Wargaming the Electoral College
Polls are are starting to reflect the results of last week’s debate, so it must be time for another exciting edition of WtEC. That’s pronounced “We-Tech,” which couldn’t be further from the truth.
I’ll get the controversial bit out of the way first, and go with my gut that Colorado is most likely out of reach for Team Obama. What I’m seeing on the ground and hearing from locals just doesn’t mesh with Empty Chair taking the Centennial State again. Just a few months ago, it looked like Colorado might prove to be the most difficult purple-state pickup for Mitt Romney, but it sure doesn’t look that way from here — and that was before the Denver debate. What I’m seeing of the ground game makes Romney 2012 look like Obama 2008. Well, not that amped, but close enough to secure my state.
That leaves us with Obama’s best-case scenario looking like so.
Even if that’s something of a comedown from 2008, it’s still a convincing win. But what’s Romney’s potential upside?
A few days ago, Breitbart’s Mike Flynn received two leaked polls from inside the Romney campaign, where they believe their man to be up slightly in VA and pretty solidly in OH. Taking in other recent polls and applying some Kentucky Windage, we get a map that looks like this one:
285 to 253? I think we’ve seen this map before. Note also that now I’m applying colors to show relative strength in each state. Pink could easily turn light blue, and light blue could easily turn pink. Minnesota should probably be dark blue, but there’s plenty of wiggle room when you have three gradients for each candidate.
Of course, another word for “leak” is “spin.” So what’s the real state of the race?
I’m reluctantly forced to call this one “2004 Redux: Blame Ohio!” Or is that “Oiho?” Anyway, behold ye mighty and despair.
All I need to say to this one is two words: Poll watchers. And lots of them.
But what about those University of Colorado guys and their computer models showing a big Romney win?
They use economic figures plugged into a computer model to give Romney winning 330 to 208. I couldn’t find their map, so I played around with mine and came up with at least one way to get Romney to 330.
There are other ways to get there, but this one seemed the most likely — or “least unlikely” if you’re still certain Empty Chair has it in the can.
The two shockers on there might be ME and PA, but they’re winnable if we do end up with an unprecedented fourth consecutive wave election. ME already has one district which could break for Romney even in a closer matchup. (ME and NE split their EC votes by the popular-vote winner in each congressional district, with the two “Senate” EC votes going to the overall popular-vote winner. In 2008, Obama picked up one vote in NE that way.) There are indicators that Team Obama might see the potential for a wave, with two polls out now showing Obama with serious weakness in the Chicago ‘burbs, and them running ads on local Oregon TV. These anecdata are supported even by lefties like Politico, when they’re forced to admit that Romney leads independents by 16 points. There’s a case to be made that our friends at UC may have underestimated Romney’s best-case.
An awful lot would have to break Romney’s way to get to 330. But then an awful lot would have to break the other way for Obama to get to 323. For the past week or so, most of the breaks have been going Romney’s way.
If Romney’s upside potential really is bigger than Obama’s, even if just by 7 points, that’s one comforting indicator for the GOP as we enter the home stretch.
UPDATE: Reader Brian was able to locate UC’s map, and it looks like this.
This makes more sense to me. Even with upstate Mormon enthusiasm, it’s difficult to see Romney overcoming NV’s imploded state GOP and Harry Reid’s casino union machine.
Also read: Pew Poll: Romney Now Leads By Four
FYI, the University of Colorado model has Obama winning Nevada and Maine and Romney winning Minnesota (that produces the 330-208 result).
Stephen, do you have Missouri as pink simply because of Akin? I know the “polls” show Missouri as something of a tossup, but I’d put it in the orange-leaning-red category, closer to North Carolina (or Georgia and Arizona, even though we all know there is no chance of those latter two being blue this year).
Yep, it’s all Akin.
No, it’s crappy polling.
I live in the St. Louis TV market. More than once I’ve asked my wife if there are any Democrats running this year. Seems to me there are only Republicans and Independents. When not bashing their opponents, Nixon (Governor) and McCaskill (Senate) have been emphasizing their “independence”. McCaskill has run ads talking up the times she’s opposed Obama. You have to look in the fine print to see Democrat mentioned. Obama has trashed the brand.
Now that’s funny! I am in GA & am new to this district. The dem Rep is going on & on about how independent he is and how those dems in Washington “hate me for being independent “. I have been seriously wondering about this guy because I am new & he was redistricted to include our area & less of his usual. Now I see it is a dem talking point tactic
Don’t count on Akin losing. There are lots of very conservative people here, including women, who still support him. The polls may show him behind Claire, but they showed him losing the primary right up until the actual vote.
I’m more confident now about Akin. But by confident in this case I mean, “confident the GOP will have to spend the length of Akin’s time in the Senate flinching every time he opens his mouth.”
Good point, Stephen. At least you’ve pointed out one sure-fire way for Tea Partiers to know which Republicans to vote out while Akin’s in the Senate. Each time he talks, look for the Regressive Socialist with an (R) next to his name who immediately tries to spin or downplay Akin.
That’s the next loser to flush in upcoming elections.
“Each time he talks, look for the Regressive Socialist with an (R) next to his name who immediately tries to spin or downplay Akin.”
Great strategy, Jaycen … targeting those people makes SO much sense!
F’n RINO… are you Sure you are not a democrat?
Might be. He is a conservative. Lots of conservative democrats. That is who elected Clinton and Bush. Ever since the socialists took complete control of the Democratic party ( About the time they ran Zed out) (D)’s have been voting (R). That doesn’t make them (R)’s. I’m a conservative but NOT a Republican. I vote for the conservative candidate, as judged by their record. I don’t care what the initial in brackets behind their name is.
What would be interesting is if favorite son Paul Ryan were able to flip Wisconsin from light blue to the faintest pink. Those 10 electoral votes flipped from Obama to Romney would give us -with Ohio going to Obama- a 277-261 Romney win.
Crikey. I’m gonna have to drink a lot at this weekend’s Great American Beer Festival to temporarily blot out thoughts of this election.
277 won’t cut it. 279 required. Count again.
Paddyspig October 8, 2012 @ 2:03 pm
> 277 won’t cut it. 279 required. Count again.
uh … 538 / 2 = ?
It isn’t mathematics; it’s arithmetic … :-}
277 won’t cut it. 279 required. Count again.
Uh, 269 won’t cut it, but 277 definitely will. Unless, of course, we’ve magically added more electoral votes.
You have to count those other 7 states.
You know, I had forgotten those states. Probably because they speak Austrian, which I tend to tune out.
Republicans got a sweep here in Wisconsin in 2010. The left then had their hullabaloo and Walker did better than expected in the recall. So the fundamental issues have been front and center before the voters for a long time. I want to believe that R&R have a good chance here, though Tommy Thompson seems to be running a surprisingly weak race for Senate.
What’s the feel up there for why Thompson is tanking? He’s a pro at this, and should at least be putting up a good show before losing. But he doesn’t seem to be doing even that little.
Thompson ran for President in ’08. He was weak. He kept tripping on his own tongue. He’s effective in office, but he stinks at campaigning. Kinda mails it in. Besides, he is downright homely, and it is hard, these days, to get elected without good looks. (Gilmore also had that problem. He looks like one of the Belushi brothers.)
Thompson has been in Wisconsin politics long enough to impress lots of people as being corrupt. He’s also an Establishment Republican.
Both Rasmussen and Gallup currently have post-debate polls indicating a tie, percentage-wise.
Believe it or not, I think I actually saw a local ad for Obama here in MD a few days ago. I’ve seen several national ads here (during the Os-Yankees game last night, for example), but one was broadcast during a local show. At least, it seemed that way to me.
I’ll double-check that over the next few days. I was really surprised, but forgot to keep track of what was showing at the time. I can’t believe they’d waste money here, given how freaking blue the state is, but maybe it’s an attempt to bleed over into VA’s viewing market? Ad buys in MD may be cheap enough that they view it as a helpful buffer for NoVA?
I dunno. What a remarkable week.
I’ve been experiencing the same here in SE Michigan. Romney has all but given up here, haven’t seen a single ad, but Obama ads continue to dominate the commercial breaks on my TV. Eventually I came to the conclusion that it must be bleed over from ads airing in the Toledo area in Ohio.
Yup, been seeing Romney ads here in Toledo, but I don’t watch the networks. I’ve also been getting direct mailings from the Romney campaign & other conservative groups. And I live in Marcy Kaptur’s district, in a heavily Democratic neighborhood.
I like the last map best. I think that’s closest. I told some friends here that O-Dramamine would only get 10 states, but I forgot some of the little northeastern states. Obama with 14 states sounds about right.
Works for me!
Larry, you might want to count again. I get 16 states plus D.C. for Obama in that last map. I’ll take it though!
It’s okay, I’m using ‘new math’ from 1970..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wHDn8LDks8
Who came up w the colors to denote R & D? The Dem philosophy is by far the most brilliant shade of communist red.
The colors have been different in the past. When I was a child, Republicans were associated with Blue. Democrats were associated with Red. But, I think the Democrats realized they had a public relations problem because Communists had been, and still are, associated with Red. In the 2000 election, the media, in a sleight-of-hand, decided upon Red for Republicans and Blue for Democrats. [How can anyone doubt that this decision was totally neutral, unbiased, and devoid of any attempt to help Democratic candidates? (sarcasm).]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
The Red/Republican Blue/Democrat assignments occurred in the 2000 election. Check Wikipedia. The bottom line is that it just sort of happened. My own belief is that the media preferred blue for Democrats, in order to dissociate them from the idea that they were socialists.
“The bottom line is that it just sort of happened”
Blood, Commie Red, The Rising Sun on airplane wings and (sorry guys) Confederate flags have alot of Red in them, and carry “negative connotations” as a primary color for most independent voters needed to swing elections…
So the commie media decided the nice, warm, “Normal” tradition Union/Presidential Blue should be the “permanent” color of their side.
Rather like the way they call themselves a soft and fuzzy “pro-choice” but make sure the ugly “abortion” word only shows up when they identify the other side.. Anti-Abortion-Protesters (three not-so-soft sounding words?) verses “Pro-Choice Demonstrators”
Its all by design..nothing EVER “just sort of happens” in a scripted narrative.
You left out the red field of the National Socialist flag. How could you miss that? Red has been the color socialists have marched under since, oh, 1848.
But for the only-in-America switcheroo of making red represent conservatives and blue represent the socialist-leaning, blame the historical accident of (a) the 2000 election, (b) colors chosen for the CBS network’s election-night map of the US and (c) Tim Russert’s effort to explain to viewers the significance of the Gore campaign’s fight over Florida’s ballots.
The whole red-blue mixup should be added to the Switch It Back movement agenda.
Not only that, but “red” is short for “redneck”, which is what the Dems and the media think of people in “flyover” states anyway.
Only some “Confederate Flags” have a lot of red in them. Many units in the western armies used a derivative of the Bonny Blue Flag called usually the Hardee Flag which had a blue field with a white circle or, usually, oval in the center of the field. The original Confederate National Flag had a blue canton with 11 or 13 stars in a circle and three stripes, red over white over red; this was the real “Stars and Bars.” It was easily confused with the US National Flag and was replaced as a regimental flag by the St. Andrews Cross Flag that people who don’t know any better call a Confederate Flag. The St. Andrews Cross flag was a regimental color on which regiments formed in battle and only flew when units were in combat. It was square, four by four for Infantry. The Stars and Bars National flag flew over army headquarters and CS government buildings, never over combat units after ’61. After Jackson’s death the CS government adopted a flag much like the CS Naval Ensign which had the St. Andrews Cross Flag as a canton and the field was white. It was often called “The Stainless Banner” and was first displayed on T.J. “Stonewall” Jackson’s coffin. This flag was flown over the CS capitol and other government buildings and military headquarters but not over combat units. There was some use of a 3 x 5 rectangular flag somewhat like the St. Andrews Cross flag. It saw limited use in the CS Department of Georgia and South Carolina both over military units and headquarters and government buildings. Though it saw only limited use, this flag has become the stereotypical “Confederate Flag” of the souvenir shops and lefty rants.
