Numbers To Back Up Why Richardson Would Be Obama's Best VP Pick
Posted by Ashish on 05.09.2008
Quick look at why an Obama/Richardson ticket would have a very good chance at winning...
In my column about who Obama should pick as his VP, I put over the idea of Bill Richardson filling the spot. The main reason for that was because Obama's weakest groups by far in the primaries were Hispanics and seniors. McCain has a built in advantage among seniors (that being, he is one) and no matter what Obama does, he isn't going to win over that group by the type of margin that could swing a state. Ultimately, the only state he will have to do significantly better in among seniors is in Pennsylvania, which will be a key state and one he will have to win.
Now, for the sake of this argument, let's assume Obama carries every state Kerry won in 2004, because if he doesn't, he'll probably lose anyway. Kerry got 251 electoral votes in 2004 (Bush got 286). Now, Obama is currently polling ahead of McCain in Iowa, so let's give those seven electoral votes to Obama, giving him 258. So to win, Obama will need 12 more electoral votes. And remember, so far, he has not won Ohio OR Florida. All he has done is kept the states Kerry has won and added Iowa. If he adds Richardson to his ticket, and we assume that Richardson is able to get Hispanics to vote for he and Obama at a 65% rate (which might even be low considering African Americans vote for Obama at a 90% clip), it automatically makes them the favorite to win New Mexico, Nevada, and Texas. How? Look at the populations of the states...
Nevada: 58% White, 23% Hispanic, 9% Black, 10% Other
New Mexico: 42% White, 42% Hispanic, 3% Black, 13% Other
Texas: 47% White, 36% Hispanic, 12% Black, 5% Other
If Obama/Richardson get 87% of Blacks, 65% of Hispanics, 39% of Whites, and 50% of Other in these states, they win with 50.3% of the vote in Nevada, 52% of the vote in New Mexico, and 54.6% of the vote in Texas. These three states combine for 44 electoral votes. Even if you take Texas out, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada are enough to win the election for Obama if he holds the Kerry states. And this doesn't even include Colorado which is another state with a large African American population and a state where Obama did VERY well among whites in the primary (Colorado has nine electoral votes).
It wouldn't surprise me if Obama's plan to an electoral college win focuses more on Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado than it does on the "traditional battlegrounds" of Ohio and Florida. But you add Richardson to the mix, and suddenly New Mexico and Nevada look like wins even if they get the absolute bottom of what a Democratic ticket would get among white voters, and even Texas is very much in play. And keep in mind that we only assumed that Hispanics would vote at a 65% rate for the first potential Hispanic Vice President. It could easily be higher.
I agree as I always thought Richardson would be the most electable if he were
the nominee. Plus he will help with those concerned about Obama's inexperience
Posted By: Joe Rivett (Registered) on May 09, 2008 at 01:08 AM
I have never understood the black electorate simply because it is the only
social/racial/religious group that so overwelmingly supports a single political
party. And now with Obama it is the same case "he's black, so I must vote
for him!!!". I don't see that sort of solidarity among hispanics. I do
think Richardson would cause an increase in the number of hispanics that vote
for Obama but I don't think it will come close to the 90% that he gets of the
black vote.
Posted By: ChErikS (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 09:12 AM
Not really a fan of Ashish, but, this is the most sense he has made in a while.
Richardson was/is the most electable of he bunch and adding him as VP would
only enhance Obama's chances in November.
Posted By: Guest 89863 (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Obama's VP pick is likely the most important pic in USA history...cause if Obama
wins, I think the VP has a VERY, VERY good chance of having to take the office.
Wes Clark might be a good fit as well, not to help so much with a specific
demo, but to address the security and military issues that people have with
Democrats.
Posted By: Wooder (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 01:06 PM
"These states combine for 44 electoral votes"
Which Texas is 34 of.
Posted By: Drum Solo (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 01:47 PM
ChErikS: Obviously race is why Obama dominates the black vote, but to be fair
Alan Keyes gets no such support, so there are limits. I agree about the
Hispanic vote though. I've done political work (collecting signatures and
such) and Hispanics tend to be deeply religious Catholics and therefore
conservative voters. I was asked numerous times about someone's abortion
stance and it was a litmus test. Some will vote for the conservative, others
will vote for their own kind. Overall Richardson is the best chance to bring
new votes in.
While Obama will cover all his bases, I feel MUCH more comfortable with the
strategy Ashish puts forth than relying on Florida and Ohio, the two states
most responsible for the calamity that is the last eight years.
Posted By: Jason (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 02:15 PM
Call me a cynic, but I don't think Obama should have any minorities on his
ticket. I don't think poor, uneducated, "bitter" whites will vote
for a ticket without a least one white man. There is also an anti-hispanic
backlash due to immigration issues, and there could be a fear that Richardson
would be an ally for illegals. Of course this is wrong, but perception is
realtiy for the uneducated and ignorant.
If I were Obama, I'd pick a white male, over 55 with military or strong foreign
policy experience. He should also be from a midwestern, southern, or
southwestern state, and not come from a family of old money.
I usually agree w/ you Ashish, but I could disagree more this time. Thanks for
another great article though.
Posted By: Buck I (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 04:36 PM
