Yeah, I’m one of those boring old sots that injects history into political equations. It proves useful in reading the tea leaves about probable election outcomes if one has a thorough and fairly objective understanding of our past. I do, which is why I’ll deliver my election prediction in mid-June. Take that and stuff it up your blatherholes , all you MSM bobbleheads and short-sighted political analysts!

I saw pretty amazing parallels to the Anthony/Stanton/Woodhull/Hooker suffrage fight in the wake of the 14th (1868) and 15th (1870) Amendments, and the Clinton/Obama primary fight, for example, as both saw human rights advocates crossing the line with controversial statements that diminished the lustre of their reputations. As it’s been noted, though, history repeats, but not exactly. It’s extremely unlikely that women will wait a half century to gain the Oval Office, as they had to wait for the nationally sanctioned right to vote. And since American Indians had to wait another five years - to 1924 - for suffrage, it’d be nice to think that we can break that glass ceiling faster, too.

That’s why I’ve been especially enthused about the Democratic chances in November’s election. People vote their wallet first. After that, an unpopular war ranks highest as a voter motivator to switch parties. Obama has both working to his advantage. Riding on the surface of those historic yardsticks, he adds another in his campaigning style: promoting a positive image of the country (or as the elder Bush called it, “the vision thing.”)

Obama’s call to end the partisan divide has drawn fire from activists conditioned to the harsh partisan tones of campaigns in recent decades, yet his underlying message is sound strategy: put the focus on what can be changed for the betterment of all instead of on the argument that Democrats are better than Republicans. The latter argument, after all, doesn’t just diminish opposition candidates, but diminishes the roughly 30% of registered Republican voters. It’s not very sound to diminish so many when there’s a chance to peel away a few percentage points of crossover voters.

Activists quite reasonably worry that a fast response to negative charges is a critical component to modern campaigns, as well as the capability to toss negatives at the opponent. So how can one carry a positive message forward, given those considerations? Those concerns have eased considerably as Obama has demonstrated the capacity to balance ‘the vision thing’ with the capacity to handle the tough fight ahead.

Comparatives to that existed in the campaigns of JFK and Reagan - vision plus toughness towards opponents foreign and political. Like those two, Obama also forwards a strong call to the spirit of volunteerism.

Hold On: is there any historical downside?

So again, on the surface, it seems that Obama’s got everything going for him. A bad economy, an unpopular war, a positive message, a motivational rhetorical style and a willingness to fight as hard as necessary to win. What can possibly go wrong with such a winning mix?

So far, there’s three things from a historian’s perspective. First, while his political opponents no longer underestimate his capacity to fight, the public remains unconvinced. Questions about his approach to the perpetual Middle East divides continue, something the GOP will try to exploit constantly. Is he anti-Jewish? Is he a Muslim? Does he appease Iran (and other so-called US enemies) by saying he’ll talk to those leaders without strict pre-conditions? McSame will continue to promote such doubts as they try to frame him as weak and hopelessly naive.

To overcome that, many supporters think he needs to have a hawkish vice-president with foreign policy ‘toughness’ credibility. I disagree; after all, 2004 saw John Kerry offering to kill Al Qaida deader than Bush would kill them. How’d that work out?

Yes, his VP has to demonstrate some foreign policy experience, but that can be generally moderate. It’s unlikely he’ll select someone viewed as liberal and also rules out most state-level possibilities. Possibilities like Kaine and Sebelius fall short of the ideal in that respect. It’s far more likely he’ll choose a member of Congress or the military, though it’s hard to find a general not overly hawkish.

You can bet that Obama’s also planning to sound a bit more hawkish himself so he can frame himself as sufficiently tough to handle any foreign bad guys. As his campaign put out the message yesterday of a forthcoming ‘world’ tour this summer, that will provide him the perfect opportunity to advance himself as a tough, pragmatic leader. If my estimates of his campaign staff and military advisers is correct, I’d say the odds are very high that his itinerary will include stops in Germany, Spain and Iraq, at least. If I was advising him, I’d add Scotland (or Ireland), Poland and someplace in Central or South America (Mexico, Columbia or Brazil, most likely). Not only will such an itinerary firm up support to various necessary constituencies, but it will permit him to speak about Iraq, the Middle East, terrorism, Communism, trade agreements and overly militant socialism (i.e., Castro/Chavez) within appropriate venues. (And Scotland/Ireland? See PA, OH, WV, NC, Appalachia, etc)

From a history perspective, there also remains the capacity for a huge gaffe or gaffes to derail him, but that’s the lowest of my three concerns. The main place he needs to avoid screwing up is in his VP selection and his pronouncements on foreign policy. And if he draws critique from liberals for sounding more hawkish in the next 4 months, I think that will actually boost his chances because the liberal tag still carries some disadvantage. That can and should change… AFTER he gets elected.

