Obama: the next Samuel Tilden?

A crazy thought occurred to me this evening. And what are blogs for, if not for airing crazy thoughts?

In November, Barack Obama will most likely spur unprecedented turnout in urban areas like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, due to his appeal to African-American voters. The result of this high turnout will be to build larger-than-usual popular-vote edges for the Dems in several "blue" states -- totally meaningless for Electoral College purposes. Obama also seems likely to reduce, but not overcome, the GOP's advantage in a number of southern and western "red" states. Again, this is electorally meaningless, but it will reduce the GOP's popular-vote cushion.

At the same time, it appears that Obama may be vulnerable to possible narrow defeats at the hands of John McCain in key swing states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. While I don't want to lend credence to Hillary Clinton's mostly bogus "big states" argument, there is some legitimate reason to worry about Obama's ability to carry these states.

Put it all together, and Obama starts to sound like a prime candidate for another inversion between the electoral and popular votes, like in 2000. But that's not the crazy thought. The crazy thought is this: is it possible Obama could lose an electoral-vote squeaker to McCain despite winning the popular vote by a meaningful margin -- like, 2 or 3 percent, as opposed to Al Gore's half-percent -- and become the first candidate since Samuel Tilden in 1876 to lose the presidency despite winning a majority of the popular vote?

P.S. From the Irish Trojan Assignment Desk: somebody look at the 2004 state-by-state margins, adjust them as needed, and construct a plausible scenario where this occurs. :)

Comments

Holy crap that would be awesome. I love chaos.

[kcatnd]

I prefer my chaos to be smaller and less constitutionally destructionist.

[Andrew]

In November, Barack Obama will most likely spur unprecedented turnout in urban areas like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, due to his appeal to African-American voters.

You're on crack. Go look at the 2000 data again -- the Afrocan-American turnout in that presidential election was abnormally high and the most tilted it has ever been in favor of Democrats (you'd have thought that Dubya was David Duke's former deputy in the KKK). Obama, despite his advantages with blacks, can only hope to match that number. Throw in the fact that blacks are an ever shrinking percentage of the American electorate (thanks to Asians and Hispanics, who also lean Democrat but by far less lopsided margins), and your scenario just doesn't hold water. If Obama is to win 50% of the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, he's going to have to do far better among Latinos and working-class whites -- groups that McCain would likely do well with (as opposed to a different GOP nominee).

[Andrew]

Heh, "Afrocan", I kind of like that word. :-)

[gahrie]

I eagerly await such a Tildenesqe outcome, so as the left commences screaming about it, I can respond... "Well now you know how Hillary feels..."

(By the way, everyone realizes that Hillary would have already gotten the nomination if the Democrats used a winner takes all process like the Republicans do right?)

[Brendan]

Gahrie, again, the Republicans do not have a "winner-take-all process." They have a state-by-state hodge podge.

[Sean Braisted]

An even crazier thought...what if this scenario does play out, and the electors go with the will of the people, or the US House refuses to recognize the electors, and they give the Presidency to Obama?

[WBV]

Quoted from an online source:

"1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65. In this instance, some say the Electoral College worked the way it is designed to work by preventing a candidate from winning an election based on support from one region of the country. The South overwhelmingly supported Cleveland, and he won by more than 425,000 votes in six southern states. However, in the rest of the country he lost by more than 300,000 votes."

[Sean Braisted]

Actually, to answer my own question, if it did go to the House the congressional delegations would have to vote as a state, not individuals, which would probably benefit the Republican.

[Alasdair]

Brendan - in conversation on the subject with colleagues of high melanin content, they are still rabidly-anti-Bush, yet disgusted with the choices in November ... if they continue like this, and if they are even vaguely representative, then I would almost expect a low turn-out of high melanin content voters on the Dem side - with a relatively high turn-out of hmc GOP voters ...

Now, wouldn't that frost a goodly percentage of the current Congress !

(grin)

[Mike's brother Matt]

Wait, there's homework now? No one told me there'd be homework....

[Mindsurfer]

Well Matt, you know, some profs. will pile it on early to scare off the slackers. But it seems Brendan favors that sadistic group, the ones who suck you in 'til the drop date has passed. ;)

[Alasdair]

Silly Mindsurfer ! Hillary doesn't *have* a drop date !

[Youngblai]

If McCain won the Electoral College and the House gave it to Obama, all hell would break loose, as it would in the vice versa.

