I keep hearing how ‘historic’ this election is. After consideration, I do not agree. Oh, I understand the contention. Barack Obama is the first black man to be elected President of the United States. And the media seems to be bragging about how this has advanced the United States, morally, in doing so. But that really does not seem to me to be the case.
First, let’s start with the notion that a black man winning election makes that election ‘historic’. Really now, by that logic we have had a lot of ‘historic’ elections. George Washington was the first president, John Adams the first president not named Washington, various presidents were the first to be elected of their party, Thomas Jefferson was the first president to be elected in a contest decided by the House of Representatives, Martin Van Buren was the first natural-born American to be elected president, John Quincy Adams was the first president elected in an election where citizens voted for their states’ electors, James Buchanan was the first and so far only bachelor to be elected president, John Kennedy was the first Catholic president, and so on and so on. Party, region, constitutional quirk, all kinds of ‘firsts’ have come to pass over the years. Skin tone hardly seems to jump out as a significant reason to call an election ‘historic’.
I do realize that those who are cheering this election as ‘historic’ see this as more than a cosmetic change. But there again, I cannot agree. Barack Obama was hardly the first black man to run for president, even as a candidate for a major political party. Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes preceded him as notable democrat and republican candidates, but even they were not the first. Barack Obama did not win because he had overcome a prejudice against black candidates; he won because of a combination of slick advertising, a popular message, and an economic crisis with the sitting president belonging to the opposing party.
What is strange about Obama’s focus on being the first black president, is that he started his campaign claiming to be beyond that. Beyond playing the race card, beyond attack politics. Of course, we know that was just a lie; Obama’s campaign regularly attacked any criticism as “racism”. Obama’s campaign saw nothing wrong with sexism or age bias, either. McCain was cast as ‘too old’ and Team Obama started countless rumors about his health. Palin was the target of a relentless smear campaign, from lawyers sent to paw through her trash to talk show hosts trashing her success as a governor, this of course coming only after similar smear campaigns against Hillary Clinton. That’s not to say too much against Obama; Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon used smear tactics with similar success, so in that regard Obama was merely following a proven method to winning. But anyone claiming that Barack Obama represented a higher standard of ethics and personal integrity is well off the mark. Barack Obama is a man of minimum qualifications and standards, and so is hard-pressed to find an accomplishment he can point to as genuinely historic. Certainly this election does not promise such lofty hopes.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Friday, November 07, 2008
Hopeless is Not Powerless
In an earlier post, I wrote that now there is no hope. I think the context of that statement is apparent, but perhaps not its meaning. It appears that some folks think that when hope is gone, the war is over, there is no more resistance.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Hope stays the desperate man from using all the tools at his disposal. When hope is lost, so is the last restraint.
My ancestors were murdered in Hungary, in Scotland, and in Pennsylvania, all because they stood up to thugs, tyrants, and oppressors. We have lost everything countless times, yet we still exist. And it is when we are hopeless that we are the most dangerous. I am neither violent nor unlawful, but I am still dangerous to tyrants, and men like me are everywhere.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Hope stays the desperate man from using all the tools at his disposal. When hope is lost, so is the last restraint.
My ancestors were murdered in Hungary, in Scotland, and in Pennsylvania, all because they stood up to thugs, tyrants, and oppressors. We have lost everything countless times, yet we still exist. And it is when we are hopeless that we are the most dangerous. I am neither violent nor unlawful, but I am still dangerous to tyrants, and men like me are everywhere.
Not 1976
Emotions are still running a bit high from the election. That’s actually reasonable, given the stakes, but such emotion often leads to statements which do not really stand up to inspection, one common to this week being that we have returned to 1976. I understood the analogy right away: A new president replacing a party presumed to be in disgrace, that new president having remarkably little experience but supported by a party in control of both chambers of Congress. A public disillusionment with a recent war and a desire to hide from conflicts, coupled with uncertainty about the economy and a moral desire to be good global citizens. At first glance, there seem to be a lot of similarities between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.
But let’s look deeper. First, James Earl Carter was governor of the state of Georgia when he was elected to the White House, while Barack Obama was a senator from the state of Illinois. In some respects, it is all the more remarkable that a sitting senator won election as president for only the second time since 1920. Four of the last five presidents served as governors, in large part because governors are not only executives but also have direct knowledge of the difference between how the federal and state governments function, and this is generally reflected in the manner in which governors explain their positions as presidential candidates. Carter was much more specific and direct in his positions during the 1976 campaign.