The Big Potential Negative

Based on the competence demonstrated by his campaign thus far, those two historic potential weaknesses remain the least of my concerns. The greatest potential impediment - despite all the historic plus signs - is the obvious matter of his race. Race has been a factor throughout US history, since the founding of our country. It has been an obvious major presidential election factor in every election since 1968, primarily because of a number of states with higher numbers of people with historic levels of bias against blacks. That’s not just true of Southern states, from Texas to Virginia, but includes certain Civil War border states (Missouri, Kansas, Kentucky, West Virginia) and states with a high degree of post-Civil War hate group activity (Indiana, Utah, Idaho, Oregon). There’s also been, in some locales, a lot of historic friction between Latino and black communities in other states, and in any that qualify as swing states with signicant Latino populations, that can be a critical factor.

As a historian, I’m keenly aware that the last Democratic US President to be elected from north of Missouri was JFK in 1960. The last one to actually serve an entire term without being assassinated was FDR (1932 - the mid-Forties). The last Democrat elected who was considered liberal was LBJ (1964). So Democratic politicians from nearly 60% of the US have been locked out for 4 to 6 decades, including moderates, mostly because of the strength of the South in the electoral college.

So how can a historian resolve opposing historical facts without falling into the trap of wishful thinking? Well, none can do that fully, as everyone has a preference. But there are ways to minimize the impact of personal bias to get a very objective read. Two things are very useful as determinants. The first is observing changing trends over a span of time. The second is through the use of statistical modeling.

Here’s what the trends portend:

From the time that the Depression/WWII generation began retiring to the probable pinnacle of Baby Boomers retiring, there’s been a steady stream of Sunbelt immigration occurring in the country. If most of those migrating were also racially biased, that would have no impact on the general bias of that significant minority in the South that’s been wielding such a significant impact on presidential campaign outcomes for so long. And let’s not minimize the fact that there have been many racially biased Northern state people in that group of migrants.

However, there has been a dilutive effect on the racial bias in certain areas because of the migrants. But where? For starters, the concept of a ‘Sunbelt’ has been overstated. In reality, 24 states have lost electoral votes from a peak (somewhere between 1956-1972) including ’sunbelt’ or southern states like AL (-1), AR (-2), KY (-2), LA (-1), MO (-2), MS (-2) and OK (-1). Only 7 of those 24 lost more than 2 electoral votes. Those seven big losers were NY (-14), PA (-12), OH (-6), IL (-5), MA (-4), MI (-4) and WV (-3).

Only 13 states have seen a net gain in electoral votes, including CO, MD, OR and WA, four decidedly non-sunbelt states. Of these, only 7 gained more than 2%. The big winners were CA (+23), FL (+17), TX (+10), AZ (+6), CO (+3), GA (+3) and NC (+3). (Note: DC also gained 3 in 1964, the first year it was allotted any electoral votes at all).

Without more research, it’s hard to assess how much immigration from outside the US impacted these numbers because several states dropped to 3 electoral votes, the minimum permitted, though the proportional representation fell further, but it likely didn’t add more than one or two electoral votes to CA and TX and less than that to AZ, FL, NM, NY and WA where most of the balance was concentrated.

Viewed as a whole, the narrative that retired people migrate away from cold winters is likely a secondary rationale. The most likely principal reason for these migratory patterns is economic. Six of the 7 big losers came from the industrial Rust Belt (NY through IL) and the three big winners of CA, FL and TX were economic powerhouses, in part from their long coastlines. FL and AZ offer legal advantages to retirees in their tax structures, which accounts for some of the retiree impact to those two.

So any dilutive racial bias impact of migration should be most visible in those 7 big winners. And what do their presidential voting trends display? CA has grown more liberal as has CO. AZ is more of a push, likely because some of its inbound migration may have come from white flight from urban regions of Southern CA, fleeing the influx of Latino immigrants from Central and South America. More recently, TX is showing early signs of a liberal shift, but that may come from South of the border immigration, which leans more economically liberal, while maintaining certain socially conservative positions (due to the heavily Catholic Latino community, with its influence on abortion, for example). NC has grown more liberal. GA has not except in some urban areas like Atlanta’s. And FL is very difficult to read as a whole. With its immigrants likely coming from conservative and liberal areas of northern and southern states, plus other countries, it’s shifted both ways in the past 40 years, but Nixon’s 51.51% - 48.49% win over Kennedy in 1960 doesn’t look very different than Bush’s 52.10% - 47.09% win over Kerry in 2004 (about a 1% net difference).

