Obama's Surprising Blue State Problem

There’s a real chance, as you’ve probably heard, that there’ll be a split popular vote/Electoral College decision on November 6.

As of this writing, the Real Clear Politics polling average has Mitt Romney leading by 0.7 points in the national horserace, whileHuffPost Pollster puts the GOP nominee up by 0.4. The electoral map is more decisive, though, at least for now, with Obama ahead in all of his must-win states, and well-positioned to pick off a couple of Romney’s. If the election were held this minute, the odds are very good that Obama would win the Electoral College, and decent that he’d lose the popular vote.

This would officially be the fifth time in history this has happened, after 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 (although Sean Trende made a strong case last week that it also happened in 1960). The question is where the disconnect is coming from – why is Obama apparently performing better in swing states than he is elsewhere?

Many reflexively argue that this is a product of Southern and Appalachian antipathy toward the president. He’s faring so terribly in these areas, the logic goes, that it’s dragging down his standing in the national polls (and elevating Romney’s) by a point or two.

On the surface, this makes sense. In a wide swath of territory extending from Oklahoma up through West Virginia, Obama actually found himself losing dozens of rural counties to fringe challengers in this year’s Democratic primaries – something that didn’t happen outside that region. So if he’s facing that much Southern/Appalachian trouble within his own party, then imagine how bad is plight is with all voters there. Obama’s campaign itself made this argument a few months ago, as John Heilemann relayedback in the spring:

[Obama campaign manager Jim Messina] doesn’t give a whit about national polling, in which Obama’s numbers are dragged down by his horrific performance in the Deep South and Appalachia – but is obsessed with the president’s standing in battleground states.

This view was reinforced a few weeks ago when Markos Moulitsas flagged regional subsample data from Gallup’s weekly poll which showed Obama running 4-6 points ahead in the East, Midwest and West – and 22 points behind in the South.  So that settles it, right?

Actually, no.

First, as Nate Cohn has documented, the Gallup regional numbers are at odds with what most other pollsters are finding. In six other national polls, Obama trailed in the South on average by 7.5 points, which is actually a tick better than the nine-point loss he suffered in the region to John  McCain four years ago. Of course, take all of this with a grain of salt; the polls that this data was drawn from are national in nature and aren’t necessarily designed to show the state of the race region by region.

Still, when you think about it, it makes sense that the South/Appalachia wouldn’t really be Obama’s trouble spot, because it’s an area that never liked him to begin with. Don’t forget, this is the part of the country where in many counties Obama actually fared worse in 2008 than John Kerry did in 2004. Even before his popularity began dropping with voters elsewhere, voters in this area had already turned on him. So while he’s not doing well in the South, he’s probably not doing that much worse than he did in ’08.

Patrick Murray, who runs the Monmouth University poll, suggests that a more helpful way of understanding why Obama’s national support is lagging is to divide the country into three types of states – red, blue, and competitive – and to compare Obama’s showing in these states to how he’s doing now. Using the ’08 results andMonmouth’s latest numbers, here’s what Murray came up with:

Competitive states

Obama ’08: +7

Obama ’12: -5

Red States

Obama ’08:  -15

Obama ’12: -15

Blue states

Obama ’08: + 24

Obama ’12: +11

It’s not surprising that Obama’s standing has declined in competitive states, but what jumps out is that he’s not doing any worse in red states now than he was in ’08 – but that he has suffered a huge drop in blue state America.

This gets us closer to understanding the potential popular vote/Electoral College split. Obama is still going to win all of the blue states he won in 2008 –New Jersey, California, Massachusetts and so on – but he could do so by significantly reduced margins. This wouldn’t change the electoral math, but it certainly would affect the national popular vote. I asked Murray why Obama would be falling off so much in blue states, and why the damage isn’t worse in battleground areas. His theory is that it’s an enthusiasm issue, and he offers some more data from his poll to support this – the percentage of voters from each party who make it through his likely voter screen:

Competitive states

Republicans: 92%

Democrats: 88%

Red states

Republicans: 86%

Democrats: 87%

Blue states

Republicans: 90%

Democrats: 81%

As you can see, enthusiasm is highest for both parties in the battleground states – not surprising, given how much attention they receive – and lowest in their respective safe zones. But the drop-off is more severe for Democrats in blue states, where they’re almost ten points behind Republicans on turnout likelihood. Here’s what Murray told me:

I really think it’s an enthusiasm gap.  It’s offset in competitive states by the fact that there is an active campaign.  My theory is that Blue state Dems are a bit disappointed over how the first term has turned out.  They don’t want Romney to win but feel that Obama can win their state’s EVs without their support.

This certainly seems plausible. Democrats in, say, Ohio and Massachusetts probably both feel disappointed in how the last four years have gone. But in Ohio, they feel an obvious urgency to vote anyway and to keep the other party from winning, and they’re bombarded daily with paid and free media messages pounding home this point. In Massachusetts, though, there’s no campaign, except from the ads on Boston TV stations that are aimed at New Hampshire voters. Democrats there can shrug and say, “I’d rather Obama wins, but it’s not like me voting here will do anything for him.”

I’d say this might be an argument for ending the Electoral College, if the non-battleground status of most of the country actually is affecting participation levels. But at the very least, it seems like a pretty good explanation for why Obama may lose the national horserace but still win the Electoral College.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

DonateDonate by credit card


Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Alternet All Access and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.