One of the more delicious ironies of all the “Flag Fights” was in Georgia. Georgia’s post-’56 state flag had a the St. Andrew’s Cross “Battle Flag” as the field and a blue canton along the fly with the Georgia State Seal. The NAALCP and other lefties objected to the flag and wanted it replaced by the pre-’56 flag which had the original Three Bars of the CS National Stars and Bars flag. So, in their ignorance they wanted to replace a flag that never represented the political authority of the Confederate States with the original symbol of the political authority of the CS. You can’t fix stupid.
the Liberal media switched that around back about 2000(?) i think… the GOP and the conservative media obliged them, your guess is as good as mine as to why.
and like you I think it’s important, we have to stop letting them control the narrative.
Prior to 2000, red normally designated the challenger, blue the incumbent.
And we all know what happened in 2000. After that the colors froze.
Correct.
False.
Reagan was the challenger in 1980. What did his landslide win make NBC’s map look like? NBC’s David Brinkley called it a “suburban swimming pool”, see here.
Frakkin’ A. How many times do we have to go over this?
I’ve heard that the Commi, er…. Dems chose blue because they were in solidarity with the blue collar worker. If that is the case they should be some other color because they certainly aren’t FOR the working man.
I suspect, when push comes to shove, Akin will win MO. Claire M prominently backed the Stimulus and Obamacare. I suspect Romney/Ryan will have coattails in MO sufficient to drag Akin across the finish line. When your candidate commits a really embarrassing gaffe, human nature and subsequent public peer pressure will induce many of his supporters to denounce him publically, yet continue to support him privately. That’s my gut feeling, anyway.
Do you actually live in MO? Coat tails, eh? How interesting.
It’s really the other way around. You’re simply wrong that Akin’s poor choice of old “scientific data” was such a huge gaffe that his supporters denounced him. That’s Regressive Socialist thinking. Tea Partiers never denounced him, except to state that politically, he should have stayed away from the subject.
We don’t eat our own. Regressives do that. Your statement about coat tails is actually turned on its head. Obamney/Ryan will ride along behind Akin.
I can’t imagine many Akin supporters (consistently Tea Party in his voting) are excited about Romney, except as it pertains to being angry at the option. But hey, I always find Regressive’s opinions on my way of thinking to be entertaining and amusing.
Nevada is in dire straits. Since the Ron Paul people took over, the Dems have regained the registration lead they had in ’08. To make matters worse, the state and Clark County (home of Las Vegas and 70% of the population) are run be incompetents who care more about ranting on how electricity meters are a United Nations plot, than to bother register voters.
This will not end well…
Yeah, the Ronulans are the “ooh, shiny” of political strategists. Of course, the same goes for most of my fellow libertarians, it saddens me to say.
Oh. That’s why I’m a libertarian. It’s the ADD party!
Here on Hippy Island, WA, where Obama is considered too conservative, there are a lot of Paulians who would otherwise be donkeys. Don’t assume that they all rob from the GOP.
Ron Paul! Vote Green!
Yeah, I’ve said before here (too lazy to look for the link) that Johnson was likely to take as many votes from Obama as from Romney.
Oh, and I forgot the most important part:
Legalize Hemp!
Snork! You’re on Vashon?!? I’m in Auburn. I’m listed. Call me! lol
Steve, it is possible for Obama to lose here in WA. The folks here are Liberals, not Leftists. Everyone I have talked to says Obama has to go, even the ones on the bus. I have yet to see an Obama sign or bumper sticker. (Of course, I have not seen many Romney ones, either.) In ’08, I saw Obama signs everywhere. I think turnout here will be very low, and that favors Republicans this election.
Oh, you haven’t met my sister and brother-in-law, then. Or, frankly, my mother and step-father. They live in Vancouver, WA.
They are astonishingly pro-Obama. Well, frankly, most of my family is. It’s rather disconcerting to be such a blacksheep. Good thing they still love me….
The koolaid is deeply, pathetically blue with just about everybody in my family. My aunt and uncle converted to Mormonism a few years ago, and are staunchly conservative, so I’m not completely alone. But they have also assumed something of a pariah-status amongst the more “enlightened” members of my clan.
Which may, in fact, be the real reason I’m on the East Coast, now that I think about it.
It will be touch and go. The electric “Ryan/Romney 2012″ sign on 167 at the feed store is the only major sign I’ve seen. That said, it’s the only sign for either party….
I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s noticed how similar Paul’s accolytes are to Obama’s:
* A single man will change the country!
* That man will wave a magic wand and radically change everything!
* He’s really not a racist (or anti-semite, take your pick)!
* Hope and Change! Okay…I just threw that last one in there, but seriously, did you ever talk to a Paul supporter who could tell you anything about Ron Paul’s beliefs other than what was on his website talking points? No? Me either.
I don’t get Michigan, Pennsylvania (if blue) and New Jersey, states that elect GOP governors who each replaced failed Democrats, yet the same (or worse) failed policies at the national level by President Obama go unrecognized by the majority of these respective state electorates who are willing to keep Obama. Insane.
Has to do with the other side, too. Romney has to actually fight for a state to win it, and I can’t speak for PA or NJ, but in MI he simply isn’t trying. Very depressing, because this IS a state he could win if he fought for it.
Not to mention that we ALWAYS manage to elect Carl Levin to the Senate, no matter how the rest of the statewide elections go…
New Jersey is so f*cked up, even Lincoln couldnt carry the state, TWICE..
They occasionally dump a truly despicable Governer, (Florio, Corzine) but the free lunch machinery is just too strong.
Pennsylvania is dominated by 115% black voter turnout in Philly, Harrisburg, Pittsburg, Allentown, etc., plus they have enough gulity white liberals and blue collar “47 precenters” to make it a tough fight every time.
romney needs to reinstate the generals obama fired for the truth
Seriously, you have Georgia as something less than a dark red? McCain beat Obama by 5% in the “wave” election of 2008, and Obama hasn’t gotten more popular since then. I think you’re being a little cautious.
You think Obama can’t win Colorado even in the best-case? Really? RCP shows him ahead there right now.
I love RCP for their links — nobody does it better.
But their polls are simple averages of everything they can get their hands on. Nothing is weighted. Nothing is dismissed, not even wild-ass polls like PPP’s D+14 sample in NC a week or two ago. Sorry, but RCP is dealing with some serious GIGO this time around.
