Obligatory election predictions

With less than a week to go there is much about the 2008 election that remains up in the air. While all indicators point to a good night for the Democrats both in Nevada and nationally, exactly how this will play out is the source of much speculation in spaces such as this one.  In that spirit, here are my thoughts.

Nationally, I expect Barack Obama to hold all states won by Kerry and easily pick-up the two states Bush took from the Democrats in 2004 (Iowa and New Mexico with twelve Electoral College Votes combined).  It is unlikely that John McCain will take either New Hampshire (which Bush won in 2000) or Pennsylvania from the Democrats, but I do expect him to hold the Dakotas and Montana even though he is struggling to close-out those states.  

Under this scenario, Obama would be six shy of the presidency; meaning McCain would have to virtually run the table to win. This also means that an Obama win in Nevada, without another pick-up, would not be sufficient to deliver the White House to the Democrats.  

Any remaining suspense may quickly dissipate, however, once the polls close in the East. An Obama win in Virginia (twelve EC votes), North Carolina (thirteen EC votes), or Florida (twenty-seven EC votes) would end it. Of the three, Virginia looks like the surest bet. If Obama wins more than one of these three, then the rout will be on and Obama is likely to end up with Electoral College votes in the mid to upper 300s.  
If, however, McCain is able to make a stand in the East, then the action moves to Ohio (twenty EC votes); a state that is leaning blue. Also in the mix here are Indiana (neighboring Obama’s state of Illinois) and Missouri (both with eleven EC votes), where the two candidates are running within the margin of error. Although the polls in Ohio are all over the place, I anticipate that the Democrats will be able to build on their 2006 success in the Buckeye State and deliver it for Obama. Obama may also take Missouri and even pull out Indiana if the Democratic tidal wave comes to fruition.

Supposing that McCain somehow staves of defeat in the East and the Midwest, then it will be Colorado’s (nine EC votes) chance to tip the balance. Although the GOP has carried Colorado in nine of the last ten elections, Obama looks solid here as he is consistently polling above fifty percent and dominating the suburbs.  

Assuming that my math is correct (which is generally more reliable than my spelling), if Obama does not pick up Colorado, then McCain may just pull off the upset provided the Republicans hold Nevada. Under these circumstances, the only way in which Nevada can play king maker for Obama is if either Montana or one of the Dakotas (all with three EC votes) flip first and Obama fails to win any of the aforementioned states (other than New Mexico and Iowa). This is a highly unlikely scenario, but a scenario nonetheless.  
If Obama wins Nevada and McCain carries all of the other toss-up states, then the election would end in a tie with each candidate having 269 Electoral College votes. A tie in the Electoral College is then thrown to the House of Representatives where the Democrats hold a majority of state delegations (in the House, each state gets one vote regardless of its number of representatives) and would deliver the presidency to Obama.

After two razor close elections, a clear and decisive winner that did not rely on the vagaries of the size of the House of Representatives would be a most welcome outcome. Indeed, while the Electoral College is clearly an undemocratic institution (as it undermines two of democracy’s most prized principles: equality of the vote and majority rule; not to mention rendering more than two-thirds of the country meaningless during the presidential campaign), one of its other consequences is that it magnifies the margin of victory for the winner.  

Thus, if Obama holds on he is likely to be a majority winner (as opposed to a plurality winner given the non-existent showings by Bob Barr and Ralph Nader), but not by much.   However, such a narrow win in the popular vote could translate into as many as 375 Electoral College votes (akin to Bill Clinton’s wins in 1992 and 1996).  

From this perspective, Nevada can be consequential as it would provide more clout to Obama’s win and allow the Democrats to gain even more of a foothold in the Mountain West. And I do expect the Democrats to win in Nevada; not by much but a victory nonetheless. This is the case because, as I have written in this space before, the GOP nationally and in Nevada in particular is fighting the 2008 election using the 2000 and 2004 playbook.  While this strategy resulted in narrow Republican wins in the past, it is not designed to overcome such a large registration, enthusiasm, and organizational deficit (when exactly are the McCain campaign and the RNC going to get serious about Nevada?) that the GOP is facing here. Trying to win by squeezing every vote out of a shrinking base does not look like a winning hand when the other side has 100,000 more registered voters than you and you have a ticket that is driving independents en masse towards the opposition.

How far the Democrats’ fortunes trickle down the ballot in the Silver State is an open question. While Jill Derby continues to show herself to be a strong candidate, Heller is likely to hold on in NV-2 thanks to the Republican registration advantage and the lack of a primary challenge that nearly doomed him in 2006.  

NV-3 is looking like it is going to be another nail-biter as it appears that Jon Porter’s biennial October onslaught of negative campaigning is taking its toll on Dina Titus (most national prognosticators have moved this race from lean Democrat back to toss-up). Despite some of Porter’s best distortions and lies to date that have inched Titus’ negatives up, Titus should win and send Jon Porter and his keyboard packing back to Boulder City.

Thanks to gerrymandering there are really only two state legislative races that matter:  Senate seats five and six. There are, of course, a number of Assembly races that could go either way given the primary defeats of three incumbents and five open seats.  However, given the composition of the lower chamber, it would take a Republican tsunami to make a dent in Barbara Buckley’s hold over the Assembly.  

In contrast, a single Democratic victory over either Joe Heck (Senate District 5) or Bob Beers (Senate District 6) would swing the Senate to the Democrats. In addition to providing a unified Democratic legislative front next winter, a single pick-up would provide the Democrats with an important leg-up with term limits and redistricting on the horizon.  
While the Democrats have taken a page from Jon Porter’s campaign by running an exclusively negative campaign based very loosely on the facts so as to distract voters from the light weight candidates the party fielded in these races, voter registration numbers suggest that Heck is more vulnerable than Beers. At the same time, Beers has the bigger target on his back given his outspokenness and his obvious desire for higher office.

In the end, I would not be surprised to see both GOP incumbents hold-on given that voters may finally appear willing to hold accountable candidates whose only message is negative. This could be wishful thinking on my part. Of course, in less than a week’s time we will know for sure.