Electoral Math...

[Lord Jim]

Now that the conventions are behind us, and we're rolling towards the final stretch, I thought this would be a good time for me to post my analysis from an Electoral College standpoint, based on the available data....

All of the numbers are drawn from realclearpolitics.com, which as I've mentioned many times before is the bible of hardcore political junkies across the ideological spectrum....Their numbers are based on a "poll of polls" average of recent polls; and they provide numerous tools for driving down into the state-by state numbers....

One of the nice things they provide is an ability to easily put together your own electoral map to game out various scenarios...(a hardcore political junkie can play with this stuff pretty much endlessly.... )

At the moment, based on poll of polls analysis, RCP has the Electoral Vote breakdown, (based on "solid" "likely" or "leaning" states) at Obama 221 Votes, Romney 191, with 126 votes listed as "toss ups".....

If you change the map to eliminate the "toss ups"...(which you can do with a single click at RCP), and just auto assign every state to the leading candidate, regardless of the margin, you get:

Obama: 332 Romney:206

That makes it look like an easy win for Obama, until you start drilling down in those number a bit...

In five of those states, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Iowa ( with a combined 76 electoral votes) Obama has a 2% or less RCP poll average advantage (about half the margin of error)

Flip those five states from Obama to Romney, and Romney wins a narrow victory.... the new Electoral College totals are:

Obama: 256 Romney: 282 (270 needed to win)

Add in four other states (Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada and Colorado) where Obama has a lead within the margin of error of 4 points or less, and Romney wins comfortably:

Obama: 221 Romney: 317

That would really be a "running the table" scenario for Romney; I really don't see that happening....

My personal view of the most likely scenario is that if you start with the current "no toss up " numbers:

Obama: 332 Romney:206

And then flip Florida and Virginia, (two states where Obama leads by less than two points, and states which given their general voting history and superior Republican ground game organization I expect will ultimately wind up in Romney's column)

You wind up with:

Obama: 290 Romney: 248

I think that's a very likely scenario....

And it also shows just how critically important Ohio is....

If you also flip Ohio, ( where again, Obama leads by less than 2 points) you're now at:

Obama: 272 Romney:266

And now it's Obama who's up against the wall, because Romney only needs to bring in one other state of any size to eke out a victory....

But without Ohio....

Because of the Electoral Vote distribution, Romney needs to pick up three or four of the 4% or less margin states to get over 270...

That's a tall order....

But here's the most interesting scenario:

Start with:

Obama: 290 Romney: 248 (that's the current no toss up with Romney also taking Florida and Virginia)

Then, leave Ohio in Obama's column, but flip Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada...(very possible...they're all within the 4% range) and you get:

Obama: 269 Romney:269

Hello House Of Representatives!

[Long Run]

I wonder if averaging the various polls statistically improves accuracy or lessens it? Each pollster uses its own strategies to try to get the most accurate poll, and given the various strategies, I'm not sure taking an average is any better than picking any of the leading pollsters. I guess an average of polls shows the consensus of pollsters so is as good as any for the horse race analysis.

I'm with Dave on this election, though. If Romney does reasonably well in the debates (which I think he will), he'll prove his electability and be the next president. The lack of job growth is too big drag on Obama for him to beat a moderately strong opponent. Romney will end up with close to 52% of the popular vote and over 300 Electoral College votes.

Ryan initially provided a bounce provided within the conservation base, but has since floundered. You only get one chance to make a first impression with regular voters, and Ryan has blown it with his hyperbole, exaggerations and small lies. He'll have a hard time recovering with the mainstream voters. He'd better do well in his debate with Biden.

[dales]

The electoral college should be abolished.

(yeah, I know this belongs in another thread)

[Andrew D]

What would the electoral map look like if we changed representation in the House to make it constitutional?

[Gob]

BBC Correspondent's view

I find political conferences an enthralling spectator sport, and I had courtside seats at both the Republican and Democratic conventions the last two weeks.