Jimmy Carter served seven years as a naval officer, following his graduation from Annapolis. Barack Obama has never served in the military. Jimmy Carter owned and ran a large successful business before entering politics, while Barack Obama has nothing but politics in his resume, no business experience of any kind whatsoever. Jimmy Carter won in the now-traditional ‘Southern Strategy’, based on southern states and majority demographics. Barack Obama won through a media flood and with hundreds of millions of dollars from hidden sponsors targeted at major urban centers and demographic minorities.
Conditions are different as well. Carter inherited a stable economy with modest growth, and a half-global American hegemony of influence and power. Obama inherits an economy in crisis and a global community which threatens key American interests in dozens of locations and issues. Carter inherited a cold war condition, with a reasonable yet implacable enemy with the capability of ending all human life on the planet. Obama inherits a continuing War on Terror, with no main enemy capable of destroying the nation but a myriad number of small but vicious groups which mean to kill Americans and destabilize our nation and our allies, who cannot be reasoned with and who have no limits to their rapacity and cruelty. Women, children, the innocent are not only considered valid targets but are often the preferred targets by these groups. The main enemy of the United States today is a large and populous nation which controls much and influences more, which pretends both civility and a love of peace yet prepares for what it sees as an inevitable confrontation with America, one in which the loser is annihilated.
In 1976, Carter won on issues of re-establishing a standard of accountability in the White House, of addressing real-world needs of Americans, and in a spirit of respect for his opponents. Today, Obama won on vague promises which cannot be fulfilled in practice, on intimidation and social pressure to conform, and with deliberate malice towards anyone who did not fall into line. In 1976, pollution meant carbon monoxide, which kills all living things. Today, pollution means carbon dioxide, which is necessary for plant life and which is generally benign to animals. Carter tried to ‘zero base’ the federal budget, to rein back any spending that could not be proven to be absolutely necessary. Today, Obama has already promised trillions of dollars in new spending, but with no solid answer for how it would be paid for, and how it would prove to be effective.
In 1976, republicans could take comfort in the fact that Gerald Ford only lost by a couple points to Carter, and that Ronald Reagan had already demonstrated a capability and competency that would see him elected four years later. In 2008, McCain‘s campaign was disjointed and lacked a clear message, and there is no clear leader for the party for 2012.
In 1976, there was hope. In 2008, there is no hope.
But let’s look deeper. First, James Earl Carter was governor of the state of Georgia when he was elected to the White House, while Barack Obama was a senator from the state of Illinois. In some respects, it is all the more remarkable that a sitting senator won election as president for only the second time since 1920. Four of the last five presidents served as governors, in large part because governors are not only executives but also have direct knowledge of the difference between how the federal and state governments function, and this is generally reflected in the manner in which governors explain their positions as presidential candidates. Carter was much more specific and direct in his positions during the 1976 campaign.
Jimmy Carter served seven years as a naval officer, following his graduation from Annapolis. Barack Obama has never served in the military. Jimmy Carter owned and ran a large successful business before entering politics, while Barack Obama has nothing but politics in his resume, no business experience of any kind whatsoever. Jimmy Carter won in the now-traditional ‘Southern Strategy’, based on southern states and majority demographics. Barack Obama won through a media flood and with hundreds of millions of dollars from hidden sponsors targeted at major urban centers and demographic minorities.
Conditions are different as well. Carter inherited a stable economy with modest growth, and a half-global American hegemony of influence and power. Obama inherits an economy in crisis and a global community which threatens key American interests in dozens of locations and issues. Carter inherited a cold war condition, with a reasonable yet implacable enemy with the capability of ending all human life on the planet. Obama inherits a continuing War on Terror, with no main enemy capable of destroying the nation but a myriad number of small but vicious groups which mean to kill Americans and destabilize our nation and our allies, who cannot be reasoned with and who have no limits to their rapacity and cruelty. Women, children, the innocent are not only considered valid targets but are often the preferred targets by these groups. The main enemy of the United States today is a large and populous nation which controls much and influences more, which pretends both civility and a love of peace yet prepares for what it sees as an inevitable confrontation with America, one in which the loser is annihilated.
