There’s no shortage of opinions on how the 2012 U.S.
Presidential Election will turnout, and a lot of the disagreement comes from the different landscapes presented
by the National and State polls. Romney
supporters are encouraged by clear and substantial leads in the Gallup,
Rasmussen, ABC News/Washington Post, and NPR polls. Obama supporters point to the CBS News/NY
Times and Politico polls, but they also point to the state polls, observing
published leads for Obama in Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania. There’s too many states on Obama’s side, they
say, for Obama to lose. The problem is,
the math just does not work. Either most
of the national polls are wrong, or most of the state polls are wrong. And things just get messy from there.
There’s all kinds of anecdotal stories to read and hear, but
there’s also a record we can check.
Generally, there is a relationship between how a candidate does
nationally and how he does in a given state.
As his national support rises, his support in each state rises to some
degree, not at the same rate of course but the better a candidate does
nationally, the states have to reflect it.
So we can look at past state results in relation to national results, to
give us an idea of what should happen.
To keep it simple, for here I will just address battleground states.
First, to identify the battleground states. I disagree a bit with RCP, I don’t think anyone
can seriously pretend that Arizona, Missouri, or Oregon are in play this year,
but I will take the rest: Colorado,
Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Here’s how each state performed, by party, relative to the national
election results for the last four Presidential elections:
Colorado: Democrat candidates average 2.81 points lower
in Colorado than their national support, while Republican candidates average
2.01 points higher in Colorado than their national support.
Florida: Democrat candidates average 0.97 points lower
in Florida than their national support, while Republican candidates average
1.61 points higher in Florida than their national support. Also, Republicans ALWAYS produced slightly
higher results in Florida than their national support.
Iowa: Democrat candidates average 0.80 points
higher in Iowa than their national support, while Republican candidates average
0.62 points lower in Iowa than their national support. Also, Democrats ALWAYS produced slightly
higher results in Iowa than their national support.
Michigan: Democrat candidates average 3.20 points
higher in Michigan than their national support, while Republican candidates
average 2.90 points lower in Michigan than their national support. Also, Democrats ALWAYS produced slightly
higher results in Michigan than their national support.
Minnesota: Democrat candidates average 1.35 points
higher in Minnesota than their national support, while Republican candidates
average 3.26 points lower in Minnesota than their national support.
Nevada: Democrat candidates average 1.45 points lower
in Nevada than their national support, while Republican candidates average 0.16
points higher in Nevada than their national support.
New Hampshire: Democrat candidates average 0.44 points
higher in New Hampshire than their national support, while Republican
candidates average 1.02 points lower in New Hampshire than their national
support.
North Carolina: Democrat candidates average 4.56 points lower
in North Carolina than their national support, while Republican candidates
average 6.31 points higher in North Carolina than their national support. Also, Republicans ALWAYS produced slightly
higher results in North Carolina than their national support.
Ohio: Democrat candidates average 1.21 points lower
in Ohio than their national support, while Republican candidates average 0.92
points higher in Ohio than their national support. Also, Republicans ALWAYS produced slightly
higher results in Ohio than their national support.
Pennsylvania: Democrat candidates average 1.60 points
higher in Pennsylvania than their national support, while Republican candidates
average 1.49 points lower in Pennsylvania than their national support.
Virginia: Democrat candidates average 2.76 points lower
in Virginia than their national support, while Republican candidates average
3.67 points higher in Virginia than their national support. Also, Republicans ALWAYS produced slightly
higher results in Virginia than their national support.
Wisconsin: Democrat candidates average 0.95 points
higher in Wisconsin than their national support, while Republican candidates
average 1.80 points lower in Wisconsin than their national support.
What this tells us, is the likely result of three different
conditions in the national popular vote:
If Barack Obama wins the Popular Vote, he will definitely
win Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and
would likely win Nevada and Ohio .
Romney could still claim Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia
but that would not be enough. Obama
would win re-election by 281 EV to 257.
If Romney wins the Popular Vote with 51.5% or more, he could
win all of the battleground states but Michigan; that state seems out of reach
in any scenario. That could mean a
Romney win by an Electoral margin of 331 EV to 207.
If the two candidates are essentially tied in the Popular
Vote, Obama would claim Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania
and Wisconsin, while Romney would claim Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North
Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. That would
produce a 281-257 Electoral win for Romney.
The actual results will be sure to include some changes from
the script, of course. I think, for
example, it’s more likely this year that New Hampshire would go to Romney and
Nevada would go to Obama than vice versa, but we shall see. The point is that the last several elections
do give us an idea of how things turn out relative to different levels of polls
and voting, and that’s something to keep in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment