Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
Full Post
Posted Monday, October 13, 2008 3:31 PM

Should McCain Worry About West Virginia?

Andrew Romano

 

Barack Obama's sizable advantages in both national and battleground surveys have held steady for at least a week. So it's only natural that the chattering classes would start to get antsy. Eager for the next plot twist--and running out of stuff to say on cable--a number of pundits have taken to speculating about whether Obama will win this or that red state. First it was North Carolina, which looks plausible enough. Then it was Missouri--also a possibility. But now that talk has turned to West Virginia, I feel as if it's my solemn journalistic duty to deliver a bit of a reality check.

Simply put, McCain shouldn't sweat the Mountain State.  

Advertisement

In defense of Chris Matthews and Co., it's easy to see why it's such an attractive subject for speculation. For decades, the thoroughly working-class West Virginia--one of only two states to vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980 AND Michael Dukakis in 1988--was among the bluest states in the union. In fact, Republicans managed to win West Virginia only twice between 1960 and 1996--during the massive GOP landslides of 1972 and 1984. But now the tables have turned. In 2000, the state chose George W. Bush over Al Gore, 52 to 46 percent; four years later, Bush doubled his winning margin to 13 points. The story--for what its worth--was that West Virginia's white working class had chosen to vote its values (Republicans) over its economic interests (Democrats).

Now, after a May primary in which Hillary Clinton clobbered Obama 67 to 26--a result that generated a flurry of stories about Obama's "Appalachian problem," most with Charleston datelines--an Obama victory on Election Day would provide the commentariat with "proof" of the grand theory it's already advancing as to "why Obama won": because the economy trumped race. As if on cue, the polling average in West Virginia has narrowed to 2.2 points since the start of the month. Meanwhile, reports have surfaced that Obama is advertising in markets that bleed across the Ohio and Virginia borders--and, as a result, Sarah Palin was said to be embarking on a defensive bus tour. Sensing a potential shift, Beltway sage Charlie Cook moved the Mountain State into his toss-up column over the weekend, and the cable newsniks began repeating the words "Obama is even winning West Virginia!" as if it were some sort of mantra.

Now for the reality check. Palin did land in Kenova, W. Va. yesterday morning--but only for geographic convenience. She quickly drove across the border into Ohio, and so far, there have been no signs--no visits, no ads, no nothing--suggesting that either Obama or McCain is paying particular attention to the state. That's undoubtedly the right decision. While it's true that the average polling gap between McCain and Obama is smaller this month than last, that's only because of a single sounding: the Oct. 8 survey from American Research Group, which shows Obama leading by eight. One poll, however, does not a trend make. Previous Mountain State surveys showed McCain ahead by four to eight points; it would be irresponsible to ignore them until another pollster puts out some stats. ARG is famous--or infamous--for quirky results, and the prediction whizzes at FiveThirtyEight still give McCain a 67 percent chance of victory.

Could Obama win? Absolutely. But ultimately it doesn't matter whether the economy has boosted the Democrat in West Virginia, or by how much. It simply won't be one of this year's tipping point states. For West Virginia's five electoral votes to make a difference, they'd have to be putting Obama over the top--adding, for example, to a map that includes John Kerry's 2004 properties plus Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada. But if Obama's winning white, working-class West Virginia, it's pretty much impossible to imagine that he hasn't already won less white, less working-class Ohio (20 electoral votes) and Virginia (13)--both states where he's actually ahead the polls. In fact, FiveThirtyEight predicts that Obama will also win Colorado, Florida, Missouri and North Carolina before he wins West Virginia. Meaning that if the Illinois senator does manage swing the Mountain State, he'll already have a whopping 350 electoral votes in his pocket--and, with them, the presidency.

Bottom line: McCain shouldn't worry about West Virginia. He simply has too many other states to stress about.
 

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: Jackelope (October 15, 2008 at 6:56 AM)

I'm glad this article wasn't about race. West Virginians get slammed by the press who automatically  assume they won't vote for Obama because he is black. West Virginians aren't as backwards as people like to think or joke about. Most of the voters in WV are in, more or less, suburban settings. There are a number of educated people living in the Charleston-Huntingon corridor, the Clarksburg-Morgantown corridor, the Winchester-Martinsburg-Hagerstown corridor and in clumps around places like Parkersburg, Wheeling, Weirton. These voters are easily up for grabs if anyone cares to go on the campaign trail for them -- Clinton did; Obama didn't. He lost -- it was a no-brainer. He didn't lose because he was black; he lost because he didn't spend any time there at all.

The blue-collar voters of the past who always voted Democratic have had to leave the state for jobs elsewhere. The WV economy was based heavily on coal, natural gas, steel and timber. Fewer workers are needed for those industries now and many of the WV blue-collar voters of the past have left for places like North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida or the military.

Is it worth either Obama's or McCain's time to go campaigning in WV? If you look at the map of Electoral College votes and tally up the results from polls, then, of course, the answer is no. However, no state should be ignored by a campaign. Even one trip through the state is important as no trip through the state means that they were shunned. It's arrogant for any candidate to think they have a state locked up, and equally stupid for them to think they cannot win it.

Even for those WV voters who don't live in a suburban setting, Obama can still claim victory if he would like the chance. Rockefeller and Kennedy went trudging through hollows for votes. Those people appreciated that somebody recognized that they existed and came to see them. I can tell you that THAT kind of campaigning goes a long, long way in WV. Unlike suburban settings, these people talk to each other every day -- if even a couple of them like you, they will talk positively about you for days and days on end.

WV isn't backwards, it's just different. And, WV is worthy of a visit from Obama.


Posted By: trogers (October 14, 2008 at 10:18 PM)

Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin have much to be ashamed about, but losing West Virginia won't add to the disgrace tally. The Jerry Springer wing of the Republican party will deliver West Virginia to the McCain/ Palin ticket. For Gods sake she has a pregnant, unmarried teenage daughter, she can field dress game, and her husband races dogs when he is not busy fighting like one with his brother in law. West Virginia is McCain/Palin country and they will stand up and vote for the dysfunctional family values so evident in the Palin clan. The inbred Republican message of fear and loathing fits the McCain/Palin campaign like a glove, and West Virginia gets it. The enemy is near, the danger is clear.  West Virginia will not be fooled by a terrorist; the cause will live on; McCain /Palin will carry the day; and God's will will be done.


Posted By: mvymvy (October 14, 2008 at 8:58 PM)

The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state, 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  

susan