Obama's Next Challenge: Turning Primary Losses Into Electoral Votes

As Barack Obama prepares to move from the primary to the general election phase of the 2008 presidential election, he faces a new challenge which combines both - to bring many of the states where he suffered primary losses this winter and spring into the Democratic column this fall.

Obama has expressed confidence that he can hold Democratic mainstays such as California and New York, as well as strongly compete in battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio - all places he lost decisively in the Democratic primaries to Hillary Clinton.

But his ability to actually carry these states is another matter, and if he is to succeed, he will need to prove himself a coalition builder of the first magnitude.

Any half decent candidate is going to carry their party's strongholds, whether they won the state in the primary season or not. But it takes a special candidate to win electoral votes in more problematic terrain where they have come up empty in the spring. Ronald Reagan was such a candidate; so was Bill Clinton. And Obama has shown the grit and political skills this primary season that could make him a third.

But first, the daunting part. No presidential nominee since Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984 has lost more primaries than Obama (17 for Mondale; 15 and counting for Obama, in terms of sanctioned primaries alone). And no nominee in the current primary-dominated era of presidential nominations that began in earnest in 1976 has won the White House after losing more than 10 primaries in the winter and spring.

Yet these figures by themselves are only part of the story. Hillary Clinton has lost even more primaries this spring, 16 thus far, which is as much a sign of the unique, evenly matched nature of the two Democratic campaigns than glaring evidence that Obama would be another Michael Dukakis or George McGovern.

Over the last quarter century, the nominating process has been characterized by a series of quick knockouts, with candidates nailing down their party's nominations with only a handful of primary defeats. Not since 1984 have a pair of contenders battled wire-to-wire through the primary season as Obama and Clinton have this year. And not since Ronald Reagan challenged President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination in 1976 have two candidates fought through the primaries on such even terms.

Figure 1. Success Rate of Presidential Candidates in States Where They Earlier Lost Primaries

Usually the presidential candidate that trips over the fewest primary hurdles en route to their party's nomination goes on to win the general election in November. Yet an ability to come back and win states in the fall that were lost in the winter or spring can also be critical to winning the presidency. Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992 had particularly high rates of success in turning states that they lost in the primaries to sources of electoral votes in the fall. It is a quality that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain would need to emulate if they are to win the White House this fall. All three have suffered an unusually high number of primary losses this year. Through May 13, the total stood at 16 Democratic primary losses for Clinton, 15 for Obama, and eight Republican primary defeats for McCain.

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates an incumbent president. A pound sign (#) denotes that George W. Bush won the electoral vote in 2000, while Al Gore took the popular vote. The list above is based on primary results from the states and the District of Columbia and includes only those contests in which the nominee was listed on the ballot. Democratic primaries in 1976 in New York and Texas for the election of delegates only and a similar Republican primary in Texas the same year are included in the totals. "Megastates" are those with 15 or more electoral votes at the time of the election.

Source: Race for the Presidency: Winning the 2008 Election; America Votes 27 (both CQ Press).

Just as pertinent at this point may be a different set of numbers. Since 1976, presidential nominees as a group have turned roughly one out of every three states from the losing column in the primaries to the winning column in the general election. Yet the success rate for candidates who have actually won the White House is significantly better than that, with a "turn around" of better than one out of every two states. And both Reagan in 1980 and Clinton in 1992 had rates much higher than that.

Reagan lost Republican primaries in major industrial states such as Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania to George H.W. Bush in early 1980. But with the help of newly minted "Reagan Democrats," he came back to win these states in the fall.

Clinton lost Democratic primaries throughout New England in 1992, as well as Colorado, Maryland and South Dakota. But with the exception of the latter, he won every state in this eclectic group that November.

To succeed this fall, Obama would need to show gifts of outreach equal to the victorious Clinton and Reagan. He has not fared all that well in prime battleground states, losing primaries or caucuses in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico and New Hampshire. All are states that went Democratic or Republican in 2004 by margins of no more than 3 percentage points. And Obama lost primaries in states such as California and New Jersey that Democrats have come to count on, but that Republican John McCain could conceivably put in play this fall.

Yet Obama's route to victory may not require all of these states. One of the ironies of this year's nominating process is that he has run well in places with a Republican heritage, as has McCain in states that lean perceptibly to the Democrats. At the same time, each has shown some vote-getting weakness in states that constitute their party's core. The result could be a noticeably different electoral map this fall, with Obama or McCain winning the election by making significant inroads into the other party's side of the map.

At this point, though, Obama occupies a position less like Reagan or Clinton than the 1976 version of Jimmy Carter. Branded "Jimmy Who?" early in that race, the former Georgia governor was even more of a newcomer on the national stage than Obama is this year. But Carter got off to a strong start beginning in Iowa, emerged as the Democratic front-runner by early spring, and survived a number of late primary losses after his "honeymoon" period had ended. But boosted by the Democrats' proportional representation system, Carter kept adding delegates even as he was losing, and he acquired the necessary delegate majority as the primary season came to a close.

Carter endured more ups and downs as the year unfolded. But with the wind at the Democrats' back in 1976, he was able to prevail over President Ford that November by the narrow popular vote margin of 2 percentage points. It is an outcome that the Obama campaign would no doubt accept - a victory that may not be pretty, but one that accomplishes his goal of winning the White House.

Figure 2. A New Electoral Map in 2008?

With the 2008 presidential primary season nearly complete, one thing is already clear: There could be a markedly different electoral map in November from the one four years ago, particularly if Democrat Barack Obama ends up as the Democratic nominee against Republican John McCain. Obama has run quite well in primaries and caucuses in many Republican-oriented states, but less well in many Democratic states. Meanwhile, Republican John McCain has encountered the opposite situation - losing often this winter and spring in GOP-oriented territory, but dominating his party rivals in states with a more Democratic pedigree.

Note: A "W" indicates that the primary or caucus was won by Obama or McCain. A "L" denotes a loss. An asterisk (*) indicates a caucus vote; a dash (-), that Obama was not on the Michigan primary ballot. "(L)" indicates that Obama's loss in Florida was in a primary not sanctioned by the national Democratic Party. There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs in November, with 270 needed to win the White House.

See Other Commentary by Rhodes Cook

See Other Political Commentary

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.