Still, they could have been more dramatic: Mitt Romney didn't drop the ball, while President Barack Obama, an enthusiastic basketball player, didn't score a slam dunk.

But there's been a bit of a bounce, and that's all it takes.

The opinion polls indicate that as the US election campaign really gets going after the convention season, the likelihood of Mr Obama winning in November is increasing.

Don't get too excited, or too depressed.

The Obama team shouldn't be high-fiving too enthusiastically. Much of the bounce is within the margin of error. In other words, it could just be a statistical illusion.

Still, some polls show a bigger bounce, and the direction - up for Mr Obama - has been consistent.

But importantly, if you only include those certain to vote, a bounce looks like a mere blip.

As I have said all along, this election is about turnout, and the big job for the Obama campaign is to push people to the polling booths.

The candidates are still neck and neck, but Mr Obama is out front by a head and could be pulling away.

The good news for the Obama campaign is that people ended up preferring Mr Obama despite the fact that the conventions were not spectacular, and were not filled with thrilling highs and lows. That suggests the bounce is about fundamentals, not flim-flam.

The bounce comes despite gloomy economic figures that are not as gloomy as some would have it - they show tiny improvement rather than any reversal.

No-one bombed, except for Clint Eastwood, and no-one had a major triumph, except perhaps former President Bill Clinton.

Neither of the candidates made memorable, knock-out speeches. Policy took a holiday, and the "vision thing" had a nap.

Remember, this is an election where many would like to vote "none of the above". But they can't. It is, as Mr Obama insisted, a choice.

Critics who say the Republican convention fell flat miss the point. It was meant to be flat. That was part of its job.

The last thing strategists wanted was over-excited delegates fulminating about abortion and gay marriage from the podium and laying into the president in florid language.

It would have been the easiest thing in the world to write a speech bringing them to fever pitch. But that would have played straight into the hands of the Democrats who want to brand them as the nasty party.

The other part of the Republican convention was to sell Mr Romney as a likeable man.

He spoke about what love meant to him, a parade of speakers talked of his compassion, and he was less stiff than usual.

The delegates still don't love him, but maybe they feel a little more affection for him.

It is not certain if that got through to the 30 million or so Americans who watched on television.

Mr Romney may be a warm, funny guy in private. But he's not charismatic, not inspirational, and all the packaging in the world won't make grits taste like gravy.

The Democrats, on the other hand, did want to excite their delegates.

Particularly on the first night, they drove themselves into a state of high passion warning what a Romney victory would mean for women and gay people. The phrase "the right to love who you want" was repeated dozens of times by different speakers.

Ethnic diversity was emphasised, with Hispanics given a particularly warm hug.

Mr Obama could have done better. He can be a great speaker, but this wasn't one of his best.

I wasn't the only correspondent to use the word "workmanlike" and I notice someone else used the phrase "greyer and grimmer" as well.

By his own very high standards the speech was dull, lacking in personality. But it did convey a certain dogged passion, a sense he was straining to work for a better America and that to sack him now would be to take a dangerous path.

If he is, as one recent writer asserted, "a cold fish with high hands," this was not on display.

If some swing voters, and reluctant Obama supporters, emerge from the convention season believing Mr Romney is a dangerous risk and that Mr Obama is doing the best he can, then "workmanlike" will have done a job of work.

[Long Run]

BBC Correspondent's view

He [Obama] can be a great speaker, but this wasn't one of his best.

This is one thing I take issue with. He sounds good when he talks, but does anyone ever remember anything he says? I don't think a person who lacks substance in his words can be considered a "great speaker".

Bottom line, the D's are not all that excited, so Obama will lose 2-3% points due to lower turnout from his 52.8% in 2008. He's turned off enough moderates to drop another 2-3% points. He'll end up with about 47-48%. Would be worse if Romney could get conservatives excited or energize moderates or anyone else for that matter. But being merely competent will get him the victory.