In 1976, Carter won on issues of re-establishing a standard of accountability in the White House, of addressing real-world needs of Americans, and in a spirit of respect for his opponents. Today, Obama won on vague promises which cannot be fulfilled in practice, on intimidation and social pressure to conform, and with deliberate malice towards anyone who did not fall into line. In 1976, pollution meant carbon monoxide, which kills all living things. Today, pollution means carbon dioxide, which is necessary for plant life and which is generally benign to animals. Carter tried to ‘zero base’ the federal budget, to rein back any spending that could not be proven to be absolutely necessary. Today, Obama has already promised trillions of dollars in new spending, but with no solid answer for how it would be paid for, and how it would prove to be effective.
In 1976, republicans could take comfort in the fact that Gerald Ford only lost by a couple points to Carter, and that Ronald Reagan had already demonstrated a capability and competency that would see him elected four years later. In 2008, McCain‘s campaign was disjointed and lacked a clear message, and there is no clear leader for the party for 2012.
In 1976, there was hope. In 2008, there is no hope.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
State Poll Accuracy 2008
The election of 2008 having been concluded for the main part, examination of the numbers is becoming possible. Some of the national polls were quite a bit off, but others seem to have been correct, at least in their final submission. My own opinions on the national polls have been stated and debated and mocked by some, so there is no purpose now to revisiting them. The last venue of interest for now with regard to polls is the state polls. It should be noted that except for Rasmussen, most of the groups doing state polling did not also do national polls. There are two ways to look at the accuracy of state polls; comparing specific polls to the results, and comparing various indicators to the election results. The one may be used to grade the success of various polling agencies, and I shall post on that method in the near future, but the other gives a look at the overall efficacy of state polling, especially that popular practice of aggregating results. With that in mind, here are the results for the salient indicators. I am noting the historical average since 1948, the results from 2004, the Real Clear Politics average of polls, the reweighted average using 2006 demographics, and the actual election results.
Compared to the historical average since 1948, Barack Obama collected less support in 7 states, the same in 1, and more in 42. John McCain collected less support in 26 states, the same in 3, and more in 21 states. On average Obama outperformed the historical average by 5.30 points, while McCain outperformed the historical average by 0.36 points. The reason both candidates can outperform the historical average is the significant participation of third-party candidates in historical elections. The historical average does not appear to be useful as a vector for future behavior. Shorter terms will be examined, but if one appears to match the results from 2008, that term would have to be tested against earlier elections to see if the trend was applicable outside the moment.
Compared to the 2004 election, Barack Obama collected less support than John Kerry in 3 states, the same in 4, and more in 43. John McCain collected less support than George W. Bush in 43 states, the same in 3, and more in 4 states. On average Obama outperformed Kerry’s 2004 results by 4.76 points, while McCain underperformed Bush’s 2004 results by 4.58 points.
Compared the the RCP average for each state, Barack Obama collected less support in 4 states, more in 43, and exactly what was called in 3 states. John McCain collected less support than the RCP average in 5 states, more in 40, and exactly what was called in 5 states. It should be noted that the RCP averages had a certain amount of undecided weight, which is one reason why 83 out of 100 calls were less than the amount received in the actual election. On average Obama outperformed predicted support by RCP by 3.02 points, while McCain outperformed RCP support by 2.80 points.
Compared to the reweighted average for party affiliation, Barack Obama received less support in 2 states, more in 48, and the reweights were exactly right in no states. John McCain collected less support than the reweighted average in 20 states, more in 23, and the reweights were exactlty right in 7 states. On average Obama outperformed the reweighted averages by 5.82 points, while McCain’s average was identical to the reweighted averages. The significance of this datum, especially with 7 exact calls using historical reweights, is that for the republican candidate the reweighting corrects the polls’ undercount of support, but at least in this election, the democratic party candidate’s support was better measured by the unadjusted polls.
More information is needed for a better analysis, but the preliminary indication from this review, is that rather than a ‘Bradley effect’ being in play, the polls at the state level may have understated Obama’s support.
Compared to the historical average since 1948, Barack Obama collected less support in 7 states, the same in 1, and more in 42. John McCain collected less support in 26 states, the same in 3, and more in 21 states. On average Obama outperformed the historical average by 5.30 points, while McCain outperformed the historical average by 0.36 points. The reason both candidates can outperform the historical average is the significant participation of third-party candidates in historical elections. The historical average does not appear to be useful as a vector for future behavior. Shorter terms will be examined, but if one appears to match the results from 2008, that term would have to be tested against earlier elections to see if the trend was applicable outside the moment.
Compared to the 2004 election, Barack Obama collected less support than John Kerry in 3 states, the same in 4, and more in 43. John McCain collected less support than George W. Bush in 43 states, the same in 3, and more in 4 states. On average Obama outperformed Kerry’s 2004 results by 4.76 points, while McCain underperformed Bush’s 2004 results by 4.58 points.
