Wargaming the Electoral College
This week we’re going to limit our focus to the battlegrounds and the leaners, and avoid all the Byzantine scenario building. Taking the latest from Rasmussen, Nate Silver, and some other sources, here’s the map we get.
This should be easy to read. Dark blue is safe for President Obama, while light blue states are his leaners. Dark red is Mitt Romney country, with light red leaners. Uncolored states are the toss-ups.
Three surprises this time around, one of which you might already be pointing and laughing at: “He has Illinois is a leaner? What a maroon!” Very likely, yes. But the only poll I’ve seen out of Illinois showed Obama with only 49% — in Cook County, home of Chicago. Any Democrat running statewide in Illinois needs to run up the numbers in Cook, because they’re going to get slaughtered downstate. Now, I don’t really think Illinois is in play, but until I see some other indicator, I’m putting it in the leans column. It might even stay there long enough for me to finish writing this paragraph.
Missouri got downgraded to leans Romney, thanks to the heroic jerkiness of one Todd Akin. Women will turn out in droves to vote against this guy. Missouri, once safely red, is now a state to watch. You can’t hear me, but I’m saying very bad words right now.
And Colorado lost its blue tint for the first time ever on a battleground map. I thought my home state was going to be a tough nut for Romney to crack. He underperformed here during the primaries, I thought, and our state GOP has been in a circular firing squad for the better part of a decade now. You’d think they’d have run out of ammo, but no. Anyway, the last Rasmussen poll gave Romney a nice edge, with an R+5 sample. Colorado was R+1 in 2008 (when Obama was the Messiah) and R+9 in 2004 (when it went heavily for Bush). So R+5 sounds about right, as Colorado tilts back partway towards its historic norm.
And I stand by my year-old prognostication that Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are in play. Some recent polls bear this out, too.
But the map imparts too much data and not enough knowledge. So I’ve prepared a couple of tables for you.
This first table reflects today’s map with a twist.
You get five totals, for safes, leaners, and toss-ups. Obama and Romney are nearly even on the safe votes, 171 to 181, respectively. They’re pretty much tied on leaners, too, with 60 and 63. Another 63 EC votes are dead-center toss-ups.
So what’s the twist? The twist is, states Obama won in 2008 are in blue text. States John McCain won that year are in red. So the colors don’t represent this year’s predictions; you’re already getting that from the column placement. Instead, you’re seeing a kind of overlay of the actual results from four years ago.
Again, though, I think there’s just too much data. Let’s strip it down further, to just the leaners and toss-ups.
That’s better — we don’t really need giant color blobs or a list of all the 57 states when just 14 will do.
There is just one McCain state in play this year. Just one. Missouri. And the only reason it’s in play is because Claire McCaskill really knows how to pick her own opponent, who just so happens to have too much ego and too little sense stuffed into an otherwise empty suit.
So Mitt Romney has Missouri’s ten Electoral College votes to lose, which assuming no other wins, would result in a loss of 357 to 181. Incidentally, that’s eight points better than McCain did, because Indiana’s 11 votes are already red, and because of reapportionment.
Obama, on the other hand, has a total of 176 of his EC votes from 2008 at risk. So if we assume everything goes Mitt’s way, Obama would lose 367-171, or six votes worse than what McCain scraped together. The final result is likely to be… not that.
Numbers aside, what this last table tells us is the momentum of the race, the movement of the voters. And so far, virtually all of that movement is Blue-to-Red, or the exact opposite of 2008. 2008 went Red-to-Blue because of a weak candidate of the incumbent party and a lousy economy. 2012 is going the other way… because of a weak candidate of the incumbent party and a lousy economy.
That’s why Team Obama went so nasty so early, and why they’ll get nastier still.
NOTE: Map courtesy of 270toWin‘s iPad app. I play with that thing like most folks do Angry Birds.
UPDATE: It’s nice to be on nearly the same page as Tom Dougherty, who is even more bullish right now on Romney than I am.
UPDATE: First table updated to include West Virginia. Its electoral votes were included in the totals, but it somehow got left off the list. Apologies.
minor quibble: Connecticut should be light blue:
http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/statepages/allpolls.php?state=ct&type=President
Momentum is towards Romney.
Obama is at either 50% or 51% in CT. I can’t go Leans unless the incumbent is under 50%.
Ok. Does look interesting, doesnt it?
Q: Is that 50% qualifier whats holding Oregon as solid blue?
Yes. But as I noted before (just the last WEC post, I think), I’m keeping an eye on OR. The eastern two-thirds of the state is pissed.
But most of the population is in the western third. However, there are enough rednecks mixed in with the hippies on the west side to where the state could tip pink.
Oregon’s demographics are strange. Don’t discount the west Oregon rednecks. The hippies will be too stoned to vote.
An btw, if Oregon turns pink, Washington won’t be that far behind. They’re demographically somewhat similar, just that Seattle dominates the state more than Portland and Eugene dominate Oregon. Key will be the suburban vote.
Watch Washington County for Oregon. It’s a swing district, and big enough to tip the state if there’s a good turnout in the red areas.
I should have said: “if there’s a good turnout in the red areas, and a depressed turnout in Multnomah and Clackamas”.
Great analysis Stephen. Is 2/3 of Oregon pissed as in Vodka pissed or just plain pissed. Thanks.
It takes more than being pissed. It’s been that way for decades because the eastern part of the state is conservative, while the valley (most of the population) controls the state’s legislature. There is pretty much a democratic lock from Portland down to Eugene, where most of the state’s energy and resources go. They almost never give the rest of the state a fair shake of programs, money or attention; they don’t have to, there aren’t enough voters in the Eastern section. The same with Washington. If you could map out the colors, large swaths of land are red, and a few (well-populated cities) look like blue dots.
Combine the map with the inept/castrated Republican party, the NW looks pretty “blue.”
Don’t forget that Oregon is a “mail-only” ballot state. No more individual precinct voting, which had the almost double-entry-bookeeping advantage that each precinct had it’s ballot totals published individually. Now every ballot is counted at ONE central county location. It’s a recipe for voter fraud and I’ve been against it forever.
Despite all the left-wing loud accusations of possible Republican voter fraud via Diebold, every proven case in the last 20 years has been Democrats and their minions.
Remember Uncle Joe’s maxim: It’s not who votes, it’s who COUNTS the votes.
I’d start paying attention to CT pretty soon. Right now, Linda McMahon is actually ahead in the last Rasmussen poll, which also oversampled Democrats:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/22/rasmussen-mcmahon-leads-in-ct-4946/
If that’s the case, it is hard to believe that CT is all that safe for Obama.
– although I can still see Obama winning as did Truman in 1948, then leaving office with very low approval after four more years of suffering. History will have been kinder to Truman than Obama.
Good Work,
If Obama is re-elected he will be fine in the new history books as history will be re-written by the new elites of the collective that will be running you and I and our Brave New World. Not to worry. Truman may or may not be in the history book depending whether he is useful to the collectivist cause. Sound the call “Workers of the World Unite”.
The eastern 2/3 of Oregon may be pissed, but all they can do is yell at the passing cows and antelope. Unfortunately, the bulk of Oregon’s population in concentrated in the State’s western third, in the Willamette Valley; the vilest stew of hippies, students, multi-generational wefare recipients, retired public employees, unionized public employees, and other Democratic core constituents this side of Berkeley.
Oh, exclude the Bay Area, and even California becomes pretty close to being a swing state.
Southern CA is NOT nearly as blue as people think.
Pundits are assuming that Obama will get the EC votes from Missouri if McCaskill wins the Senate seat.
Perhaps the GOP has done a good enough job of throwing Akin “under the bus” that that won’t happen.
Not until he sees the muffler.
With 1 eye. The other needs to be getting a close up of the oil pan.
People forget that Missouri voted over 70% against Obamacare, and it won’t take much to remind them that Claire voted for it. However, it also wouldn’t take much for me to believe that the state might split the difference and we could see the state go to Romney with the Senate going back to Claire (God help us). However, I am firmly prepared to vote for Akin because even scarier than four more years of Obama (scary enough) is the thought of taking the White House only to be stuck with a potential two more years of Senate Majority Leader Reid. Can we say “No votes on any repeal bills, and forget about having an actual budget for another two years. Oh and those appointees? Yeah, we might get around to those in a few more months, but we’re too busy navel gazing right now …”
Why is Wisconsin coloured white? I thought that Ryan is having a positive effect on it for the GOP.
Because while Romney has a lead, he hasn’t clinched 50% or better.
mmmm. it does make you wonder if all of these 50% and holding are due to overweight Dem polls based on 2008 Presidential results, which are clearly out of sync in a post 2010 world.
That’s a little bit problematic, because historically, undecideds split in favor of the challenger. There actually need to be two different thresholds; Obama’s threshold needs to be a few points above Romney’s.
As an aside, it sure seems like we have a lot of undecideds for this late in the game. If you allocate them 2 to Romney for every 1 to Obama, Romney takes it easily. I think 2:1 is about how they typically split.
Well, yes, but historically fraud tends to split in favor of the Democrat, so there’s a counterbalancing aspect to it.
Your overall point is good though. In an election with an incumbent, “undecided” usually means “undecided about the challenger, but convinced they don’t like the incumbent.” As Stephen’s columns above show, Obama has lost those voters. It’s going to be easier for Romney to win them than for Obama to win them back…
Any particular reason why West Virginia isn’t on the big list at all? I’m assuming that it was still tallied up in the Romney column.
All my numbers added up — it should be there.
And yet, it isn’t there. It’s deep red, of course. I’ll fix with an updated table shortly.
I’m enjoying the irony of the free South (and Midwest) saving America from the socialistic North (and West).
@Mr. Green
R&R will take Ohio by more votes (100k) than GWB did in 2004.
Will 100k be enough of a margin to counter the massive voter fraud that the progs will attempt to perpetrate in that great state?
Does Ohio have a voter ID law in place yet?
Unfortunately for you, me and R&R: no. The RINOs in the state legislature were setting up the voter ID law but caved in to Democraps and their media presstitutes. I’m expecting plenty of voter fraud to help Obama.
Hmmmn. According to the state website: “Ohio law requires that every voter, upon appearing at the polling place to vote on Election Day, to announce his or her full name and current address and provide proof of the voter’s identity.”
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/elections/Voters/FAQ/ID.aspx
And yes, I’ve actually seen poll workers request ID in instances where there’s a question.
True, but if the remaining undecided likely voters, given that they have the capacity to think rationally, ask themselves if the incumbent’s poor job performance is a result of incompetence or deliberate intent O is toast. If it’s a matter of competence or incompetence they might still vote for him. But if they put the two halves of the question together they won’t be able to. The RNC could put this question into minds of the undecided without going dirty. It certainly holds the potential to tip the balance in certain key states in Romney’s favor. There’s too much at stake for the RNC not to try.
Doesn’t matter which way Illinois ‘leans’ in the polls. The Democrat controlled legislature signed on to the “National Popular Vote Compact’ several years ago, which will award Illinois’s electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote nationwide. So, as I understand it, if Romney wins the popular vote by however slender a margin, all of Illinois’s electoral votes will go to Romney, regardless of who has a majority in Illinois. That’s assuming there’s no lawsuit challenging either the NPVC, or the election results.
That compact only goes into effect once states with a total of 270 or more EC votes sign on. That has yet to happen, and so the compact remains void.
That compact only comes into play when it would benefit Democrats. If a Republican would benefit, it would be taken to court by the very same people who put it into the law in the first place.
I’ve always suspected that the NPV would be considered an great, democratizing idea right up until the point, say… California or New York were forced to give their electoral votes to a Republican because of it.
What other outcome could there be? The only states that have signed on are dark blue. There’s no way this could end up helping anybody but a Republican. That’s what’s so bizarre about it.
Just more evidence that the donks are fit to be tied over the 2000 election.
Snork, because good law always comes outta those ebony swan events. You know, the ones w/ the pink poka-dots.
/sarc
NPV is a horrendous idea: California could grant the right to vote to 14-year-olds. While that is not, in and of itself, a bad thing, forcing other states to accept the vote of a 14-year-old in violation of their own laws is.
In Berkeley, there’s a movement to grant the vote to dogs who think they’re people.
You mean the ones who don’t shave their legs?
Mr. Lucky, you’ve provided me with no disambiguity.
Won’t happen:
1. The compact is unconstitutional: There would have to be a legislative decision – there can’t be a pre-facto delegation of that vote to the citizens of another state, no matter what the mechanism.
2. Any party which overrides the popular vote will be a minority party for the next generation.
3. If the Republicans win, the compact will be repealed by the Democratic legislature.
I can see this election as this: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=sOr
I think you’re closer to the final outcome than any of the polling groups will forecast.
No one wants to be caught with their cheeks in the wind when the window closes.
It is a pretty picture though
Your map looks similar to Nate Silver’s most recent prediction, except:
1. You’ve taken five of his light-blue states (and none of his light-red states) and coloured them as toss-ups. This is fine, as Nate doesn’t have toss-ups in his map, but the fact that they’re all coming from the blue rather than the red bucket is interesting.
2. He has Colorado as light blue while you have it as light red. You seem to be basing this off one Rasmussen poll whereas he’s got a whole bunch. Going just as far back as June we have six with Obama ahead by as much as 7.0, two ties and two polls, both Rasmussen with Romney ahead by 1 or 5 points. That’s not what I’d call a light-red state just yet.
What I’m trying to say is that I think this map looks like it has a dose of wishful thinking. Of course Nate Silver has his own biases too, but he picked his model months ago and applies it day by day, rather than coming up with a model to fit the data at any given point which just *happens* to put red states a little ahead of blue states and give a comfortable buffer in the middle.
