A recent Politico story revealed an ongoing debate within the Democratic Party on the dynamics of the Presidential race. Entitled, “Democrats Debate the Size of Clinton’s Victory,” the article portrays two schools of thought. One involves Democrats who want to expand the playing field and resources to every state that polls show are remotely within reach for team Clinton – regardless of how few polls or how far-fetched it might have been to put those states “in-play” even a year ago. The other school is to not do a full scale gamble, and simply see to it that the Clinton campaign has enough resources in states that will get them to the necessary 270 electoral votes. My thought falls somewhere in between.
California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer recently said “The conservative approach is the proper approach: Make sure you have enough to win the Electoral College; don’t take your eye off those states. If you’re so strong in one state, then move to another — that’s all fine. But I think you have to be very wary and very careful” (that may be the first time Boxer may have advocated for “the conservative approach”). The article also quoted Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy and Wisconsin Congressman Ron Kind as taking the opposite view – arguing that state resources are necessary to give Clinton as big a mandate as possible by pushing Democratic Congressional candidates over the top, flipping the Senate back to Democratic hands and gaining, if not a majority, as many seats as possible in the House. That has credibility as well. Coattails aside, some just want Trump to be repudiated with as large a margin as possible as large and they see Alaska, Montana, Utah and even at least one of the Dakotas – all states with three electoral votes, as a way of sending the Trumpistas into political oblivion and sending them a message.
One reason for targeting normally off the table states would be to help down-ticket candidates. In Arizona, it is widely believed that Senator John McCain is in increasing danger of losing his bid for a sixth term. Two House seats are viewed as tossups. Georgia and Missouri Democrats want voters to dump two Senators – Johnny Isakson and Roy Blunt, a prospect that would have been unthinkable even at the beginning of the year.
It is true that when it comes to resources, the Clinton campaign is trumping Trump. Her money, field offices, and simple organizational structure is so superior that even Republicans are bemoaning the fact that Trump’s team has very little viable presence on the ground in key areas. Team Clinton has also seemed to have sewn up a number of states that as recently as 2004 were thought to be out of reach for Democrats at the national level, particularly Colorado and Virginia. But the magic number is 270 and looking at the electoral pattern, those states would not be enough for her to get her to that number by itself. Assuming every other state that is expected to fall to Clinton will do so (including Wisconsin and New Hampshire, which are not certain but leaning), Clinton would only have 255 electoral votes. In that scenario, achieving 270 would require just one of four mega-states – Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and North Carolina going her column, though the latter by itself would give her just 270. Most seem, to believe that this will happen but, here’s the problem folks. It is by no means assured.
Most think the moderate tendencies of Southeastern Pennsylvania and the changing demographics of Florida will be enough to put the state’s combined 49 electoral votes in Clinton’s column. That is probably true but that’s what campaigns are all about and it’s not like she is leading by double digits like she is in places like New York and California. Ohio and North Carolina have shown Clinton up as well but the lead is very microscopic. Furthermore, we have states like Nevada which, on paper, still seems up for grabs even though the expectation was that its demographics would allow Clinton to win comfortably. And it still might. But that’s the point. Given that this is only late August, two weeks before the calendar hits the traditional general election sprint that typically begins on Labor Day, it might make more sense to see to it that ducks are in a row. That’s the point.
I had a friend tell me that this election has too many imponderables to begin making calls. Trump is Trump. No one can be sure whether he will stay on script or go horribly off. Will his campaign makeover cause voters to give him a second look? On the other hand, will Clinton be able to withstand the steady barrage of attacks relating to her e-mails and the Clinton Foundation. There are the debates. And there is the fact that voters – particularly those who don’t gravitate toward either Democrats or Republicans, will opt to ignore the personalities and pull the lever for the folks they really feel in sync with ideologically? Sure the polls for team Clinton look sterling now but I continue to believe they’ll tighten.
Now obviously, Democrats have plenty of resources to spare and can afford, at these early dates to be sending ground troops to places like Arizona and Georgia. They will not distract from the other states. But late September will be ideal to reassess how they are doing in those states. They’ll be able to tell whether the polls are genuinely close and whether there’s a realistic shot at victory, or whether they need to pack up shop and go to other places, particularly those I have mentioned that may still be precarious.
Late in the 2004 election cycle, there was a poll that showed Hawaii close. That was always one of the Democrats stronger states but it didn’t stop Vice-President Dick Cheney from making a visit 48 hours before to the state. It did little to help. The Bush/Cheney ticket lost Hawaii by 17 points at a time and, although they won the election, more than a few Republicans thought it diverted more than a few resources from super-close battlegrounds. For Democrats this year, pursuing Utah may be an apt comparison. It’s hard to see team Clinton winning there in the end even with several anti-Trump candidates doing really well (Johnson, McMullen). But, if it forces team Trump to divert resources from other states into one he should hold handily, that’s not all bad. Further, if it gives Democrats the resources to oust Mia Love from her Congressional seat, that is an investment worth making.
In closing, Democrats can well afford to spend outside the box. They have plenty of resources to spare but pick it wisely. If you’re not within reach.But in doing so, make sure all your ducks are in a row. And one certainty is that team Clinton will not get caught doing anything but.