Compared the the RCP average for each state, Barack Obama collected less support in 4 states, more in 43, and exactly what was called in 3 states. John McCain collected less support than the RCP average in 5 states, more in 40, and exactly what was called in 5 states. It should be noted that the RCP averages had a certain amount of undecided weight, which is one reason why 83 out of 100 calls were less than the amount received in the actual election. On average Obama outperformed predicted support by RCP by 3.02 points, while McCain outperformed RCP support by 2.80 points.
Compared to the reweighted average for party affiliation, Barack Obama received less support in 2 states, more in 48, and the reweights were exactly right in no states. John McCain collected less support than the reweighted average in 20 states, more in 23, and the reweights were exactlty right in 7 states. On average Obama outperformed the reweighted averages by 5.82 points, while McCain’s average was identical to the reweighted averages. The significance of this datum, especially with 7 exact calls using historical reweights, is that for the republican candidate the reweighting corrects the polls’ undercount of support, but at least in this election, the democratic party candidate’s support was better measured by the unadjusted polls.
More information is needed for a better analysis, but the preliminary indication from this review, is that rather than a ‘Bradley effect’ being in play, the polls at the state level may have understated Obama’s support.
The Wrong Man Won
Despite the media hype, there are a lot of people who believe that the wrong man won the election on Tuesday. At least 55 million people voted so. This does not mean that President-elect Obama's victory is not genuine, but it reminds us that for all his sneering at the job done by President Bush, Barack the Beginner will be hard-pressed to do as well, much less keep all the promises he made in order to win the office. Take a look at the map, especially by county - Obama won the big cities and the coasts, but there's a lot of America that did not want him and whose support he needs if he is to be effective.
This is not a slap at Obama, however. One reason the Bush Administration was less than effective at times, was that the same conditions existed in his terms. Almost sixty million voters wanted Kerry in 2004, and in 2000 the popular vote went for Gore. In those elections there were a lot of Americans who thought Bush was the wrong man. Look at Clinton, his 1992 election brought less support than Bush took in 2000, and Clinton's 1996 re-election was weaker than Bush's 2004 campaign, never making a clear majority either time, so the 'we did not want him' theme is even stronger in the Clinton years. Even in the Reagan years, folks sometimes forget that tens of millions of Americans voted for Carter, then Mondale. If the 'Great Communicator' could not sell his case to everyone, then no one could. It's culture as much as politics, and personal ethics as much as public policy.
Barack Obama is about to find out that the real test is just beginning. It was one thing to run as a fresh face and a popular image; it's something else to get the results he promised. Even with a democrat-controlled House and Senate, Obama may find out that his policies and proposals still run into obstacles (a lot of folks forget that Clinton's Healthcare plan of 1993 was shot down by a democrat-run Congress). This happens because Congressmen and Senators do listen to their constituents, and an angry public is a powerful force.
This is not a slap at Obama, however. One reason the Bush Administration was less than effective at times, was that the same conditions existed in his terms. Almost sixty million voters wanted Kerry in 2004, and in 2000 the popular vote went for Gore. In those elections there were a lot of Americans who thought Bush was the wrong man. Look at Clinton, his 1992 election brought less support than Bush took in 2000, and Clinton's 1996 re-election was weaker than Bush's 2004 campaign, never making a clear majority either time, so the 'we did not want him' theme is even stronger in the Clinton years. Even in the Reagan years, folks sometimes forget that tens of millions of Americans voted for Carter, then Mondale. If the 'Great Communicator' could not sell his case to everyone, then no one could. It's culture as much as politics, and personal ethics as much as public policy.
Barack Obama is about to find out that the real test is just beginning. It was one thing to run as a fresh face and a popular image; it's something else to get the results he promised. Even with a democrat-controlled House and Senate, Obama may find out that his policies and proposals still run into obstacles (a lot of folks forget that Clinton's Healthcare plan of 1993 was shot down by a democrat-run Congress). This happens because Congressmen and Senators do listen to their constituents, and an angry public is a powerful force.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
I Dissent
Back in 2000, when Al Gore tried to have the election decided by lawyers instead of the voters, the mess was sorted out by a series of court decisions, the last one the United States Supreme Court. When the high court finally ruled that the law in Florida trumped the lawyers for Gore, emotions were still strong, even among the justices. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was particularly incensed with the decision, and she wrote a scathing criticism of the opinion, concluding wth the curt but clear phrase, ”I dissent”.