Joe,
Nate’s good. Very good. Possibly the best at what he does. But he has two limitations you need to be aware of. Nate relies on his models, which are excellent — to the extent that they aren’t GIGO. And there’s a lot of GIGO polls out there. (D+9 skews, D+11 skews, or worse.) But he takes the numbers and plugs them in and gets his results.
I look at the crosstabs and, as Marc recently mentioned, apply a little Kentucky windage. It’s called judgement. It’s an imperfect attempt to counter some very skewed polling, to eliminate some of the GIGO.
I used this method race-by-race in 2010, and more accurately predicted the final tally in the House than even Nate did. I “beat” Rasmussen, too. I’m pretty proud of that.
And I’m not trying to slight Silver or Rasmussen. Without what they do, I couldn’t do what I do. That said, if you’ll look at my original map from August of last year, you’ll see it’s held up remarkably well. Sure, I have my own biases, but I think you might be forgetting one thing: McCain’s performance in 2008 was so lousy that there simply aren’t really any red states from that year for Obama to pick off. Alabama? Wyoming? McCain won the base, and not even all of that. What’s telling is how many of the blue states have been in a year-long process of red-shifting — if you’ll pardon the pun. Some of those will (or have) freeze in place. I can think of a couple that will likely slide to the left again. But other will continue to move to the red side.
I do this feature every two weeks or so this time of year, going to every week after the conventions. There simply aren’t enough good polls to do any more often, which is the other weakness of Nate’s day-by-days. It’s too easy to miss the forest for the trees.
If we assume that the Right turns out (a pretty safe assumption), then the correct Dem-Rep balance depends on whether the Left goes to the polls. That’s what Rasmussen is attempting to get at with their “likely voter” questions, and it’s also why the Obama campaign is seemingly insane things that are only of interest to the true-believers. I think that the big pollsters (other than Rasmussen) are assuming that in the end the left goes to the polls to defend the Administration. I’m not sure right now.
Wisconsin and Michigan are in play because of the old Reagan Democrats. But Virginia, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Colorado (and, possibly, IL, WA, and OR) hang on whether the affluent-blue suburban and neo-urbanite votes turn out.
I see an unusual seriousness/fear on the right this year. Normally I would feel free to cast a protest vote for the Libertarian candidate, but this year I feel the need to vote for Romney as a totally unambiguous vote against Obama…in Texas. If Obama were to win the popular vote his side might try to cheat/out-lawyer his way to reelection. I feel like my vote helps determine if we’ll still have a United States to call home.
They Ryan VP pick appears to show some wisdom on Team Romney. He is the best choice from the short list to help win your battleground map.
Despite Todd Akin, plurality winner in a low-turnout primary featuring three candidates, Missourians can walk and chew gum at the same time. There’s no way that Obama takes this state. You can take that to the bank.
Quite right, and he will win by more than the 5% margin McCain did. And McCaskill hasn’t won anything yet, no matter who is on the ballot against her. They would still have to vote FOR her.
Hmm, I wonder about a couple States.
To me, NH is solid red. I mean, look at the 2010 results throughout all the races. A sea of red. To see it at light blue is perplexing. Shoot, even the local rag endorsed Romney.
I question NM. I have not seen any polls. Again, though, the midterms moved it more red, including its new Republican Governor.
I also put VA as leans red. Romney has been flirting with 50% there in some polls, and has been steadily moving the needle upwards. Even with heavily Dem-sampling polls, he is in upper 40′s, right?
I think the problem is the slanted polls, the ones with a heavy Dem sampling. I think I am mentally adjusting for their bias, kind of a “Kentucky windage”. Perhaps my windage is a bit too far to the Right.
Re: New Mexico:
Rasmussen poll out today – that state is dark blue. The democrat plantation of dependency has seized control there. Arizona will be next (not next year, *MAYBE* not 2016, but probably by 2020).
I live in NH and noticed today, as I was driving around, noticed there are no Obama signs or bumper stickers to speak of. Lots of Romney.
Thank you for putting Montana in red. I”m always amused by RealClearPolitics having it in the tossup column.
Cause it needs to be said often…
“Great, kid! Don’t get cocky!”
-H. Solo
Anthony Weiner would have been well served by that advice.
C:\ WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME?
C:/ THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS NOT TO PLAY.
Somehow I don’t believe that’s an option for us.
Stephen,
I think your analysis has plenty to back it up.
I would like your take on the impact on the election of a conflict breaking out in the middle east that involved Israel and, to some degree, the US. What if Israel is attacked and we offer logistic or other military support? What if there is a terrorist attack on us as a result of our effort on behalf of Israel? Does the map change? Does Florida go back into a light blue status? Any way to forecast the impact?
I’m just clueless on how to account for that. Tried wrapping my head around it so many times, without anything to show for it.
(That’s where Silver and Rasmussen come back in to show me up.)
Thanks for responding.
If President Clueless and his over hyped Sec of State had their act together in 2009, they could have helped the Greens topple the Mullahs in Iran and we might not have to be gaming out a middle east war’s impact now.
I would put nothing past this President. In a few weeks he will be desperate. I think he is probably desperate now.
My two cents worth on this.
If Israel attacks Iran’s nukes, I think the election all comes down to Obama. In times of war, the people naturally gravitate towards the President. If Obama comes out quickly and resolutely in support of Israel (whom Americans see as our ally), he’s golden. The election’s his.
He’ll seriously piss off his core base but the pick up will dwarf them.
If he equivocates, or changes his story, is luke-warm in support (think Valerie Jarret/bin-Ladin)… or, god-forbid obstructs Israel, he’s toast.
Not considered here is the following:
National Popular Vote Movement’s organization moving to sucessfully change 11 state legislatures delegate count system to a Presidential “winner-takes-all.”
National Popular Vote Bill
“The non-partisan National Popular Vote Bill is being considered in every state and has now been adopted by enough states to total 132 electoral votes:
CA 55 | DC 3 | HI 4 | IL 20 | MA 11 | MD 10 | NJ 14 | VT 3 | WA 12.”
These are excluded from normal electoral college procedures, since they’re tabulated and awarded as results are certified…not going to Electoral College for apportionment…per state legislature enactment.
Or is there a mechanism overriding state legislature enactment of National Popular Vote Movement’s Bill, obligating only Electoral College awards as valid? Be interesting to see how this really plays out in a real-time scenario!
God Save America from chicago-style thuggery!!! Amen. Take five friends with each of us to vote. America needs us, God Bless America. Pray for Her!
This compact thing will fall apart should it ever reach the point where it is “in effect” and would change the outcome of an election. When it dawns on the losing state party legislators that they will be trying to win re-election in a state which has just voted for the opposition, that will be the end of that.
Politicians are willing to steal elections, but not by risking their own.
Just a comment on my homestate of PA.
I have long believed that PA will go red this year. If you look at the county-by-county map for 2008
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html
notice that the state is predominantly red already. Ther are a few isolated blue counties (Centre County–Penn State–will remain blue) but most of the others outside of Phila (see especially Lackawanna and Luzerne south of Scranton–coal country) should go red. That really prompts the question: How strong will the blue vote be in the Southeastern quadrant of the state?
Furthermore, if you examine the undervote from the 2012 PA primary
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/Primary/Obama-Undervote-map-2.png
notice that some counties show an undervote of 30+% (several even 40%). Even if those undervotes do not vote for Romney in 2012, not voting for Obama means that the greater Phila area has a much steeper hill to climb than usual to counteract the red voting in the remainder of the state. The undervote that votes FOR Romney makes that steep hill even steeper.
In PA, perhaps even more than in other states, turnout will make the difference and if one has been watching Ryan’s recent receptions in Eastern Ohio (also coal country), Pittsburgh and West Chester one can be cautiously optimistic.
Thanks for helping keep an eye on PA. My friend and PJTV cohost, Scott Ott, has his ear to the ground as well. Getting these reports is great, but until we get out of the chute here in a couple of weeks, it’s still mostly “acecdata.”
Some more anecdata based on a conversation that I had with an industrial sales rep in Pittsburgh. In Western PA, the gas industry is going gangbusters. That’s extremely important to them, because a lot of the people working in the gas industry are ex-steel workers. They know who their political friends and enemies are. They see how the greens have kept upstate NY from developing it’s gas.
PA is going to come down to Philly v.s. the rest of the state. And this voter ID decision may make the difference between Philly dominating and not.
snork,
PA oftentimes comes down to Phila v. the rest of the state.
In Allegheny County, Obama will carry Pittsburgh, (heavily urban and university population–Pitt, CMU, Duquesne, Chatham College, Carlow College, Robert Morris University) but in a small scale Phila replay, the county will be determined by the suburbs.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard these ex-steelworkers in casual conversations say things line “He [Obama] wants to take away our electricity. We can’t let him do that.” I suspect that several of the counties that got swept away in the Obama ecstasy of 2008 (e.g., Erie, Dauphin, Reading) won’t be blue again this cycle.
Further, that’s why I think the analysis of the undervote in the primary is so important. With Dem heavy registration in the state, the polls may well be overweighted even with what seems like normal Dem + weighting. Also it matters where the polling is done. If calls are mostly in the greater Phila area, one is more likely to find those few Republicans who SUPPORT Obama (they say ~9% do) vs. a coal county where one would be more likely to find a Dem who DOESN’T support Obama.
PA oftentimes comes down to Phila v. the rest of the state.
[shrug]
Washington State is usually Seattle/Tacoma v. the rest of the state.
Oregon is Portland/Salem/Eugene v. the rest of the state.
California is usually LA/Bay Area v. the rest of the state.
One more thing against Ob in western PA; his anti-coal stance. There are still a lot of people with family links to the coal business and the administration’s almost hysterical attacks on even coal *exports* is going to cost him a few percentage points… not as much as WVA, but they all count.
Pittsburgh is unique as a city; it’s almost outweighed, demographically, by the suburbs, and always has been. The central city machine, even though much diminished, will deliver for Ob, but that machine is much less effective in the rest of the county. BTW, CMU and Chatham are solidly liberal, but Pitt less so, RM and Carlow are more trade oriented and Duquesne is a good Catholic school. I don’t think that the university vote is that huge for the Dems; a solid majority, but nothing like you’ll see at, say, Berkley.
Your last update says “it’s” when you mean “its.” No need to publish this comment. I love your WGEC posts; they are the best thing you do after drunkblogging the debates. Probably easier on the liver too (worse on the stomach?) Best. DD
You kidding? I been eating Tums like they’re popcorn. And thanks for the heads up — and for reading.
Reality Check: Mitt Romney’s Mormon Faith Will Turn Away Latino Voters?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO3HhVOE5As&feature=plcp
Which may have something to do with picking a (real) Catholic for a veep?
Not when the president is going after Catholicism — though I’ve noticed the church has gone very quiet on this lately. Perhaps one needs to hope Obama’s spirit of self-destruction kicks in again and he pushes his (contraceptive) luck once more?
Beyond all that — as PJMs wise Latina (grin. Well, the feds say Portuguese are, and I just love saying that) — if we live in the west, we all have Mormon friends. Whatever you think of their doctrine (Heinlein: one man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh)as people they are almost universally nice and trustworthy. I don’t know if enough people throughout the country have Mormon friends to make a difference.
If you look at what’s on the agenda for the donkey convention…
Like you, the Mormons I know are honest, high-achieving, trustworthy, self-effacing and pleasant to be around. (In other words, the exact opposite of Obama.)
You raised an interesting question. Here’s a link to Mormon population distribution, which is quite interesting:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/map_of_the_week/2012/02/mormon_population_in_the_u_s_an_interactive_map.html
Stephen: I don’t see our state tilting towards Romney just yet because of the “personhood” initiative, likely to be on the ballot for the third straight general election. Ryan’s strict anti-abortion stance likely won’t play well here, and it will come out due to the “personhood” debate.
The Repubs also have “down ticket” problems with Rep. Tipton in trouble and maybe also Mike Coffman. Coffman hasn’t helped himself with his waffling with the media, even sympathetic media. And then there’s the fall out from the civil unions mess at the Legislature back in May.
#14 Marc Malone: “I question NM…….” I don’t, unless Romney figures out some way to gain more traction in the Hispanic community.
“Maybe my ‘windage’ is a bit too far to the right……” Electoral Vote dot com tries to account for tiltage in its assessment of polling. Their analysis finds Rasmussen tilted to the Repub side due to what they consider as flawed methodology. They do their results with & without Rasmussen.
As I wrote earlier, this is the first time I’ve had Colorado red (even light red) in anything outside of a wild scenario. And I still think it’s going to be a tough nut for Romney to crack, for reasons you’ve detailed.
On the other hand, the one Colorado poll with a realistic party ID number also gave Romney a comfortable-ish margin. So, this week, it went light red. We’ll see what happens in another 10-12 days as the GOP convention is factored in to the rolling averages, and he DNC is gearing up.
If you sorted the states by # of votes, it would add information. The alphabetical sorting does not add value. (Well, except for making it easier to find material for arguments. Nevermind).
I’m just outside DC this week. I’ve seen fewer Obama stickers than in Colorado — and those are lean and light, and I live in a deep blue neighborhood of CO. I’ve been astonished in fact with not seeing O stickers here, because well… the economy is booming, and dependent on government and I expected them.
Mind you, no Romney stickers either — but well… we all remember what they did to cars with R stickers in 08, right? I won’t risk it nor house vandalism in CO — and I imagine it’s worse here.
It probably doesn’t mean anything the only O stickered car I’ve seen was driving like he was mentally impaired?
