The 'blue wall' can be penetrated

The 'blue wall' can be penetrated

By LeROY GOLDMAN

Hendersonville Times-News

Be Our Guest columnist

Published: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 4:30 a.m.

The outcomes of American presidential elections are frequently predictable. Like a pendulum, they swing from one party to the other, especially after a president has been twice elected.

The Democrats recaptured the White House in 1960, following Eisenhower; in 1976, following Nixon-Ford; in 1992, following Reagan-Bush; and in 2008, following George W. Bush. The Republicans won in 1952, following Roosevelt-Truman; in 1968, following Kennedy-Johnson; in 1980, following Carter; and in 2000, following Clinton.

Thus, it would seem that 2016 is advantage Republicans. There are abundant data that point to such an outcome.

President Barack Obama is perceived by a very large swath of the electorate as one of the most polarizing presidents in the nation’s history. His approval number, while somewhat improved, hovers at an anemic 50 percent. A very large majority of the American people believe the country is on the wrong track.

All of the foregoing raises an intriguing question: Why is Hillary Clinton seeking the presidency when it would seem she is a likely loser? After all, regardless of what you think of her, she’s no dummy.

In fact, she believes she will win. And there is a very good chance that she’s right. The reason she may be right has everything to do with the advantage the Democrats have in the way the Electoral College operates. It’s what the Democrats call their “blue wall.”

2 of 4

In all but two states, Maine and Nebraska, the candidate that carries a state wins all of that state’s electoral votes. This gives the Democrats a substantial advantage in amassing the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the White House. They basically have a lock on 19 states and the District of Columbia with 247 electoral votes, leaving them only 23 votes shy of victory.

The GOP has a lock on only 191 electoral votes. There are 100 electoral votes in the eight swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada.

The swing states of Virginia (13 votes), New Hampshire (four votes) and Nevada (six votes) have been trending increasingly Democratic. Their 23 votes plus the guaranteed 247 are all the Democrats need for victory. Put another way, the Republicans can hold their red states and win all the remaining swing states, and they will still lose the election.

And now you see the seemingly impregnable strength of the Democrats’ blue wall. It’s Hillary’s ace in the hole. It explains why she is running and expects to win.

But the blue wall can be breached. Here’s how:

Let’s go back to the two states, Maine and Nebraska, that don’t award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. Instead, they award electoral votes on the basis of which candidate carries each congressional district. Thus, the winner-take-all rule in those two states does not apply unless one of the candidates carries all of the congressional districts in that state. Maine passed its law in 1972, and Nebraska followed suit in 1996. It’s perfectly legal.

However, Maine and Nebraska’s laws are a distinction without a difference because the Democratic presidential nominee always carries both of Maine’s districts, and the Republican nominee carries all three of Nebraska’s congressional districts.

3 of 4

But what if a few other states, the right few, chose to pass legislation that would apportion its electoral votes by congressional district just like Maine and Nebraska?

If the blue wall states of Michigan and Wisconsin were to pass such legislation, it would change everything. It would blow a hole in the blue wall. In both states, Republicans control the governor’s mansion and both chambers of the state legislature, so they have the power to get such a bill passed.

In those two states, the Republicans control 14 of 22 congressional districts. It’s reasonable to assume that the GOP presidential nominee would carry those 14 districts. That would reduce the Democrats’ lock on electoral votes from 247 to 233, and it would increase the GOP’s total from 191 to 205.

The GOP also controls the levers of power in Nevada. Changing the law there would likely split its electoral vote 3-3, raising the aggregate totals to 236 for the Democrats and 208 for the Republicans.

Now the remaining blue states plus the swing states of Virginia and New Hampshire, which have been trending Democratic, are no longer sufficient for a Democratic victory! Changing the law in the three aforementioned states would help level the Electoral College playing field for 2016.

Oh, you say, the Democrats would respond by doing the same thing in other states, thus nullifying the GOP gains that can be made in Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada. Not true. Try to find a state that presents that analogous advantage to the Democrats. There is none!

4 of 4

None exists because of the enormous gains the Republicans made in gubernatorial and state legislative contests nationwide in the 2010 and 2014 elections. Thus, in every state where the Democrats could improve their electoral vote count by having legislation in place like that of Maine or Nebraska, their path forward is blocked by the fact that the GOP controls the governor’s mansion, the state legislature or both in all those states.

Elections have consequences. What remains to be seen is whether the Republicans are capable of acting in their own interest. Hillary’s betting they’re not.

LeRoy Goldman is a Flat Rock resident. Reach him at:  EmailMe

The Shadow Always Welcomes Comments