Short, angry, bitter, and in the minority. I now feel as I believe Justice Ginsberg felt at that time. This election was not, despite the hype, the grand demonstration of egalitarian democracy and the fulfillment of promised ideals. Rather, it proved that a slick thug from Chicago with no executive experience whatsoever can get elected President if he has enough money, is protected from tough questions by a complicit media, and runs a campaign on pure style and hype. It’s not just for con men anymore.
I wrote last month that the polls were wrong. I also said that if I were wrong, I would stand and take my lumps for it. The reader will make his or her own decision, but I would like to address the facts of the polls’ Otober reports, and compare that to the actual election results as they appear to be forming up. I would argue that my statement in October, however it appears now, was valid and should be considered moving ahead.
First, the election results. At this time, President-elect Obama has won 52% of the popular vote, while Senator McCain has received 46% of the popular vote. Against that, let’s look at what the polls were saying on October 21:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: 52-42 Obama
Ipsos/McClatchey: 50-42 Obama
Pew Research: 53-39 Obama
IBD/TIPP: 47-44 Obama
GWU/Battleground: 49-46 Obama
Newsweek: 53-41 Obama
Rasmussen: 52-45 Obama
Gallup (traditional): 50-46 Obama
Gallup (expanded): 51-45 Obama
Diageo/Hotline: 48-43 Obama
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby: 52-40 Obama
ABC News/Wash Post: 54-43 Obama
At first glance, three things seem to be true: Some of the polls were wrong, some were close, and most were closer on Obama’s actual support than McCain’s. However, these polls all show a certain number of undecideds, and this is an important factor to consider – how did the last-minute voters go? For the polls to be accurate, here’s how the undecideds would have to have broken from each poll:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: Obama stays even while McCain gains 4
Ipsos/McClatchey: Obama gains 2, while McCain gains 4
Pew Research: Obama loses 1 while McCain gains 7
IBD/TIPP: Obama gains 5 while McCain gains 2
GWU/Battleground: Obama gains 3 while McCain stays even
Newsweek: Obama loses 1 while McCain gains 5
Rasmussen: Obama stays even while McCain gains 1
Gallup (traditional): Obama gains 2 while McCain stays even
Gallup (expanded): Obama gains 1 while Mccain gains 1
Diageo/Hotline: Obama gains 4 while McCain gains 3
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby: Obama stays even while McCain gains 6
ABC News/Wash Post: Obama loses 2 while McCain gains 3
Note how many of these polls would have to claim McCain made big gains among last-minute voters, for their poll to be correct? Well then, how did last-minute voters actually vote? According to CNN, they were essentially split, with a slight edge going to Obama.
So, that means that – as I said – the polls were generally wrong.
How big a deal is that? Let’s look at the margin in those polls, and compare that to the actual 6-point margin in the election:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: Obama by 10
Ipsos/McClatchey: Obama by 8
Pew Research: Obama by 14
IBD/TIPP: Obama by 3
GWU/Battleground: Obama by 3
Newsweek: Obama by 12
Rasmussen: Obama by 7
Gallup (traditional): Obama by 4
Gallup (expanded): Obama by 6
Diageo/Hotline: Obama by 5
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby: Obama by 12
ABC News/Wash Post: Obama by 11
Notice how much those margins support Obama, and we know now they were inflated. Consider the next fact; turnout this year was down, not up. Down by more than five million votes from 2004. Somebody did not bother to vote this year. But who was it?
Again looking at CNN, it turns out that participation by democrats was 7 points higher than republicans. There was a modest 3 percent increase nationally in democrat voter registration from 2004’s tallies, while republicans dropped turnout by at least 15 percent from 2004. So if you are one of those eight million republicans who thought there was no reason to vote congratulations, you helped get Senator Thug-Light elected President. I have said all along that the election would come down to turnout, the independents, and the undecided voter, in that order.
So there it is. The polls were right and I was wrong, in so far that they predicted republicans would stay home. I disagree, however, that this means the number of people who consider themselves democrats has risen to a 7-point advantage. That will depend on how well Obama governs as President. And I have no confidence at all, that he is competent for the responsibility. That is an area where I would very much like to be wrong, because the consequences are dire indeed if I should this time prove to be right.