BTW Romney’s site has magnetic-bumper-stickers. I shall get one of those, because I can remove it when parked in the idiotic neighborhood but still provide support when driving around.
Sarah: I live in Lakewood/Jefferson County. County government is almost all Republican. State legislature delegation is split. But I see many more Obama/Biden bumper stickers and just a few Romney. The O/B stickers are mostly new. Either O & B are way ahead here; Romney hasn’t gotten started; or what. I don’t know.
Unfortunately, Obama will win.
These polls are not counting the 500,000 bogus votes that Obama will manufacture in swing states. Remember he has had 4 years to plan vote fraud.
The timing of Andrew Breitbart’s death is more than a little suspicious, and there are many ways to make murder look like a heart attack.
Blacks will vote 95% for Obama.
The rest of American will vote 55% for Romney.
Result : Obama still wins the election.
Note that states like IL, MI, PA, MD, VA, FL, WI, and OH would all be safely Republican if not for the black vote..
Sad but true. The African-American community is the perfect example of how Cloward-Piven actually does work to devastating effect.
Thanks to Obama’s gay marriage stand, I am guessing that Obama is going to get only 90% of the black vote this time. In fact, I can’t think of any group except possibly gays and dead people where Obama will get a higher percentage of the vote this time than in 2008.
I think Dad’s going straight-ticket, like he has every election since he died in ’84.
Okay. Now for a little monkey-wrench gaming. Not that it should have a long-term impact, but what if Isaac forces the cancellation of the Republican Convention?
Talk about a “holy crap” situation. Obviously, they’ll figure out a work-around to get the votes tallied and R&R blessed. But all of the feel good speechifying and rallying the troops gets shot to hell, and the post-convention bounce goes dead cat.
How badly will that impact Romney/Ryan getting out of the gate and into the national spotlight? Is it just a shrug-and-move-on situation, or is it a serious momentum killer?
Issac’s going to be cat 1 at worst. Tampa’s built for that. It’ll be winder inside than out.
I thought hurricanes don’t hit Tampa?
Didn’t Tampa get a near-miss in … ’04? The year before Katrina, if I remember correctly (and I’m too lazy to Google it right now), Florida got smacked by four different hurricanes. I thought one went up the West Coast and then veered into the Tampa area. Maybe a little north.
Okay, okay. I’ll Google it and see if I’m remembering right. If I’m drastically wrong, I’ll post another comment.
What if next time he visits California we immaculate him as Emperor of the Golden Sunset, retroactively modify his birth certificate to say Azatlan, and refuse to let him go home and refuse to let the (previous) state vote in the United Snakes election? Would that affect your predictions?
[Apologies in advance for a long-winded post]
I’ve developed an Excel algorithm for wargaming that I believe will be an excellent predictor. It uses two commonly available sources- the Gallup weekly job approval and the Cook Partisan Voter Index (PVI). These are fundamental baselines that aren’t accounted for by weekly polling using various biases and sampling.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index
The process is as follows:
1. Separate white vs. non-white job approval. I separate these as there is a substantial difference in approval ratings between the two demographics. For my checks, I checked used the current, 3 month average, and 1-year average.
2. Note that the Gallup job approval numbers are NATIONAL. Therefore, we must account for things at the STATE level. So, multiply the national job approval numbers for whites by the percent of the state’s populace that is white in the given state. Repeat for non-whites. [We'll call this "Demo Only"]
3. Add the PVI to the raw demographic numbers. For instance, in Delaware the demographics multiplied by job approval yields an Obama victory of 50.5%. However, Delaware has a PVI of D+7. So, we take 50.5 + (7/2) = 53.5%. Which makes a lot more sense. [We'll call this "Demo + PVI"]
4. Limit Obama’s numbers by his state percentages in 2008. Crude, but necessary. Does anyone know a McCain voter who will be voting for Obama? No? Me neither. Obama will not outperform his 2008 numbers anywhere. In practice, this means that if Obama’s “Demo + PVI” number says he’ll win 43.4% of the vote in Alaska, he’ll be limited to the percentage he won in 2008: 38.8%. This is usually applicable to McCain states. [We'll call this "Demo + PVI Limited_A"]
5. Given the above, we still need to account for any truly egregious swings in the other direction; for states where Obama won last time but may lose this time. In Iowa, Obama won in 2008 with 54.0% percent of the vote. His “Demo + PVI Limited_A” percentage for 2012 is 43.2%. This swing seems unacceptable. To account for this, any percent difference over 6% requires that two percentages be averaged. This leads to a percentage of 48.4%. [We'll call this "Demo + PVI Limited_B"]
5. Limit PVI swing over +4. This really only has the impact of taking Maine out of the equation (D+5). This may be a poor decision: remember, no one expected Indiana (R+7) or North Carolina (R+4) to be in Obama’s column last time. Still, I stand by this one for now.
6. A final limiting factor is Minnesota. Anytime Obama’s approval rating among whites goes below 40%, Romney wins it- it currently has a PVI of D+2. Since Minnesota hasn’t voted for a Republican since Nixon in 1972, I always leave it in the Obama column. Seriously, they didn’t even vote for Reagan in ’80 or ’84. Perhaps Ryan can change this dynamic, but that seems to be a special brand of stupid up there.
**********
So, how does this translate to actual numbers?
If we look at Obama’s highest approval ratings over 1 year (going back to last August), we see an white/non-white approval rate of 40%/73%. Using our model, this translates to a 295-243 Obama victory. This is the very number Nate Silver has on his page today. Of course, do I really believe that Obama will win 40% of the white vote -something only one Democrat has done in the past 40 years? No, I do not. This makes me skeptical of anything his model offers in the future.
Looking at the past 3 months only, his highest approval was 39%/72%. This translates to a 282-256 Obama victory. The 3-month average approval of 37.2%/69.3% yields a Romney victory of 315-223. This week’s numbers (35%/72%) give the same results: 319-219.
**********
Commentary on the 12 Swing States (again, ignoring Minnesota. Illinois? A wholly owned subsidiary of the Daley/Emanuel machine).:
The following are totally gone for Obama. Even if he has a date with Ms. Rosy Scenario (40%/73%), these ones aren’t coming back:
-Colorado
-Iowa
-Missouri
-New Hampshire
-North Carolina
-Ohio
Swingable, in order of swinginess (Assume constant 72% non-white approval; necessary white approval shown paranthetically):
-Florida (36%)
-Wisconsin (37%)
-Pennsylvania (38%)
-Virginia (40%)
Almost guaranteed Obama:
-Michigan (on the edge of swingable, but only if non-white approval goes down)
-Nevada
**********
A final note:
Controlling for age, 18-29 year-olds have a 3-month max/min approval of 58%/51%. From there, it’s all downhill.
30-49: (49%/43%)
50-64: (48%/42%)
65+: (42%/36%)
Given that under 30s usually constitute a smaller portion of the actual electorate, this bodes poorly for Obama.
I’ll stand by that 315-223 number as a baseline. Per numbers already cited, this thing has been static for quite some time. Gallup uses “Adults” -not registered or likely voters -for the approval survey. This means that the electorate will be older and more Republican than the current numbers suggest.
Barring some horrible gaffe/revelation from the Romney camp, his electoral vote count has nowhere to go but up.
Fascinating stuff. I have to get ready to tape a PJTV interview with Reason’s Brian Doherty shortly, but I plan to read this again — slowly — as soon as I’m done with that.
Is there a way to post a picture? I’m guessing “no”, but a picture is worth a 1,000 words and I can show the methodology in one screen grab.
Hmm, interesting, but when I try to come up with scenarios based upon how it looks now, I have trouble getting to your results. Closest I can get is 312-226 for Romney. I give him the swing States, except CO. I also give him WI and PA, although I think he will fall just short in those States.
Of course, if MI or CO go his way, or another Deep Blue State switches, then I can get to your numbers, but I just do not see it.
Thanks, guys, for your feedback about NM. And SteveB, your comment about NM and Hispanics was entirely valid and convincing. I moved NM to Blue in my figuring.
I still stand by my assessment that Colorado is going Red this year. It has a PVI of “EVEN” and the fundamentals are totally slanted against the incumbent (from my arbitrary standpoint). Using his maximum approval ratings from the past year can’t even get Obama to victory there.
Incidentally, given its status as EVEN, the result I get of a 52.3% Romney would indicate his national numbers. Unscientifically, that seems reasonable to me.
Per what I’ve written above, Florida will be the easiest for Obama to swing back into his camp*; followed by Wisonsin and then Pennsylvania. While Virginia IS winnable for Obama, it seems highly unlikely. The INSTANT his white approval goes below 40% it goes back into the Romney pile. Minnesota and Maine turn red easier than Virginia turning blue. In fact, with this weeks approval ratings of 35%White/72%Non-White, Romney wins Maine with 51.4% and Minnesota with 51.8%. I don’t allow either of these, though, per criteria numbers 5 and 6 above.
I’ve added a sidebar to my model to indicate which states are won by less than 2% and labeled this column “ACORN Vulnerable”. Unsurprisingly, this weeks numbers indicate that FL, PA, and WI are indeed within small enough margins to be vulnerable to fraud. Not sure what the Voter ID laws are in FL and WI, but PA just scored a major civil rights victory in preventing the illegal, felonious, and earth-interred vote.
*While I WILL allow fluctuations in the model/approval rating to move Florida to the Obama pile (if and when appropriate), old people REALLY dislike Obama (per my last note). Florida, as we all know, is absolutely filthy with old people -and they all vote. Ergo, I don’t see it happening.
-Nevada
I dunno about that. There are a lot of Mormons in Nevada, and they will turn out for Romney.
Do they turn out for Harry Reid too?
If you apply the historic precedent that incumbent presidents only get the votes of those who approve of them to the 2012 state-by-state approval average for Mr. Obama, the electoral vote wargaming is not close.
Mr. Obama enjoys majority approval in just 13 states worth 173 electoral votes.
On the other side of the ledger, 33 states worth 328 electoral votes express higher disapproval than approval for Mr. Obama. If Mr. Romney wins just these states, he will take the election walking away.
In the middle are Michigan, Wisconsin, Maine and Oregon, where a plurality of between 47% to 49% approve of Mr. Obama and approvals outnumber disapprovals. If Mr. Obama takes all of the states where he enjoys majority approval and then sweeps these “tossup” states, he only earns 208 electoral votes – 62 short of what he needs. If the undecided break against Obama in these states and they go to Romney, then the GOP challenger wins a landslide.
http://thecitizenpamphleteer.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/the-road-to-270-gets-steep-for-president-obama/
Stephen Green,
How old are the oldest polls in your analysis and how did you factor that, or did you, into your analysis? As I recall just a few weeks back South Carolina had not been polled in a while but the data from a poll ‘a while back’ was the only source to work with. When does each state start getting polled more regularly? National polls are fine but the elections are won state by state as you have noted and we all understand. Romney could in theory look great on a likely voter national poll and lose the election, no problem, same for Obama.
Thanks for the great effort.
That’s better — we don’t really need giant color blobs or a list of all the 57 states when just 14 will do.
Fifty-seven?
Do you not remember when Obama, on the campaign trail in 2008, said we had 57 states?
I’m not going to argue with the President.
Totally understandable – you wouldn’t want to end up on a White House enemies list. Nice – encouraging – article. Now i am going to be on the damn list, oy!
I wish people would get it right. There are 58 States! Obama said so.
“I have now been in fifty… seven States? I think one left to go. One left to go. AK and HI I was not allowed to go to. Even though I really wanted to go, my staff could not justify it.”
The truth is, though, he meant 47 contiguous States, with one to go. Kinda stupid slip up, but it is what happens when people start using terms with which they are not fluent. When they first start using them, they kind of flub them, or it comes out stilted.
I suspect the whole concept of the contiguous States was a new term for him. His staff probably fed him that factoid and expected he could easily regurgitate it. After all, everyone in politics knows this concept, right? Right?
I think Massachussetts might just go Red State this year. In any event, I’ll be going to the pollin’ place to vote the straight republican/Tea Party/NRA/hell-no-to-socialism ticket. And, you know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he’s really sick and they won’t let him in. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they’re both libertarians and they won’t let either of them in. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of America the Beautiful and walking out. They may think it’s an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of America the Beautiful and walking out. And friends they may think it’s a movement.
Long as there’s a Thanksgivin dinner that can’t be beat… I’m in.
LOL!
I know a lot of Dems who should be playing with pencils on the group W bench…
Most dems I know dont trust Rasmussen, and think it is a repub leaning poll. In fact it does lean repub, but that is because it filters for likely voters, a very valid technique, and Rasmussens actual election prediction record is quite good. But if you put out a state prediction like this using figures from gallup, or purple states, which both sides generally accept as good, few dems could question it. Another question, most maps like this I have seen list Fla as a swing state, what makes you put it down as a leaner to romney. Also, most maps I have seen list Michigan as leaning obama.
But assuming the poll this is based on is good, it looks like all romney needs is to get his leaners, and get half the electoral votes from your swing states, which is not that hard to do. And if he loses a leaner, he can make it up by getting another swing state, or an obama leaner.
Another factoid to throw in: Oregon and Washington are both about 5% Mormon. Most of them probably voted McCain in 2008, but there it is.
Here is the calculation of electoral college from Rasmussen:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboardhttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard
They have Obama ahead by 41. To win, Romney has to get 76% of toss-up votes, which seems statistically unlikely.
bdog57 at 30 and Stephen G
oh my. Where I live, Oklahoma, the recent poll shows exactly 2 to 1 Romney advantage over Obama. What other states will vote 67/33 or better in November?