And what about the notion that racial biases have shifted over the generations? There’s plenty of evidence of that across most of the South. But the bias was so pronounced by the mid-Sixties that it will take several generations yet for that influence to have much of an impact on electoral votes. The leading states where sentiment indicates any potential for an Obama win are FL, VA, AR and NC, in that order. TN, SC and GA follow but none of them is likely unless a blowout election’s forthcoming in any conventional election year. (Note: the unconventional aspect of Bob Barr’s Libertarian campaign is the only reason I can perceive for Obama’s intention to treat it as a swing state)

So what’s the big conclusion, Mr. Smartpants History Nerd?

Hey, I promised you a prediction, right? I’ll deliver, state-by-state. Check back on November 5th before you ready the wedgies and noogies.

The Regional perspective

Despite the racial history, the trends remain positive in much of the country. Most of the South and Appalachian regions will remain troublesome for Obama. Elsewhere, in states with an anti-black past - most notably OR and MO - that’s eased sufficiently, especially in urban areas, to put them into play. The economy and unpopular war will prove the stronger impacts in most of the country except most of the South and heavily red states elsewhere.

As a result, look for Obama to win ME, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, MD, DE, DC, MI, MN, WI, IL, IA, WA, OR, CA, HI easily, likely with 51% or more in each of those states. That’s 234 electoral votes, leaving him just 35 short of a tie, which would send it to the House where a Democratic majority would choose Obama.

PA may also reach that 51%, but in any case, Obama will win PA. That leaves him 15 pts away. NM and NH also could grant him 51% and will be won by Obama, leaving him 6 votes shy.

In order of likelihood, any one of the following states would grant him a victory: CO, OH, MO, VA. I predict he’ll win all four to gain 316 electoral votes.

There remain very few states I consider too close to call, but I’ll give my best projections of each:

NV (5 votes): A perfect 50-50; I cannot project an outcome this far in advance.

FL (27 votes): I predict he’ll come close but fall short. I’d put no money on the outcome as he could pull this one out.

MT (3 votes): A 2%-3% loss, but winnable.

ND (3 votes): A 3%-5% loss, but winnable as a long shot.

NC (15 votes): A 4%-6% loss, but winnable as a long shot.

AK (3 votes): A 4%-7% loss, but winnable as a very long shot.

And I’d rate IN, SC, WV and GA at or below AK.

So I’m projecting a minimum win of 316-222. And a popular vote win carrying between 51%-52%. Add NV, FL, MT, ND and NC as the largest likely win, which would produce a 369-169 result. My best guess is 324-214, granting Obama NV and either MT or ND.

What about a Sept/Oct Surprise?

Obviously, I can’t predict what would happen with a late game Al Qaida attack on US soil. That and the health of the candidates are the sole exceptions currently in the realm of my imagination that I’ll grant myself an out for.

The other ’surprise’ that Bush desperately wants to achieve will not change the outcome unless it occurs in the final two weeks of the campaign. Not only is it highly unlikely he’ll succeed, but if he pulls it off, it’ll raise the question why he didn’t do it sooner. And given more than two weeks to press the point, Obama will win anyway.

So there you have a range, a best guess, and the only four states I list as too close to call (NV, FL, MT and ND). And other than the potential of FL, two of the three border states (VA and MO) are the only southernmost states Obama’s likely to carry.

A final most notable note: As I noted above, Two things are very useful as determinants. The first is observing changing trends over a span of time. The second is through the use of statistical modeling.

Even the best historian has to turn to other experts to forecast properly. And I consider it my good fortune that we now have handy the statistical mathematic models of Nate to rely on for better state-by-state analysis. Where I differ from him in my projections presently, I base my variants on historic voting patterns. IN, MI, MO, NH, MT and ND vary mostly in minor degrees from his current map. And when I looked at it two days ago, he had it a much closer race.

I was picking up developing trends and wrote this analysis based on his Friday map, when he had Obama winning with less than 290 votes and less than a 51% popular vote. After checking again a few minutes ago, I see his predictions extremely close to mine, with the major difference my award of MO to Obama.

I fully expect some variances to occur in both directions in some of these swing states in weeks to come. But the present map is awfully close to where I project it’ll be by early November.

Even though I expect oil and gas to peak and fall before October, the economy will remain sufficiently poor to trump every other factor and hand Obama a comfortable win.

Be sure to read Nate’s two Saturday posts as they reveal where his latest changes came from. They indicate that he constantly upgrades his model to pursue better precision, and relies on data from other experts in his field. One of the advantages us nerdy historians have is we respect the intellectual elitism of experts outside of our field because history teaches us it’s the wisest thing to do.

In the words of an unknown liberal historian (moi): Wisdom rocks and GOP victory parties suck rocks.