Another Look At That Voting Chart...

I was pondering the Presidential Results by State, 1972-2004; Democratic Primary Results, 2008 chart ... and started counting. There are 11 (!) states (63 electoral college votes) that consistently voted Republican since 1972; this means that the odds that they will vote Democratic in 2008 are slim to none, even though the voters may not like Sen. John McCain as their candidate. Conversely, there is only one "state" that has consistently voted Democratic: the District of Columbia (3 electoral votes); the converse holds.

In the primary/caucus contests, Sen. Barack Obama won DC as well as 10 of these "Republican" states (all but Oklahoma). They are key to his leading Sen. Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates (those determined by state caucuses and primaries), but will they help ensure a Democratic win in November? Unlikely.

The states are overwhelmingly western/rural (not overwhelmingly "southern" - which may come as a surprise to some):

1. Alaska - 3 electoral votes
2. Idaho - 4 electoral votes
3. Indiana - 11 electoral votes
4. Kansas - 6 electoral votes
5. Nebraska - 5 electoral votes
6. North Dakota - 3 electoral votes
7. Oklahoma - 7 electoral votes
8. South Dakota - 3 electoral votes
9. Utah - 5 electoral votes
10. Virginia - 13 electoral votes
11. Wyoming - 3 electoral votes

I think this math is fascinating. If only the states that had voted Democratic at least once in the past nine election cycles were to select the Democratic nominee, then Sen. Clinton would, I think (based on other analyses) lead the Democratic nomination race. Some of my commenters say that this means Sen. Obama is pulling non-traditional Ds into the fold -- a good thing for a party that obviously needs a coalition candidate to win the White House. But coalitions in those 10 states will do the party little or no good, or so it appears.

Remember this: the president is not elected by popular vote but by electoral votes - a minimum of 270, so the Republicans start the contest with, in effect, a 23% advantage. Those state-by-state contests are important! Super-delegates should remember that they are playing a game of chess: their role, per their creation, is to help ensure that the party select a nationally viable candidate. These numbers suggest Obama may not be that candidate.

Should super-delegates basically disenfranchise Democrats who are a clear minority in their own states when deciding who to pick as the nominee -- and cast their votes for Clinton? Should states that consistently vote "Republican" have their nomination votes count as much as states that more consistently vote "Democratic"? These are questions that Democratic party leaders will have to ponder either before or after August. (Then there is the "what to do about Florida and Michigan" question -- disenfranchise voters because their leaders were stupid?)

And no, these decisions should not be made behind closed doors before the convention in August. That's what the convention is for, at least in a historical sense.

^{Next, I'm going to look at those states that voted Democratic since 1992 (Clinton, Gore, Kerry). For folks who continue to hypothesize that I am a Clinton supporter, let me again publicly state that this is not the case. I think both Clinton and Obama have flaws, and I'm not sure which candidate's flaws are the more fatal. I think McCain has flaws, too, as do many Republicans. Is it time to say good-bye to the two Party system?}