Regarding your ‘She’s gone and she aint coming back’ states: (NH NC OH MO IA CO) For months I’ve been saying CO, IA, MO and NC will not go for Obama- just know it in my heart and dang the torpedos. Good to see New Hampshire and Ohio on your safe list. Ohio is huge, a game changer.
Your list of Swingables is Florida, Wisco, Pennsy and Virginia. If Romney wins his ‘for sure’ states, including NC, MO, IA and CO, then he needs Florida and Virginia to total 263 EV. VP Paul Ryan’s Wisconsin is the clincher for 273 EV. (Or stack NH and NV to win another route.) Virginia is the most worrisome for being lost to Obama. Losing Virginia could lose the election.
But now you assure me that Ohio and NH are in the bag for Romney? Woohoo! Who needs Virginia? The Presidency is Romney’s. Now for winning eight new Senate seats. Yes!
Man! Ohio is solid. I’m feeling good on this kind of thinking.
Clark,
My model shows Obama as limited by his 2008 numbers: 34.4%. I would think that in reality, it will be lower than this. My model has a good deal of conservatism (in the engineering sense of the word) built into it, though.
Still, you CAN fool some of the people all of the time.
Greater than 67% win states include ID, UT, and WY.
Greater than 60% states: AL, AK, AR, ID, KS, KY, NE, ND, TN, UT, WY.
These are all calculated based on Obama’s current weekly approval.
Thanks for reply, bdog. I really appreciate your measuring system and you explain it well. I keep re-reading and learn more each time. I’d read the ‘Swingables list’ upside down. My bad. Virginia, Pennsy and Ohio, plus Wisconsin has a favorite son! Bring on November! Bring on the tough-guy conservative voting-watchers!
PJM, give bdog some research assistance on what’s in state polls and demographics, and have him write the comment into an article.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
What’s interesting is not so much the +2 of R/R but the low job approval rate for Obama. To me this is evidence that some are lying about voting for Obama.
It’s nice to see the “red shift” (well put Steve) occurring. I’m a Nevada voter and I think you need to talk to some people on the ground here. The polls aren’t measuring the Mormon enthusiasm. It’s BIG. I know that the union/takers/fakers syndicate is big here too but I think it’s trumped by Republican enthusiasm. You’re the smartest guy in the room, but be the first to put Nevada in the red and you’ll be the smartest-er guy.
As for what you and toadold (#39) point out, I agree. I think that there is something going on in this cycle “under the surface of the pond” so to speak that doesn’t register in the polls.
I recently heard a conversation in a deep blue Pa union (former) steel town MacDonald’s where one person said “He [Obama] wants to take away our electricity. We can’t let him do that.” I have heard similar comments in passing from people having casual converstions in places like Wal Mart, Target etc.
As for PA, see my comment at #20 above and look at the chart for the undervote in the 2012 Dem primary. Obama was the only presidential choice on the ballot and in some counties 30% to 40% of voting Dems refused to vote for him while they voted for other down-ticket Dems.
I think the game is afoot!
Nice work, Stephen, glad to see some people paying attention to the turnout problems with the polls. Not only did Gallup find a 38-point swing in enthusiasm in the GOP ‘s favor since 2008, the Dems have lost ten times as many registered party members in swing states.
This is looking like an R+3 election nationally. That means Romney will probably get around 53% of the vote and upwards of 300 EVs. The average of polls is still around 2008′s D+6, which is why they have Obama up ~2 adjusted for LVs.
Why doesn’t PJMedia start a trend and turn the Red/Blue breakdown around the other way, as it should have been from the start? Red has always been a commie color and the MSM knew that when they first started this Red/Blue meme. This is just another example of the lying liars of the left twisting the truth to confuse and delude people. The Republicans have been blue ever since the bluecoats of the Civil War. Why can’t the Republicans ever, and I mean ever, get their rocks right?
In American politics, that’s simply not correct.
Before the 2000 election, blue was traditionally assigned to the incumbent party, and red to the challenging party. Reagan would have been red in 1980, but blue in 1984.
At least in theory. Not everybody used the same system.
2000 cemented the Gore/Democrats (incumbent) blue, Bush/Republicans (challenger) red because of the enmity of that year’s election and the contested results.
So if we have to live with a locked-in color scheme because of the idiocy of the Gore era fiasco for all time from here on out, then let’s lock in the right color; that is, red for the commies and blue for the Republicans. Get it?
No, I get it. But it still doesn’t make any sense in this context.
Progressivism, which has come to define the Democrats, is reactionary. That’s blue. It’s the conservatives and libertarians on the right seeking real change — and red is the revolutionary color.
Whaaaat? I couldn’t believe what you just wrote! Why on earth would we want to be associated with the commie color, red, for any sort of rationalization. By the way, the true Revolutionaries of 1776 chose BLUE for the color of their uniforms, not RED, the color of the hated British.
In the debates, Obama, for the first time ever, will be confronted by his pack of lies. One after another. Romney has all the ammunition. Obama will be annihilated.
When the dust settles on the sixth of November, it’ll be Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York and California for Obama. The rest will go to Romney.
There is an X factor in this election. It’s the degree to which this has been a racist Obama administration which was a slap in the face for every naive nitwit that voted for him.
“There is an X factor in this election. It’s the degree to which this has been a racist Obama administration which was a slap in the face for every naive nitwit that voted for him.”
Well, not every naive nitwit. Some of those nitwits are so dumb that they don’t realize that their faces have been slapped. And some of those nitwits actually like what the current admin has been doing.
But yeah, there is a certain class of nitwits that voted for 0 to make a statement regarding race relations. They voted for 0 to show that they weren’t racist. That percentage of those who have paid attention to what has since transpired have been so slapped.
Illinois is not solid for Obama?
Odd but true. From what I’ve heard from my sister who lives in the southern part of the state, the R’s in the southern part of the state are fired up. Ill has pretty much always been red except for Chicago and isolated pockets of blue that correspond with college campuses. The thing is that Chicago is so large that it overwhelms the rest of the state. This time around, the blue base is demoralized and may sit it out in significant numbers. Add to that a red drift in Chicago’s ‘burbs and it very well might go ‘Pub.
BTW — I find a comparison between Ill and Ga to be enlightening. In both cases, you have states that are mostly right leaning rural with a very large urban area (Chicago and Atlanta, respectively) whose core always goes as hard left as is possible. The big difference is that the urban core of Chicago is large enough that it is able to outvote the rest of the state while the urban core of Atlanta isn’t. Also, the ‘burbs of Atlanta are extensive and trend quite conservative. FWIW, I used to live in the ‘burbs of Atlanta, my sister lives in rural Ill and my brother used to live in the ‘burbs of Chicago…
My point is that just because Ill is dominated by a far left urban core doesn’t mean that it is a given that it will go left. Ga demonstrates that this is not the case.
Out of curiosity, what do you think of MN, didn’t you have it in the tossup pile a few weeks ago?
The data says it’s eminently winnable. 40 years of voting Democrat says “don’t count on it”.