[Guinevere]

I'm not sure you're in a position to talk about the D's Long Run. The convention bounce is going to last, and Obama's speech struck a real chord with the middle-of-the road Dem, some of whom were considering Romney. I think I reported last week that on Friday morning several moderate Dems I know who were leaning Romney (former Obama voters), had decided definitively for Obama (I also noted that none of them liked Paul Ryan, and that helped their decision).

As for what he said, almost a week later, I remember it. I even remember some of the specific lines -- "take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call me in the morning." Still makes me laugh

On the BBC article, it totally missed that the most talked about speech was on the Dem's side -- Michelle Obama. She had, by at least an order of magnitude, the most youtube views than any other speech in both conventions. I saw the numbers earlier this week but can't find the article -- I think it was close to 2.5 million views for her speech, a million for the next most viewed (can't recall which speaker that was, probably Bill).

[rubato]

Ryan is preparing to fail:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e ... ing-tv-ads

AP: Paul Ryan To Begin Airing TV Ads For His Wis. House Seat
David Taintor 3:09 PM EDT, Tuesday September 11, 2012

Rep. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's running mate, will begin airing ads defending his House seat in Wisconsin, the Associated Press reports. The ads will begin airing Wednesday.

... "

Now THAT's a real coward for you.

yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

Oh, come on, now...every one of us needs a Plan B!

[Sue U]

[Lord Jim]

Well, Joe Lieberman and Lloyd Benson also both had a "Plan B" when they were running for veep....

And it's a lucky thing for them that they did.....

[rubato]

Oh, come on, now...every one of us needs a Plan B!

Now that its otc they can get it.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

The convention bounce is going to last,

Well, that remains to be seen...

And now we have to figure in what's been going on in the Mid East over the past couple of days, and how that figures into the equation...

I agree, as I so often do, with Peggy Noonan:

“I was thinking as he spoke, I think I belong to the old school of thinking that in times of great drama and heightened crisis, and in times when something violent has happened to your people, I always think discretion is the better way to go,” Noonan said. “When you step forward in the midst of a political environment and start giving statements on something dramatic and violent that has happened, you're always leaving yourself open to accusations that you are trying to exploit things politically.”

[Lord Jim]

Romney will end up with close to 52% of the popular vote and over 300 Electoral College votes.

Long Run, that scenario is based on the 1980 election as the template, (Team Obama of course, is using 2004 as the election template; where a President with less than a 50% approval rating, and upside down on the "right track wrong track" numbers still manages to win with the majority of the late deciding vote going to his opponent by bringing out a larger percentage of his base to vote.)

The 1980 template assumes an unpopular President in bad economic times, with the only challenge faced by the challenger the hurdle that he is an "acceptable" challenger...

So in the last days of the race, 90% of the undecided vote breaks for the challenger...

There are two problems with this model....

The first is that Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter...

The second is that Mitt Romney is not Ronald Reagan...(He is so not Ronald Reagan.... )

Obama is nowhere near as personally disliked as Carter was in the 1980 election...

And Romney has no where near the kind of gravitas Mr. Reagan brought to that election....

In that election, Mr. Reagan won by demolishing Carter in their one debate and by demonstrating that he met the bar required to be entrusted with the Presidency...(and Mr. Reagan's bonifides with the Conservative "base" voters was so strong, he had no need to pander to them to have them in his corner...)

Mr. Romney is not going to gain that sort of "there he goes again", or "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" moment that delivered Mr. Reagan a 469 electoral vote victory....

At best, the four scheduled debates are likely to be a wash...(Neither candidate will fall on his face, and neither will be spiking the ball in the end zone)

A Republican nominee, of even middling capabilities, given the current economic conditions, should have been able to win big...

I think Jeb Bush would have won this election with 350 plus electoral votes; he has his own well respected as record as Governor of Florida, and his own conservative credentials are so unimpeachable, he wouldn't have had to pander to the right wing base to keep them in line...

But even if Romney's able to eke out a win, I don't see him getting that kind of victory...