By all hell break loose I don't mean, "Oh, there would be riots," I'm talking "Oh, so _that's_ why we have a 2nd Amendment."

As to Bush and "high melanin content voters" (can we just say "black," African-American, etc.--really, I don't think anyone's going to call the PC police), I think you're all forgetting that Bush was running against the legacy of the "first African American President" crap in 2000.

That being said, I think that Obama will lead to higher turnout in the black community in 2008. Just my own anecdotal view here, but folks who have previously given two (censored) about elections are getting registered, doing delegate math, etc., etc. because, hey, it's the first time an African-American has a serious chance at winning. While Bush did have a bad reputation in the black community in 2000, that was nowhere near the "the dream may be realized!"-effect Obama has now. Unfortunately, the Clintons' ability to highlight this (thanks Bill!) has definitely motivated the more benighted crowd as well as Hispanics to turn out for Hill. Although the former is no surprise, I think the latter has shocked some Dem analysts who haven't been paying any attention to the tension in inner cities between the minorities. As noted above, McCain is probably the one GOP candidate for whom this will be an advantage thanks to his attempts at immigration "reform."

[Becky]

Andrew, I think you're being obtuse. I'm not sure that McCain will be able to motivate the Republican base to turn out to the polls the way that Obama will whip the Democratic base into a frenzy of voting. Moreover, there are plenty of moderate voters who want to voice their disapproval of the current Republican administration and will do so by voting for any Democrat.

I'm mildly amused by all of this talk about Hillary. She lost after Super Tuesday and it's been one looooong, drawn out, poor loser pity party since then. She may not be mathematically eliminated ala Huckabee, but the gal can't win the nomination without destroying the party. The fact that she's pressing forward is a testament to her lust for power. She crowned herself the presumptive nominee last year and it's been entertaining to watch her react to that nomination slipping through her fingertips. Mwahahaha.

Hey Brendan, do you think that Obama would ask Gore to be his running mate?

[Youngblai]

Becky,

3 months ago I would've agreed with you on the moderates. However, the Dem race as well as the "Gaffe of the Week" by Obama has done a lot to narrow the gap. To wit, this should've been a Dem victory going away--but now it's actually looking like we might have an electoral race.

I'm not counting the Clintons out until the balloons drop in August. As someone pointed out the other day, a lot of the superdelegates are elected officials. If the demographics in their districts are those that favor Hillary versus Obama and Her Inevitableness manages to win another couple of primaries, it's not quite the slam dunk everyone's making it. The more and more the Clintons and their proxies are able to cast Obama as the black candidate, the more and more this is likely to happen.

Now, I'm not going to argue with you on the destruction of the party, but as the GOP has shown even clear signs of dissatisfaciton within a party's base often doesn't register for a couple of election cycles with the knuckleheads in charge.

[Brendan Loy]

what if this scenario does play out, and the electors go with the will of the people, or the US House refuses to recognize the electors, and they give the Presidency to Obama?

Point #1 is highly unlikely because candidates choose fierce partisans, not wishy-washy free thinkers, as their electors. Maybe if it was 270-268, MAYBE you could find one or two McCain electors to defect. But if McCain gets 272, 273, 274, or whatever, the odds against this become astronomical.

Point #2 would be a blatant affront to the Constitution and our system of government which should horrify every American of every political persuasion. You don't overturn the Constitution by, in effect, congressional "jury nullification." If there is no genuine dispute over the actual electoral tally (a la Florida 2000) -- just a belief that we should respect the "will of the people" and ignore the electors, who, under our Constitution, elect the president -- there is no legal, moral or constitutional justification for the House to do what you suggest.

Don't believe me? Imagine the scenario is reverse. What if Kerry had won 200,000 more votes in Ohio in 2004, but the other states' tallies had remained the same? Bush would have been the "Samuel Tilden" in that scenario, beating Kerry by 3% and winning a majority of the vote, yet losing the presidency. If the House Republicans had summarily overturned Kerry's constitutionally undeniable victory, would you and other Democrats have happily gone along, since after all, they're merely "respecting the will of the people"? I think not. In that scenario, Kerry would have been the legitimate president under our system, and any attempt to deny him the presidency would have been an unspeakable outrage.