I would like to thank everyone who has been reading my work this campaign season. I realize that with the election over and Captain Unicorn having won the Fairy Kingdom, interest in polling and statistics will once again drop off sharply, especially by those who think the headline tells the whole story. I still maintain that the models were wrong, and the publicity of those polls may have played a role in suppressing republican support, but I accept that I will be in the minority in that opinion.
Short, angry, bitter, and in the minority. I now feel as I believe Justice Ginsberg felt at that time. This election was not, despite the hype, the grand demonstration of egalitarian democracy and the fulfillment of promised ideals. Rather, it proved that a slick thug from Chicago with no executive experience whatsoever can get elected President if he has enough money, is protected from tough questions by a complicit media, and runs a campaign on pure style and hype. It’s not just for con men anymore.
I wrote last month that the polls were wrong. I also said that if I were wrong, I would stand and take my lumps for it. The reader will make his or her own decision, but I would like to address the facts of the polls’ Otober reports, and compare that to the actual election results as they appear to be forming up. I would argue that my statement in October, however it appears now, was valid and should be considered moving ahead.
First, the election results. At this time, President-elect Obama has won 52% of the popular vote, while Senator McCain has received 46% of the popular vote. Against that, let’s look at what the polls were saying on October 21:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: 52-42 Obama
Ipsos/McClatchey: 50-42 Obama
Pew Research: 53-39 Obama
IBD/TIPP: 47-44 Obama
GWU/Battleground: 49-46 Obama
Newsweek: 53-41 Obama
Rasmussen: 52-45 Obama
Gallup (traditional): 50-46 Obama
Gallup (expanded): 51-45 Obama
Diageo/Hotline: 48-43 Obama
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby: 52-40 Obama
ABC News/Wash Post: 54-43 Obama
At first glance, three things seem to be true: Some of the polls were wrong, some were close, and most were closer on Obama’s actual support than McCain’s. However, these polls all show a certain number of undecideds, and this is an important factor to consider – how did the last-minute voters go? For the polls to be accurate, here’s how the undecideds would have to have broken from each poll:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: Obama stays even while McCain gains 4
Ipsos/McClatchey: Obama gains 2, while McCain gains 4
Pew Research: Obama loses 1 while McCain gains 7
IBD/TIPP: Obama gains 5 while McCain gains 2
GWU/Battleground: Obama gains 3 while McCain stays even
Newsweek: Obama loses 1 while McCain gains 5
Rasmussen: Obama stays even while McCain gains 1
Gallup (traditional): Obama gains 2 while McCain stays even
Gallup (expanded): Obama gains 1 while Mccain gains 1
Diageo/Hotline: Obama gains 4 while McCain gains 3
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby: Obama stays even while McCain gains 6
ABC News/Wash Post: Obama loses 2 while McCain gains 3
Note how many of these polls would have to claim McCain made big gains among last-minute voters, for their poll to be correct? Well then, how did last-minute voters actually vote? According to CNN, they were essentially split, with a slight edge going to Obama.
So, that means that – as I said – the polls were generally wrong.
How big a deal is that? Let’s look at the margin in those polls, and compare that to the actual 6-point margin in the election:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: Obama by 10
Ipsos/McClatchey: Obama by 8
Pew Research: Obama by 14
IBD/TIPP: Obama by 3
GWU/Battleground: Obama by 3
Newsweek: Obama by 12
Rasmussen: Obama by 7
Gallup (traditional): Obama by 4
Gallup (expanded): Obama by 6
Diageo/Hotline: Obama by 5
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby: Obama by 12
ABC News/Wash Post: Obama by 11
Notice how much those margins support Obama, and we know now they were inflated. Consider the next fact; turnout this year was down, not up. Down by more than five million votes from 2004. Somebody did not bother to vote this year. But who was it?
Again looking at CNN, it turns out that participation by democrats was 7 points higher than republicans. There was a modest 3 percent increase nationally in democrat voter registration from 2004’s tallies, while republicans dropped turnout by at least 15 percent from 2004. So if you are one of those eight million republicans who thought there was no reason to vote congratulations, you helped get Senator Thug-Light elected President. I have said all along that the election would come down to turnout, the independents, and the undecided voter, in that order.
So there it is. The polls were right and I was wrong, in so far that they predicted republicans would stay home. I disagree, however, that this means the number of people who consider themselves democrats has risen to a 7-point advantage. That will depend on how well Obama governs as President. And I have no confidence at all, that he is competent for the responsibility. That is an area where I would very much like to be wrong, because the consequences are dire indeed if I should this time prove to be right.
I would like to thank everyone who has been reading my work this campaign season. I realize that with the election over and Captain Unicorn having won the Fairy Kingdom, interest in polling and statistics will once again drop off sharply, especially by those who think the headline tells the whole story. I still maintain that the models were wrong, and the publicity of those polls may have played a role in suppressing republican support, but I accept that I will be in the minority in that opinion.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Waiting
I hate waiting. Everyone I know hates to wait, but I’m really bad about it, especially if I want to know something I think is really important. So yes, I’m stressing right now and I think a lot of us are. This election really is different from any we have seen before, and not because of race or gender.
One thing which bothers me, is that whichever way the election turns out, there are going to be people – many – who will not accept the results. The polls, the media, and the mainstream news have been so thoroughly pro-Obama all year, that Obama’s victory is being broadcast as ‘inevitable’. If it turns out they were all wrong, then a lot of people will fall even harder on the memes of conspiracy theories and presumption of racism. They will never respect a ‘President McCain’. But what if Obama wins? That will not fare well, either. Americans have seen what happens to the few people brave enough to ask direct questions of Obama, and who have dared to stand up to his “in your face” style of politics. They have noticed how the votes of overseas military are treated, how the ‘party of women’s rights’ treated the most successful national female candidate in history, how those who hire and promote most of the working Americans are repaid, how the party of ‘fairness’ hides its nominee’s funding of hundreds of millions of dollars from shadowy backers, how groups like ACORN treat the sanctity of elections, how the definition of “middle class” changes according to the moment. They see all this and many Americans will not trust a ‘President Obama’. The divide between Americans and their government will become worse, it will not heal with Barack Obama in control, with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi running legislation however they please in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Whatever happens, we are in a time of crisis, and there will be daunting challenges for the next President. Once it is time to put away the tools of the campaign of 2008, the President will have to face the Reality of 2009.
The one comfort we have in all of this, is that it seems God has protected and guided this nation. And this election is in His hands. This is not to say that He would not let us have an incompetent President, or even a very bad one. History tells us not to assume so. But if we trust the Lord, He will yet preserve us, and mayhap our nation will survive what is to come. And perhaps, if we trust Him, we shall yet find that our next President is up to the job. But we will have to wait for that time, to see what happens.
And while I have no choice, I hate to wait.
One thing which bothers me, is that whichever way the election turns out, there are going to be people – many – who will not accept the results. The polls, the media, and the mainstream news have been so thoroughly pro-Obama all year, that Obama’s victory is being broadcast as ‘inevitable’. If it turns out they were all wrong, then a lot of people will fall even harder on the memes of conspiracy theories and presumption of racism. They will never respect a ‘President McCain’. But what if Obama wins? That will not fare well, either. Americans have seen what happens to the few people brave enough to ask direct questions of Obama, and who have dared to stand up to his “in your face” style of politics. They have noticed how the votes of overseas military are treated, how the ‘party of women’s rights’ treated the most successful national female candidate in history, how those who hire and promote most of the working Americans are repaid, how the party of ‘fairness’ hides its nominee’s funding of hundreds of millions of dollars from shadowy backers, how groups like ACORN treat the sanctity of elections, how the definition of “middle class” changes according to the moment. They see all this and many Americans will not trust a ‘President Obama’. The divide between Americans and their government will become worse, it will not heal with Barack Obama in control, with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi running legislation however they please in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Whatever happens, we are in a time of crisis, and there will be daunting challenges for the next President. Once it is time to put away the tools of the campaign of 2008, the President will have to face the Reality of 2009.
The one comfort we have in all of this, is that it seems God has protected and guided this nation. And this election is in His hands. This is not to say that He would not let us have an incompetent President, or even a very bad one. History tells us not to assume so. But if we trust the Lord, He will yet preserve us, and mayhap our nation will survive what is to come. And perhaps, if we trust Him, we shall yet find that our next President is up to the job. But we will have to wait for that time, to see what happens.
And while I have no choice, I hate to wait.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Turners
I’d like you to take a mental walk with me, to explore the Electoral map from the historical perspective. The reason for it will become self-evident, I believe.
The race to the White House is actually 51 separate races, each of which awards between 1 and 55 electoral votes (the 1 comes from Nebraska and Maine, which award individual electoral votes according to results from the state’s precincts. As Mister Gore found out in 2000, it is entirely possible for a candidate to lose the popular vote yet win the election, although because of the way states line up it is almost impossible for Obama to win the election without also winning the popular vote. Anyway, the finish line is set at 270 electoral votes, and the goal therefore is to reach or pass that line.
