What will Obama do in Texas?

Burka drops some early thinking on what Democratic performance in Texas might look like if the Obama campaign does some real work here.

Democrat (sic) numbers-crunchers believe that if Obama gets 42-43% in the state, Democrats will fare well in downballot races. If he gets 45-46%, Democrats will reap a bonanza.

Lots to consider in those two sentences. Let's start by noting that 42-43% represents a four or five point improvement over John Kerry in 2004, which I think is eminently plausible, for three reasons: It's not 2004, Barack Obama isn't John Kerry, and John McCain will never be as beloved here as the 2004 version of George W. Bush was. This is not a high bar to clear, and bear in mind that even in 2004, the downballot statewide Democrats were getting 41-42%.

A 42-43% performance would also produce a margin for McCain that is right in line with the Baselice poll. If that's where he thought the race was back before Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Obama, then I've got to feel pretty good about that, since there was definitely room to improve by consolidating the Democratic vote. There were also a lot of undecideds, about twice as many as that 2004 Rasmussen poll, in which nearly all of them eventually broke for Bush. To maintain the Baselice margin here, the undecideds would have to break roughly 50-50 for Obama and McCain, and that's without assuming a higher Democratic baseline. Again, I think that's eminently plausible.

(By the way, this should serve as one final nail in the "Hillary will save us!" coffin. She polled a point ahead of Obama in the Baselice sample, and by similar reasoning would likely have been headed for no worse than a 42-43% result in November. If Democratic strategists are telling Paul Burka now that this would mean good things for downballot Dems, then it cannot have been the case that Hillary would have meant doom to them. Yes, she could have wound up underperforming that number in the end, but the same factors I cited up front would be as true for Clinton/McCain as they are for Obama/McCain. In short, the whole thing was Republican FUD from the word go, aided and abetted by some fraidy-cat Dems who should know better than to buy into that crap, or at least to say for the record that they buy into it.)

There's now a Rasmussen result for Texas that has McCain up 52-39, which is his best showing in that poll. It too is a pre-Clinton dropout poll, and again it has room for Obama to improve among Democrats and independents. But still, if you assume it's an accurate reflection, you're looking at roughly a 43% showing for Obama. And if that's good enough for downballot success, we're already in good shape.

For what it's worth, Poblano, from whom I got the Rasmussn result, projects McCain as a ten-point winner in Texas at this time. That would put Obama in the 45% range, and I have to agree that would be very good for the slate as a whole. The question at this point is whether the Baselice/Rasmussen results are a trend, or if Obama's got a bounce in him. I suspect the latter, but I've no clue how much, or whether it will be permanent or temporary.

Finally, this is all of course very early, and we don't know yet what resources Obama will expend here. He may simply leave things to his existing infrastructure, or he may be serious about his fifty-state strategy and make a more serious investment. We may see him on TV in Texas, if only briefly. Frankly, even if all we get is what we've got now, it's still better than what we had in 2004.

I guess the way I see it is that in 2004, I never saw a realistic scenario under which John Kerry would be competitive, let alone in a position where he might win. This year, I can at least imagine some kind of favorable outcome. I don't know what the ceiling is, but I'm certain the floor is higher than it was. That's good enough for now.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on June 10, 2008 to The making of the President