The fact that RCP (or anybody else) puts any trust in PPP is insulting. This is the polling wing of the dailykos and the SEIU, for god’s sake. Any shred of credibility they had left was destroyed when they put out the Missouri Senate poll that showed Akin still leading a day after he took a shotgun to his own candidacy. It was a blatantly transparent attempt to show Akin that he shouldn’t drop out.
PPP is a joke, and RCP loses credibility by using PPP polls in their averages.
Akin still being up a single day after seems like a very plausible result – most polls take a couple days to go through the system, so the bulk of those calls were probably made before the shotgunning.
And if you prefer stats that take bias into account, Nate Silver shows CO as a 63% chance for Obama to win.
Nate’s models have been awfully, ah, sticky this year.
(And I won’t even mention that I beat him — and Rasmussen — on the final GOP headcount in 2010.)
PPP’s Missouri Senate poll was an R+9 sample. It was something they threw together so Akin had something to cling to and throw in the faces of all those who wanted him out, because that seat is now very much a possible hold for the Democrats, whereas it would’ve been an easy flip before Akin opened his mouth.
Nate’s numbers have been sticky because the polls have been sticky. Until the debate, the only meaningful change was the passage of time.
I’m not saying that the Republicans can’t win Colorado. I am saying that any map with Colorado red is not Obama’s best-case.
So McMahon wins Connecticut, but Romney doesn’t?
Not convinced Linda will get it done in CT this time around. She’s running a better campaign against a worse candidate compared to 2010, but Connecticut voters, just as those in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maine to an extent, are predisposed to vote D, regardless of whose name is on the ballot. That’s why Lie-awatha is even with Scott Brown in Massachusetts, why Romney won’t win any of the New England states except for New Hampshire, and why I’m wary of any “lead” Linda has in Connecticut.
we may surprise you in Maine…much like we surprised everyone in 2010.
ME seems more likely to flip than NM.
I hope Romney wins, though I’m not so sure, there are too many leftist idiots in the US, unfortunately. If I would live in the US I would buy as much ammo as I can afford. I have a feeling very normal freedom loving people will need it in the future. (for self defense)
Obama has been the best salesman the gun/ammo industry could have asked for!
If you live in or near Chicago, stock up on ammo now before the county imposes a “violence tax” on it.
Interesting analysis.
Both campaigns know this is coming down to OH if its going to be close (and there is a chance that it won’t be close in Romney’s favor).
Currently, voting models which take into account 2012 current voter registration and past voting trends in OH suggest a comfortable R win there. This seems right.
VA and FL are R states except for rare occasions like 2008. But new “demographics,” you say? Those new demographics have to vote, and unless they are really enthused, they are not. Safe to say that they are not really enthused.
Win those three, pick off two of CO, NH, and WI, and this one is over.
O’s group has known this since late 2011. No wonder there is some substance to the stories of them buying a Hawaii home.
I don’t think IL will be deep blue, downstaters loathe Chicago and we mine coal. Romney needs to run the coal ads here, we have a lot of Catholics. I don’t think the enthusiasm to vote for Obama is in the state this time. Plus that whole prison thing…………
Just need to get Kitty O’Neill to meet with a bunch of black politicians in an empty parking garage and get her to buy off a bunch of Cook County votes for Romney.
(Any “Boss” fans in the audience?)
Sandy, I live in one of the collar counties in IL. I wish I could agree with you, but you actually have some Dem candidates in counties like Dupage threatening some long-time Republican house members.
Any shade of blue you like, IL will still go Dem, just because of the Chicago Black and Hispanic vote. Republicans couldn’t even win a governorship after Blago, so it’s a done deal, unfortunately.
Downstate could vote 90% R and it wouldn’t matter. The corrupt Chicago political machine would manufacture as many votes as needed to hand the state to Obama.
Illinois won’t go “red” until Cook County is expelled.
As Yogi Berra once said, “it ain’t over until it’s over.” No doubt that Romney got a bump from his debate performance last week. And Obama got a big wake-up call from his less-than-stellar performance. If Obama doesn’t do better next time on Oct. 16, I think it’s “stick a fork in time” as he’ll be toast.
I’m not seeing Colorado in the Romney camp. University of Denver released a post-debate poll of likely voters yesterday (Oct. 7) showing Obama with a 47% to 43% lead. More alarmingly for Romney is a finding showing him still trailing Obama by a 31% to 48% margin among independent voters. Independents make up about 30% of registered voters here. The other big deal working for Obama is the big name local Dems campaigning for him; popular moderate Dems like the Governor, Senators Udall & Bennett. Repubs have nothing to compare with that lineup.
I also don’t see that the U of C study is correct, particularly in predicting New Mexico going Romney. Gary Johnson is polling 6-7% there and I suspect he’s getting most of that from potential Romney voters.
Avoiding the loony tune polls that predict either a Romney landslide or an Obama landslide, I’m seeing Florida probably going Romney; albeit very close to the last; and Ohio probably staying Obama. I agree with you about Nevada staying Dem. If Repubs couldn’t knock off Harry Reid in 2010; during the depths of the Great Recession………..
Virginia probably goes Repub, altho popular former Dem governor Tim Kaine seems to now have a slight lead on former Senator George Allen (a.k.a. “Senator Macaca”). Maybe Obama gets a down-ballot coat tail effect. Overall, barring major gaffes by either candidate, it’s likely a narrow win for Obama. But, we’ll see.
Gravis Marketing’s post-debate Colorado poll had Romney 49.4 to 45.9, FWIW.
I’ve seen a couple of Obama ads on stations out of Spokane, Wash. Which makes NO sense as every market that the stations are ‘local’ to is either bright blue (Washington and maybe NE Oregon) or bright red (Idaho and Montana).
Maybe they’re after those other 7 states, like BC and Alberta. But then again, BC would be dark blue, and Alberta would be bright red.
Spokane is a light blue zone in a bright red eastern half of the state. Take a look at the county-by-county map of the 2008 election. Whether WA goes Obama or not depends on how much turnout can be generated in all counties except King, and whether we can dispirit King Liberals enough to make them not bother.
If WA goes R, I’ll eat my dog.
See, that’s funny because OBAMA EATS DOG.
one objection.
the debate wasn’t a “break” that went Romney’s way. He did it with hard work. And Libya wasn’t a “break” either. obama did that with over-the-top incompetance.