In 2008, the country wanted a change. All Obama had to do, was to appear to be up to the task. (Which he did in the debates, and in a masterfully run campaign)

That standard, because of the failure of the past four years, is just as easy for Mr. Romney; but the evidence is growing that he's not up to it...

[Lord Jim]

Here's what Mitt Romney should have said, (and what Ronald Reagan would have said, if the same sort of thing had come up when he was running against Carter):

"In the past few hours, there have been attacks against American diplomatic embassies in Egypt and Cairo...

Several Americans, including our Ambassador to Libya, have lost their lives in these attacks...

In the coming days, it will be appropriate for an analysis of what happened here to be made...

But today, I want to join with all Americans in mourning the loss of life of our heroic diplomatic personnel and extend my heartfelt sympathy to their families"...

[Guinevere]

Listen to the girl from Massachusetts, she knows Mittens and knows what he isn't capable of. How many times do I have to remind you all that the man is an empty suit, who knows he wants to be President, but doesn't have a clue what to do with the job if he gets it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/opini ... h_20120913

Ross Perot, anyone? Although at least he had an actual idea or two....

[oldr_n_wsr]

the man is an empty suit, who knows he wants to be President, but doesn't have a clue what to do with the job if he gets it.

This can describe the challenger as well as the sitting president.

[Lord Jim]

This is very bad news for Governor Romney:

Polls: Obama holds the edge in Florida, Ohio and Virginia

By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News

After two political conventions and heading into the post-Labor Day sprint, President Barack Obama leads Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the key battlegrounds of Florida, Ohio and Virginia, according to new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls of each of these three states.

Click for poll results: Virginia | Ohio | Florida (pdfs)

In both Florida and Virginia, Obama is ahead of Romney by five points among likely voters (including those leaning toward a particular candidate), 49 percent to 44 percent.

In Ohio, the president’s lead is seven points, 50 percent to 43 percent.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... ginia?lite

One can cobble together a theoretical path to 270 for Romney without Ohio or Virginia, but without Florida, (29 electoral votes) it's pretty much "game, set, match"....

If these numbers are confirmed in subsequent polls, unless he demolishes Obama in the debates, (not a likely outcome, in my view) he's pretty much toast.

[Long Run]

I'm not buying it (though it is clear that you spend a lot more time analyzing this sort of thing, and share more good thoughts and information than anybody I know). Obama is at the high water mark after a surprisingly good convention result. Absent outside factors, he will slide from here. Of course, Romney has to seize some of that ground by being competent at campaigning. We are a long way from November, and the convention "bounce", the situation in the Middle East, and most other things that seem to matter today will be ancient history. The one thing that will not change and will remain decisive is 8+% unemployment, middle-income decimated net worth, and all the other poor economic news. Obama will try to change the subject, as he has, but rightly or wrongly, he gets the blame for the lousy economic recovery which should be the reason he ultimately loses.

[Lord Jim]

As usual, you make very valid points, Long Run....

There's still a lot of time between now and election day, and the events in the mid east have certainly not yet risen to the level that they could over shadow the economy as the central issue of the campaign....(though they probably have brought foreign affairs back on the table as an issue)

We're still going to have two more sets of extremely depressing economic figures between now and election day (after the first of October, and the first of November) that are going to work to Romney's advantage...

It ain't over...

But I still can't help but ask myself, if given all the built-in advantages we have running against an incumbent with so much going against him....

An unemployment rate over 8%, and no apparent plan for getting out of this fix....

Why is this even close? (Jeb Bush would be winning this comfortably)

As Laura Ingram said, (stealing James Carville's line from the 2006 Congressional election, referring to the Democrat's retaking control of Congress...) "If we can't win this election with everything this President has going against him, we ought to go into another business"...

I think that's a valid point...

Given the underlying economic fundamentals of this race, we ought to be winning this thing in a cake walk...

350 plus electoral votes, easy...

The fact that we're not ,raises a lot of questions...