If the Electoral College is to be replaced by a national popular vote-based system of electing the president, it must be done beforehand, by constitutional amendment, not afterward through unconstitutional congressional nullification of the law of the land.

[Brendan Loy]

Hey Brendan, do you think that Obama would ask Gore to be his running mate?

Maybe, but I think the bigger question is whether Gore would accept. He's already been vice president for 8 years. Does he really want to go for 16?

[dcl]

All I know is that if Hillary gets the nomination I'm voting for Ron Paul or Dave Barry... Or both of them in the Barry Paul ticket... But after what she's done to the democratic party of the past month there is no way I'll ever vote for someone with last name "Clinton" or any hyphenate thereof.

[Busdriver Dan]

Obama seems capable at bringing enemies and friends closer together. I just hope that doesn't happen on my bus.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6203178D-C782-42E2-8D56-765A3D7EDCD7

[Andrew]

Becky, I'm not sure what I am being obtuse about. Brendan posited a scenario, and I debunked it. I did not say that McCain will have an easy time of whipping the GOP "base into a frenzy of voting" like Obama will with the Dems, only that Brendan's analysis conveniently overlooked the fact that the Dems effectively tapped out the black vote already in 2000, so the black vote is not likely to drive a Samuel Tilden scenario.

[Sandy Underpants]

Anyone that believes the dems tapped out the black vote in 2000 must not remember how indifferent voters were in that election. Arsenio Hall (still a black man) was on the Tonite Show and said, "This election is like picking your favorite Menendez brother."

Obama/Gore '08 is the most brilliant, re-invigorating, election turning idea I've heard in weeks.

[Andrew]

Sandy, there's what Arsenio Hall said on the Tonight Show, and there's actual data backed by numbers and actual votes. You might want to check out the latter before sticking your foot in your mouth again.

[Andrew]

Based on some last-minute fact-checking, I'm revising my comments above. In 2000, Bush received only 8% of the black vote, which is the worst any Republican has ever done (the average over the past few elections is 12%; Bush got 11% in 2004).

In 2004, black turnout increased by almost 25% from 2000, representing an all-time high. However, overall turnout percentages in almost all voting groups (including younger voters) was very high if not at all-time highs.

Thus, it stands to reason that, if Obama can get the high turnout of black voters like Kerry, and the domination of the black vote like Gore, he can better either of his predecessor's results among blacks. However, the margins are very tight and the chances extremely small that Obama can squeeze much more out of the black vote, and when you consider that voter registration among Hispanics and Asians is far outstripping any gains in black voter registration, it stands to reason that blacks hit their high point (as far as Democrats are concerned) in 2000 and 2004, and that from here on out, any improvement on Gore and Kerry's performances will have to come from swing voters (Hispanics, women, Catholics, Asians, working class whites). Given Obama's performance against HRC on Tuesday with these voter groups, chances don't look good at all for Obama unless John McCain somehow does significantly worse than Bush did in 2000 and 2004 and loses these groups badly (because of Iraq or the economy or immigration/amnesty).

In sum, my earlier statements about the black vote "peaking" in 2000 were technically incorrect, but my underlying conclusion is even more accurate than I originally thought.

[Alasdair]

Andrew - from his comment's validity-content, I suspect you are incorrect about where Sandy's foot tends to be ... it seems, more often, to be at the other end of his intenstinal system ... limber son-of-a-gun, ain't he ?

[Nikki Oldaker]

Saying Barack Obama and Samuel Tilden in the same sentence makes me cringe. As the author of the book,"Samuel Tilden, the Real 19th President" I know exactly how Tilden lost - and it was because the Southern Democrats in SC, FL amd LA turned on him for a better deal offered by Republicans to remove soliders from these reconstructed states. There is much more in that story - but you'd have to read the book. As for Electoral... Barack won primaries in Caucuses in all Republican states... Hillary in democratic states... Karl Rove did a electoral comparision - Obama will lose what Hillary would have won. Therefore - McCain will be our next President.

[David K.]

As for Electoral... Barack won primaries in Caucuses in all Republican states... Hillary in democratic states... Karl Rove did a electoral comparision - Obama will lose what Hillary would have won. Therefore - McCain will be our next President.

This assumes two things
1) That Barrack has 0% chance of winning any of the states hillary won in the campaign, something i find laughable at best
2) He has 0% chance of flipping some of thsoe previously red states that he got incredible voter turn out in during the campaign