But you got Ohio exactly correct. It will come down to cheating and the desire to prevent it. My prayers are for John Kasich, and for hoping that he has put in place a mechanism that can defeat 5% fraud (at least). He is currently the most important person in the country, maybe the world.
weo raises some interesting point with respect to Ohio. We have a Republican Governor, and the Republican challenger to Sherrod Brown (Josh Mandel) is now statistically tied with the Democrat.
I think we have a strong “R” current going on here. Also, while there’s a high concentration of black voters in SW Ohio (Cincinnati) and NE Ohio (Cleveland), many of them aren’t very happy with Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage, and the lousy job market.
And then…..there’s this.
PENNSYLVANIA: Obama 47, Romney 45
http://www.politicspa.com/susquehanna-poll-obama-47-romney-45/42205/
Thanks for the heads up. Keep in mind, that any time an incumbent is under 50%, he’s in trouble. I’m just now reading the VSS blog entry explaining their methodology, and I think this is the key bit:
We saw the results of that in 2010.
Stephen, why do pollster seemingly not consider the results of a mid-term election? During the mid-term the media tells us the results are commentary on how the President is doing his job, but now no one seems to want to consider what the electorate thought only two years ago.
Florida 2010 the turnout was D36/R36/I18. Yet, if you totaled the votes for each party in all the congressional seats, Republicans beat Democrats by 23%. That is a huge number. Just huge. How can it be completely ignored by pollsters? I am puzzled. Personally, I think Hell will freeze over before Obama wins Florida.
By the way, if you looked at the same math (total congressional votes in a state) Iowa, Ohio and Virginia are all double digits in favor of Republicans and they did it without a majority of self identified (in exit polls) Republicans.
I don’t think there’s much chance of Obama winning Florida, but it’s not a “safe” state yet.
As you are doing your prognosticating bit as a pundit do you put any weight in the previous mid-term results?
As a measure of enthusiasm, yes. Although most of the major polls — the ones that release cross-tabs, anyway — seem to be doing a pretty good job of reflecting that. What they’re having trouble getting is an accurate sample size for either Rs or Ds. It’s also time to question everything about polls, when their refusal rate is an astonishing 91%. So many people, whose views are unobtainable, simply refuse to talk to pollsters. We simply have no way of knowing what 91% of Americans think.
Oh, and on a side note: Any poll that doesn’t release its cross-tabs is just an op-ed.
About those mid-term election results: according to the 1994 mid-term elections, Bob Dole won the presidency in ’96.
But in 1994 after the mid-terms Clinton took such a hard turn to the right he left skid marks–not a doubling down like Obama.
The national congressional totals in the mid-terms of ’98, ’02 and ’06 were all with about a point of the results in the following presidential. Here’s a great article by Michael Baronne written in July ’11 about the concept: http://www.american.com/archive/2011/july/what-the-popular-vote-for-the-house-tells-us
I’m thinking 2010′s 52/45 margin might be just about right for 2012 if things keep trending as it is now.
Dont forget this little gem: Romney takes Florida, Ohio, and Iowa and Obama takes the rest. 269:269. President Romney is elected by the Republican House and Vice President Biden is elected by the democratic Senate- thanks a lot Crazy Todd Akin.
Interesting thought Mark. With all the hoopla over the presidential debate, people seem to be forgetting the Senate races. Four months ago, I figured the Repubs taking back the Senate would be a “slam dunk.” Now, maybe not; a combination of Akin and the Dems running some stronger than anticipated candidates. Electoral-Vote dot com shows Dems with 52 seats as of today; Repubs 45; 3 tied. So, your scenario is not that far out.
New Rasmussen polls just out show Obama 49-47 in Iowa and 49-48 in Colorado.
I like Rasmussen, but the Iowa poll doesn’t pass the smell test. He last polled Iowa on September 20th, two days after Romney’s “47%” video came out. The result? Romney +3. Now, weeks later, with the 47% “controversy” fading away and the biggest beatdown in presidential debate history still fresh on everyone’s minds, it’s Obama +2??
Doesn’t compute.
Har-har.
But what the heck, the Constitution offers a lot of latitude for that scenario. Biden could stick to his narrowly defined duties, and Romney could invite Ryan for lots of long talks.
Or straight-up appoint him as Secretary of the Treasury. The only real danger in that scenario is the possibility of Romney dying in office.
Stephen, what do you think are the chances that the final election results will be significantly different than what people are predicting (ie., a blowout for either side)? It seems that polling becomes less reliable in certain ways as it becomes more reliable in others and I wonder what the potential is for some x-factor to make prognostication essentially useless this time around.
When 91% of the people pollsters call either won’t pick up or won’t participate, it’s really impossible to say.
Don’t forget those of us who DO pick up and DO participate for the sole purpose of LYING to the pollster. How anyone can place any faith in the polls is totally beyond my ability to understand.
Sadly, I can imagine Romney earning a 269-269 tie (and therefore a win in the House), only to have some Paulbot faithless elector give it away by voting for RP. Those guys would rather watch the country burn than miss the chance to say, “told you so.”
Wouldnt matter- the electors could vote for anyone else they want but that wouldn’t provide the extra vote for Obama or Romney to get to the required 270. Once the vote got to the house, each state must provide a single vote for one of the top 3 electoral vote recipients… and there will only be 2.
A far more likely scenario, imo, is a Republican elector being bullied into voting for Obama. Especially if Obama were to win the popular count the pressure from the media and the usual suspects would be immense (and the potential rewards would be vast).
The House would elect the President, with each state’s delegation getting one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President.
Oh, Jeeze Louise. Romney/Biden?
Right, but before the votes are sent to the house, the electors will lodge their votes in their state capitols (this is in December), and federal law doesn’t require them to vote for the preference of their state election results. In the case of what appears to be a 269-269 tie on election night, the electors will be put under a tremendous amount of pressure to vote against the preference of their state (and there will be several weeks of time to apply this pressure).
People used to cast for specific presidential electors listed on the ballot, who, in turn, promised to vote for a particular candidate or party. Over the years, this changed. People now vote for a particular candidate listed on the ballot who happens to be the standard bearer of a particular party.
Now when a state is won by a particular party, it is a winner-takes-all situation for the state’s electoral votes. The winning party provides its slate of electors to the Electoral College. These electors are party stalwarts. In December of the election year they gather together in each state capitol to cast their votes. Thus, if the Republican presidential candidate wins the particular state, a Republican slate of party dependable stalwarts will cast the, usually merely ceremonial, electoral college votes. (When I was in college, one Republican elector, Roger MacBride, strayed off the reservation and cast his electoral ballot for a Libertarian candidate. In the next presidential election, because of his lack of fidelity to the Republican Party, he became the Libertarian candidate for president.)
In a tied race, there will be tremendous pressure on all electors, both to remain true to their party, and to jump ship and vote for the other party’s candidate. I can assure you that to jump one’s party’s ship will mean incredible notoriety, but personal political suicide and complete ostracism from his original party.
As a side note, the genius of the electoral college is that it is designed to give small states enough pull that they are not completely ignored by presidential candidates who would, otherwise, focus only on the most populous states if we just depended upon the popular vote totals. It also is designed to thwart the propensities of the “vulgar mob” from being taken in by a demagogue like Adolph Hitler. Our founders designed our government with separation of powers, the difficulty in amending our Constitution, and the use of the Electoral College with stability in mind. Stability, order, and predictability are far superior to the insanity of the mob and the guillotine of the French Revolution, which was going on about the time of the writing of the Constitution.
True, says Arlen Spector. It only takes one of 269, and not every state is as stalwart as others. Sure it would blackball youfrom the pary, but youd be an instant hero of the left, a true ‘bipartisan’, the toast of the media, and who knows what tangible rewarss the chicago crew could supply.
Thats not the way it works, Larry. If a faithless elector voted for Ron Paul, the final EC tally would be Obama – 269, Romney – 268, Paul – 1. To be elected president, one needs a simple majority of the electoral college votes. In this case, there still would not be a candidate with a majority, so the top 3 finishers in the electoral college vote would go to the House of representatives. Romney would still win.
Romney would still win because the people deciding the election would be the currently constituted House of Representatives, which has a Republican majority.
No, the voting is ratified by the newly constitued Congress in December. In case of a tie, then the critters vote. A Republican House wil elect Romney. A Democratic Senate will choose Biden, then pray for Romney to have a stroke.
I like the idea of a tie. Oh, my. We thought Bush/Gore was bad? Dems heads will just explode. Oh, and blacks will riot. Oh, joy. /s
The new Congress isn’t sworn in until January 3.
Yes, Steve, but they used to meet much later. It used to be that the outgoing Congress would determine the winner. That was changed with the 20th Amendment moving up the date of the new Congress’ first meeting. Now, the incoming Congress chooses, not the outgoing one, which is as it should be.
I believe the change was inspired by the failed assassination attempt on FDR. If it had succeeded, it seems a Republican would have taken over or some such thing. Don’t remember all the details. I’m old and senile, and too lazy to read through it all again. I just know that the new Congress decides.
So, a tie basically means Romney wins, as it is very unlikely, despite Pelosi’s fantasies, that the Dems will retake the House this time. However, the Senate is iffy, although things looks a bit up since the debate triumph. Suddenly, he has some coattails.
Make Missouri dark red and put it in the bank.
Thank you for this! I’ve been saying for weeks – months! – that Republicans are paying too much attention to national polls and not understanding how the electoral college works. It’s great to see someone knowledgeable lay out what needs to happen for a Romney win. It becomes glaringly obvious that it doesn’t matter how much Romney schools Obama in the debates or how stupid Obama looks: the election comes down to ground game in a few key states (and in fact a few key counties in those states.)
Obama is going to use his gigantic campaign funds to buy as many votes as possible in key states, and Romney needs to…um, yea, keep to the moral high ground or something but still find a way to take more votes in those states. That’s the story.
Cheers, Mr. Vodka.
And then there’s this; the headline at Drudge:
http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/08/romneys-strong-debate-performance-erases-obamas-lead/
That’s gotta leave a mark.
Don’t get too excited. The sample in that poll is R+5, which seems about as likely as Politico’s wild D+9 sample.
Right now I have Romney winning Florida, Virginia, N Carolina, Colorado and Nevada. Ohio is trending Romney since the last week in September as is Wisconsin. Of course this is using the biased polling (IMO) which doesn’t make sense. In many polls Romney is dominating the independents yet not winning overall, that just can’t be right in the swing states. Check out my work on the biased polling at http://www.pollbias.blogspot.com It’s not perfect but I think the results are much closer than what the pollsters are saying.
You have to report margins of error or the results are meaningless.
I’m trying not to get cocky, but given the Obama fatigue, Mitt showing he’s a serious business mind and not a lunatic, and the strong likelihood of a lot of former O voters not admitting their either not voting for Obama or not voting at all- Romney could win 35 states despite the polls being tight right until the end. I’ve got a strong feeling A LOT of Democrats will be skipping over the presidential section of their ballot because they cant bring themselves to pull the trigger. The pro-Obama polls might actually help Romney- the more Dems believe that they can vote their conscience or not vote at all, the better.
I’m in Southern Colorado, and near Pueblo County, which is one of the 3 main Democrat strongholds [Peoples' Republic of Boulder-traditional Trotskyite Marxist, City and County of Denver-ethnic machine politics (was Irish, then Hispanic, now Black), and Pueblo County-was traditional labor union Democrats until they destroyed all the union jobs, converting to La Raza Unida Hispanic separatist]. Everything I am hearing out of neighboring Pueblo does not look good for the Democrats. We have our State Fair in Pueblo. Each party has a booth. Democrat booth was largely empty, Republican booth was packed. This is in spite of the Pueblo County Republican Party being collaborationist and as useful as teats on a boar hog. And Romney actually came to Pueblo [twice actually, the first time the appearance was cancelled because of a fatal private plane crash at the Pueblo Airport where it was to be held.]; which he would not do if Pueblo was sure to go overwhelmingly for Obama.
Not seeing anything near to the Obama enthusiasm of 2008 when I visit there, and despite the very real risk of vandalism and assault, I am seeing Romney signs, bumper stickers, and empty chairs on lawns.