To my memory one year PBS or someone, maybe Cable Network News, used graphics of a medium blue vs a medium green with yellow for the undecided states. Then I recall going to red and blue states on the big 3 networks. They did alternate the Repubs and Dems until the Dems were Red twice. In that second Red Dem election coverage it was painfully obvious that the Red Dems really seemed Commie Reds. Nothing, no mention whatever, was made by the media regarding the Commie Red bastions on the coast edges of America. The next election the Dems were blue. Immediately afterwards the whole leftist media began to use the ‘Red states, Blue states’ meme and shorthand for sectional political differences. They pushed it hard, remember? They were desperate to never again be the Commie Red Leftists on the TV reporters’ map. The liberal MSM forced the Red upon Republicans because on Democrats the color red is much too accurately descriptive.
Now Stephen Green doesn’t want to color Republicans blue in 2014. What can ya do? I imagine Eric Ericson would be willing to modify Red State. Republicans are naturally TRUE BLUE.
What do I ask for? For every conservative website and Fox to change the Democrats back to Commie Red and keep them there until the cycles have averaged back to even. Fair and Balanced, ey? Or if Commie Red is too big a burden then switch to orange and purple.
Just go change our own dang maps to True Blue and Commie Red! Let the undecideds have fun with all the squawking.
IMHO the whole “GOP=red/Dem=blue” business traces back to that famous national map showing who won each county in 2000. For whatever reason (the incumbent/challenger thing?), the authors put the Bush counties in red and the Gore counties in blue. The resulting crimson tide* perfectly showed how Democrat strength is confined to the urban cesspools and black ghettos, with a few isolated “blue pools” elsewhere. The map became a huge hit and was printed and e-mailed all over (I may still have a copy in my PC’s “Pictures” folder; thus was the current dogma born.
* – That was just too good to pass up. For the record, I am not from Alabama, have no ties whatever to the state, and therefore have absolutely no dog in the “Roll Tide/War Eagle” fight.
Brilliant analysis as usual, Steve.
I respectfully disagree on Missouri. I think Aiken did turn a sure GOP Senate pickup into a sure loss, and it will impair other races and control of the Senate (and I therefore hate him as much as you do) but I don’t think the blood trail reaches Romney. Missori should still be red.
I’m heatened by the fact that you, A Colorado native, now believe Colorado is swinging Romney but I’m less heartened by all the new swing states in blue territory. Sure there’s a lot of traditional blue states that have gone tossup but there’s a lot of red states going tossup, too. Virginia and North Carolina should have gone red with Indiana a long time ago, but they’re still tossups. Florida and Ohio should be leaning by this time too. Ditto Colorado. More states are going from left to tossup but nothing’s sliding from tossup to red, and even in last year’s 2010 landslide, all the squeakers went Democrat. If we go into Nov. 6 with this many states tossup, ACORN will pull Obama over the line in every single one.
North Carolina is much closer to Indiana than Virginia, in electoral terms. Obama coming out in favor of gay marriage a day after North Carolinians overwhelmingly rejected it was the death knell for Obama’s chances in that state this year. NC will be red.
Shout out from NC here….
I don’t think the gay marriage thing is a huge issue in this state. It is with a minority faction, but the average person I don’t think makes their voting decisions based upon this one issue for the simple fact that not everyone – or even a sizable percentage of the population – is gay.
A far greater drag on Obammer in NC is the current governor.
Perdue has got to be the worst. Governor. Ever!
I mean seriously, she’s not even running for re-election as it would be so humiliating.
If you recall, she was the one who advocated suspending elections, and right now NC has a higher unemployment rate as well as a higher tax rate than surrounding states. Part of this is leftover from when the democrats held control in the state capital, part of it is Perdue doing everything she can to hamstring the Republicans now.
Having an income is generally considered a requirement for adults, but they are getting harder and harder to come by and as a result I see Perdue damaging the democrat brand and this will carry over into the general election.
Unfortunately, we seem to have more than our share of Obamabots running around here. I SOOOOOO hope to see them in a completely dejected state the day after the election!
I’m an aussy but I understand the US electoral system a bit, Steve have you factored in the greens party effect on Obama? Nader is accused of being the spoiler in Bush verse Gore 2004 but this year the greens have got onto the ballot in most blue states and many states in play. Votes that go to them are lost from Obama and the Democrat party. Occupy Wallsteet has been rallying to the greens and away from the democrats. If Obama talks any military action in the next two months it may drive many left wingers to the Greens. If he doesn’t it will drive the rest to vote GOP.
The US no longer has a neat two party system. While the greens can’t get more that 10% They can take a large percentage of the hard left, anti-war and the environmentalist factions of the Democrat party away from Obama.
While many worry about the Ron Paul hard-liners refusing to vote for Romney, they too were drawn from the antiwar networks that voted Gore and Obama in each election. If they were old enough to vote at all.
Also given that Paul Ryan was often mentioned when the question of Who Ron Paul’s VP pick could possibly be, that factor may drag back the so called Paulbots to the polling booths. In fact I have my suspicion that Mitt Romney “meet the next president” gaff when introducing Ryan may have been scripted.
Is anyone really looking at the third party votes on both sides.
Australia is a multi-party country where third party votes can be preferenced to either party. It can make or break a result. In the USA in can only break a result and I notice that when that happens in the USA your all caught by surprise. Someone needs to discuss this a bit more. Or have I missed a blog post somewhere?
The simplest prediciton: a change of Party in the WH when the unemployment rate is 7.5 and above: Gerald Ford, Carter, HW Bush, 2008 W.
Vote Obama if you believe the country is better off now than four years ago.
Obama is running against W, while the country has moved on.
Makes me embarrassed to admit that I’m from Maine.
But hey, at least it’s not California – though the imports from MA are moving us in that direction.
Chicago and the rest of Cook County is not a total “given” Obama victory.
Votes that he could lose:
The Oprah Vote
The Polish American vote
The Catholic vote
The Cook County 7,500 homeowners in foreclosure June and July 2012 vote
The Coalition of African-American Pastors vote
Just an aside: In the NYT bestselling book about Obama entitled THE AMATEUR, there is an extended passage about Oprah. She was a big supporter of Obama before he was elected, and expected to be treated nicely by the Obamas as a result. Apparently this did not happen, to her surprise and displeasure. It seems unlikely Oprah will do anything for his re-election. THE AMATEUR is worth reading, BTW. A short, quick read.
That compact only goes into effect once states with a total of 270 or more EC votes sign on
I will jump in and say that this will NEVER happen. Enough states would have to sign on and currently there aren’t enough deep blue states to push the EC over 270. And can you think of any small state willingly cutting their own throats as far as presidential elections go? I don’t think so.
Colorado turning possibly red this year? That would be a nice change. When I was at the GABF in 2008, lots of people attended wearing Hope and Chang t-shirts. I was somewhat more incognito in my Simon Jester shirt, which none of the Hopey crowd understood at all.