind of like asking why hockey players don't always shoot on goal. You are not talking about a fixed system with a predictable return for every move. If I dump tons of resources into a few states, there are too many players and too many random outside factors to assume everything else will remain the same.

[PeterE]

In light of your cogitations: I contributed $750 to the Obama campaign before the Democratic Convention thinking that Obama was more likely to improve our economy and our international position than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat. But I've become skeptical. He now seems like a conventional Democratic politician voting for farm subsidies, against free trade, etc.-- the agent of the special interests the Democratic party represents.

I plan to vote for Obama but I'm inclined to think that neither McCain nor Obama will have much of an effect on our economy or our international position. They'll just rearrange the deck chairs in different ways.

[otto]

AAG?

[otto]

Ah yes, an "inconvenient" acronym.

[James Wimberley]

Can anyone help us get a handle on the margin of error of these meta-polls and moving averages?
Kevin Drum had a useful post a while back on the meaning of close polls; "Obama ahead 51%-49", margin of error 3%" doesn't mean "it's a tie", especially if repeated. He's ahead at some lower confidence interval.

[Adam Johnson]

In both of the last two elections both IA and WI were intensely competitive (neither state was won by more than 1% in either election) and I'd guess the McCain campaign believes that its under-performance in these states (polling suggests Obama will win both by ~5-15%) is due to lackluster enthusiasm for McCain among base Republican voters. They're probably hoping that Palin--who seems to play well to conservatives--will convince Republicans and Republican leaners in each state to back McCain and that they can put both states into play.

Certainly McCain would do well to try and put a few Dem leaning states in play if he can--if the Dems can't count on a couple of safeish states like WI and IA their own math problems get much tougher. And in the wake of the convention they may go after some reach states to see if their presence has much effect on polls; if it turns out it doesn't McCain still has plenty of time to concentrate on OH, CO, VA, FL.

Finally it could also be a feint; I doubt Obama ever really considered seriously competing for N. Dakota (the likelihood of that state going blue when OH, or CO/NM didn't is miniscule) but he might have tossed a few dollars in that direction in the hope that McCain would toss more.