In my county [which is a TEA Party conservative county], we can’t keep Romney yard signs and stickers in stock. As fast as we get a shipment of a few hundred, they go out to our waiting list. I am sensing anger and desperation from our local Democrats.
I have family in the SW Suburban Denver area that went for Obama in 2008, and the sea of Obama signs there in 2008 just isn’t there now, and there are Romney signs.
I think that Colorado has a good chance of going to Romney. What I worry about is the “Venezuelan” Electoral Vote Model. You should do a map of what states are most susceptible to theft by fraud, say within 5%.
We are not going to be done on November 6.
Subotai Bahadur
I wonder if the Reagan Democrats/Blue Dogs have any impact on this race? They might still be giving the D+ to some states, but are they showing up in the polling?
Or are they part of the heavily tilting Indie vote?
If they are being counted in the D+ but not being accurately reflected in their likely vote, they could be actually DOUBLY mischaracterizing this race.
Then again, maybe they simply don’t matter…they certainly don’t to Nancy Pelosi.
As I see it, Romney needs to win Florida’s 29 electoral college votes. Has to get supporters to the polls, fight for the military vote, and make sure the new voter ID law is enforced. RNC needs to send lawyers and money.
Similar ground game plus military vote strategy for Virginia. Romney should be able to win back Virginia’s 13 electoral college votes with a strong ground game.
Iowa looks like another ground game state to me and Republicans spent a lot of time there earlier in the year. Only 6 electoral college votes, but the demographics are favorable. Hope Mitt Romney has Tim Pawlenty camped out there. Hope the Romney campaign has reached out to Rick Santorum and supporters too.
Ohio with 18 electoral college votes is the state most likely to determine the election. This time Republicans have control at the state level and EPA has declared war coal, oil, and gas production. Worried unions and urban enclaves may get out the vote or cheat. Strong Romney supporters need to vote early and then volunteer to watch the polls, provide babysitting, drive voters to the polls, etc. Need to finish strong.
Hope Mormons are pouring into neighboring Colorado and Nevada. Need to overcome some headwinds with a strong GOTV effort.
Republicans should fight for Wisconsin’s ten electoral college votes of insurance. They have battle-tested ground game and Republican control.
In the left’s absolute love for equality and the concept of “one man-one vote” they have come to hate the Electoral College. Because the Electoral College allots votes to each state based upon the number of senators and representatives in Congress, the left dislikes the fact that every state has two senators. Large population state California has two senators, as does Wyoming. California, because of its population has many more representatives, and therefore more Electoral College votes. But, a person’s vote in Wyoming because of the senatorial representation is worth more in a presidential election that a person’s vote in California.
Because of the left’s dislike of this structural inequality (and because the left does well in highly populous and largely industrial states) it would like to amend our constitution to eliminate the supposedly antiquated Electoral College system. Because successfully amending the Constitution is time consuming and difficult to achieve, the left is currently trying an end run.
In response to Al Gore winning the popular vote and George W. Bush winning the Electoral College vote, two states have changed their Electoral College rules to favor the popular vote. I think they are Nebraska and Maine.
The left is also pushing another end run around the Electoral College by using what is called an interstate compact–an interstate or multistate treaty. Under this procedure, if enough states sign onto using the popular vote totals rather than the winner-take-all Electoral College vote totals, the Electoral College will be subverted.
The opponents of the Electoral College scream, “Unfair. Unfair. Unequal. Unequal.” On the face of it, they appear to have a point. But, to go their way and use the popular vote will leave the vast heartland subservient to western states’ and northeastern states’ political dominance, more so than currently. In my opinion, it will also lead to more ballot box stuffing by the Democrats in those states.
If the Electoral College is hard to understand, think about the World Series. In the World Series, the winning baseball team is determined not by the number of runs scored in the course of the series, but in the number of games won during the series.
I don’t know how many games are needed to win the World Series, but in this example, let’s choose four games. Here are the scores (American league team/National league team): Game 1: 1/25; Game 2: 5/1; Game 3: 7/3; Game 4: 10/1.
In this hypothetical, the American league team wins three of the four games, but if we look at the runs scored during the whole series, the National league team should have won 30 runs to 23. The correlation to the Electoral College is games won equals states won. The correlation to just using the popular vote is the number of overal runs scored by a team during the series.
We are not a democracy. We are a republic. We are a national republic which by its, sometimes arcane, design binds together both the People’s interests and the States’ interest, each state being a local republic.
E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, we are one. Because of our republic’s structural stability, the United States remains the longest enduring republic in the world. (Compare this to France which has had five republics since 1792.)
@33 Harvard Yard Conservative
You should credit MIT physicist Alan Natapoff for that argument, esp. since he showed that a districted system (e.g., our Electoral College system) gives the individual voter more power than a popular-vote system does. Reading what you say, one would think a popular-vote system gave him more.
Higher level of questioning – I’m seeing some real disconnect. Perhaps somebody can explain this to me. Several times in several polls I have read:
(1) Romney winning anywhere from 12-16 points over Obama with respect to Independents – a huge turnaround from 2008.
(2) A widening “enthusiam” gap for Republicans, last I saw a +13 increase
Why are all these “experts” so sure this is going to be neck and neck? I understand the popularity of Obama and the fact he alone will draw a larger crowd than 2010, but has that much really changed since then? If anything, the economic news has gotten worse, not better for the large part of the country.
I live in the Oklahoma bubble, where the plague is more popular than Obama. But everyone I know is ready to eat glass to vote against Obama – far more so in 2008, when Obama still didn’t one county here out of seventy-seven.
Someone named “Tex” living in Oklahoma?? You must catch a whole lot of grief, especially during weeks like this one (leading up to the UT/OU game).
And to top it all off, TWO polls out today with Obama’s lead in my native Michigan own to three. I’m very close to screaming my lungs out about how Mitt can win this state if he fights for it. No ads (compared to every other commercial break featuring an Obama ad), no campaigning, and yet all it took is one debate for Mitt to slash seven points off of Obama’s lead in the mitten.
This state is NOT dominated by Detroit the way Illinois is dominated by Chicago, or the way California is dominated by Los Angeles and San Francisco. There is NO enthusiasm for Obama here; NONE. If Romney and the Republican Party put any effort into this state, they would have a serious chance to turn it red. For god’s sake, fight for it!
Yeah, I think you’re right on this. The Great Lakes states will go to Romney, with the exceptions of Illinois (Chicago) and New York (NYC). Minnesota may barely go Obama, but only if voter fraud is in full Democrat force.
I am certain that Romney/Ryan will win Wisconsin. And I will be here on November 6 crow about it. And if Obama wins in Minnesota, it will be by less than 1%. The Right base is as energized as I’ve ever seen it. The Independents, in poll after poll, are breaking Right. The Left is dispirited. And everybody else knows that the last four years have been a disaster.
Michigan is within the margin of error. One of the reasons is the Auto company bailouts. O’Bama never asked who the bond holders were they were mostly retired UAW types, they might not be voting for Romney but they won’t vote for O’Bama.
Please don’t use an apostrophe in obama’s name. It insinuates he’s Irish.
He’s more Irish than anything else. His mother’s pureblood Irish.
What’s the deal with New Mexico? Okay, I know that Taos and Santa Fe are totally loony left, but much of the rest of the state seems pretty reasonable. Does it come down to how much of the vote Johnson gets? As for the Mexican vote, those that have lived there for generations seem to be pretty conservative.
My gut tells me that Romney will take Florida.
Ryan should be a huge help in Ohio and PA.
New York had 50% registered voters show up to vote in 2008.
Maybe if they thought it counted, higher turnout could change 2012 outcome.
For all of you in ‘blue’ states seeing political ads? You are probably watching cable. I watch/listen NCIS re-runs, and have been startled by Obama ads here in Massachusetts until I realized it was a cable channel.
The media isn’t talking about record high gasoline prices but voters are. Ditto inflation at the supermarket. This will hurt Obama in a lot of place not currently considered in play. That includes both the Northwest and the states in the upper Midwest not now seen as in play. Keep in mind also that many of the union towns and cities across the upper Midwest are also strongly Catholic. Those who attend church each week are generally pretty hot about Obama care’s abortion and birth control mandates. Also Minnesota will have an anti same sex marriage amendment on the ballot. This may increase turnout in the rural areas where a lot of the population is to the right of George Wallace on social issues like gay marriage.
I’m just south of Cleveland in Cuyahoga County. A lot of us are out of work and no jobs are posted. A lot of empty store fronts and homes with for sale signs. Not a single Obama sign or bumper sticker. nada. Plenty of Romney signs.
Its definately not like last time. Even the union die-hard next door who has ‘Dem’ tatooed on his forearm is thinking about not voting. May have something to do with losing his job (no problem when its other people, of course.)
Outside of the inner cities, Obama has lost his support. I do not believe the polls are reflective of the attitudes here.
Mr. Green FYI
I have been on the lookout for Obama stickers and signs here in the Chicago burbs and saw my first one today. In the mall parking lot right up front a blue sticker which read “impeach Obama”. No kidding I was shocked even in the people’s republic of Illinois. People are waking up
Unofficially stickers, signs, and even a few shirts 10-1 advantage for Romney in the NW burbs of Chicago.
I agree. The big surprise of the election will be Illinois.
I’m sticking with my 2 out of 3 theory. Ohio, Florida, PA. Two of those three is the winner.
A compromise between water and sewage is still sewage.
Mitt Romney: “I will evaluate conditions on the ground (in Afcrapistan) and weigh the best advice of our military commanders”.
Well, our military commanders, the generals, are worse than incompetent, far worse. What else should they fairly be called after 11 years and all the wasted lives and limbs of American troops and all the wasted hundreds of billions, that we don’t have to spare, and all the bowing and scraping and apologizing to Muslim they have done, on the utter failure that is Afcrapistan?
I can tell you what our military commanders, the generals, will say. They will say what they have been saying for years now, that we need more troops in Afcrapistan and we need to stay long enough to “get the job done”. How many more American troops must lose life or limb for our generals hubris, career-uber-alles and willful blindness? There is nothing to “win” in Afcrapistan and past the few first weeks there never was.
Mitt, please apply the same thinking you used to make Bain so successful. If you had hired these idiot military commanders to run it for you, they would have run it into the ground as well as put you and your family in the poor house.
Steve you need to find data on the greens. Their polling 2% in the few places their polled at all. There on the rolls in most blue states. Their pitching for the Occupy mob and the greenhouse lobby that voted Democrat last time. With no mention of greenhouse etc on Obama’s side they could break to 4% with this bad debate performance. The green leader acquitted her self well in the third party debate. She was clearly debating Obama in absentia not Gary Johnson.
That wont matter much in many red states but it could hit hard in the states that are in play.
It may even mean he polls badly on the 6th in California and the pacific north west. That’s not enough to loose him those states but it would look bad. The west coast went to Reagan once and demographic drift is shifting many areas away from Hollywood left chic and dot com socialists to more pragmatic resources industries, energy hungry server farms, kickstater entrepreneurs and green retirees. Even Seattle aerospace may see spacex’s success as a path away from government dependency and that drives their vote left.
Wonder what impact Romney’s latest flip-flop; on abortion legislation; will have on the campaign? Campaign staff already is putting out the “spin.”
The next time you catch a politician moving to the center during a general election, I shall endevour tirelessly to find my shocked face.
In general, I agree with you. Given the nastiness of the Repub. primary season and the strong influence of the religious right at the Repub. grassroots in many states, I’m not sure this is a normal general election. But we’ll see.
SteveB, it will have no effect whatsoever. None. Romney is a typical NE Liberal Republican. He is also a typical politician, telling whatever lies he must to get elected. I have already seen how he governs, and it is not pretty. I think people already know this and are willing to overlook it, for now, because… Obama.
Me, I am a cussed contrarian. I am not willing to overlook it. I know there are going to be bunches of things I will not like about a Romney administration. I expect he will screw us, especially in SC nominations. I refuse to vote for him. I’ll be voting for Johnson.
All that said, Romney has his good points. His actual administration will be better, and he will cut some staff, in corporate-turnaround fashion. Most importantly, it will signal business is open again across the country. He won’t have to do anything to improve things. Just knowing that he will not kneecap business is enough for business to take off. He is also pro-America. He’ll be an improvement, but so would have any of the Republican candidates, even (gulp) Ron Paul, because.. you know… Obama!