We’ve heard so much for so long about “blue” states and “red” states, that we start to miss the significance of those tags. First off, some states get tagged “red” or “blue” just because they went one way in the last election. But in some cases, the name is valid. What I want to do here, is separate the states which do not shift much, from the ones which truly are possible losses or gains, what I call “turners”. Any state can be had, of course, under the right circumstances, but the history gives us a good look at how likely that really is to happen.
First, let’s look at the true blue states, states which have generally gone democrat in presidential elections since 1948 and we should expect no different now. Looking at the election results, we see the following:
“Locks” for Obama:
District of Columbia: Since 1960 D 51%+ 100.0%, R 51%+ 0.0%, Democrat last 12 elections, avg since 1960 83.2-13.8 D, 89-09 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require a 92-point swing from 2004. [92.0% chance Obama]
Hawaii: Since 1960 D 51%+ 58.3%, R 51%+ 16.7%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1960 53.2-43.0 D, 54-45 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [73.4% chance Obama]
Massachusetts: Since 1948 D 51%+ 66.7%, R 51%+ 20.0%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 55.1-48.2 R, 62-37 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require an 27-point swing from 2004. [70.1% chance Obama]
Minnesota: Since 1948 D 51%+ 53.3%, R 51%+ 20.0%, Democrat last 8 elections, avg since 1948 47.8-44.7 R, 51-48 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 5-point swing from 2004. [70.5% chance Obama]
“Locks” for McCain:
Alaska: Since 1960 D 51%+ 8.3%, R 51%+ 75.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1960 56.0-40.7 R, 61-36 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 27-point swing from 2004. [80.0% chance McCain]
Arizona: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 54.8-40.6 R, 55-44 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 12-point swing from 2004. [82.8% chance McCain]
Colorado: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 3 elections, avg since 1948 52.3-42.7 R, 52-47 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 7-point swing from 2004. [75.0% chance McCain]
Florida: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 51.5-42.9 R, 52-47 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 7-point swing from 2004. [70.6% chance McCain]
Idaho: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 59.1-34.7 R, 68-30 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 40-point swing from 2004. [77.7% chance McCain]
Indiana: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 60.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 54.8-41.6 R, 60-40 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [80.9% chance McCain]
Kansas: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 86.7%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 57.5-37.8 R, 62-37 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 27-point swing from 2004. [81.7% chance McCain]
Montana: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 3 elections, avg since 1948 52.7-42.5 R, 59-39 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [73.6% chance McCain]
Nebraska: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 86.7%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 60.9-35.2 R, 66-33 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 35-point swing from 2004. [80.9% chance McCain]
New Hampshire: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 66.7%, Democrat last 1 election, avg since 1948 53.5-42.3 R, 50-49 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 2-point swing from 2004. [75.5% chance McCain]
North Dakota: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 56.8-38.3 R, 63-35 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 30-point swing from 2004. [81.2% chance McCain]
Ohio: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 50.5-45.1 R, 50-46 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 6-point swing from 2004. [71.7% chance McCain]
Oklahoma: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 60.3%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 55.1-40.7 R, 66-34 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 34-point swing from 2004. [74.0% chance McCain]
South Dakota: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 54.9-41.5 R, 60-38 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 24-point swing from 2004. [81.5% chance McCain]
Utah: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 60.5-34.4 R, 72-26 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 48-point swing from 2004. [74.2% chance McCain]
Virginia: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 60.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 52.3-42.1 R, 54-45 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [79.4% chance McCain]
Wyoming: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 58.3-37.2 R, 69-29 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 42-point swing from 2004. [74.4% chance McCain]
States leaning Obama
California: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.1-47.3 R, 54-44 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [56.2% chance Obama]
Connecticut: Since 1948 D 51%+ 33.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 47.9-47.9 tie, 54-44 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [55.0% chance Obama]
Delaware: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.0-47.9 D, 53-45 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require a 10-point swing from 2004. [54.7% chance Obama]
Illinois: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.5-48.3 R, 55-45 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 12-point swing from 2004. [54.4% chance Obama]
Maryland: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 49.6-46.8 D, 56-43 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 15-point swing from 2004. [57.2% chance Obama]
New York: Since 1948 D 51%+ 46.7%, R 51%+ 26.7%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 50.9-45.5 D, 58-40 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 19-point swing from 2004. [57.7% chance Obama]
Rhode Island: Since 1948 D 51%+ 53.3%, R 51%+ 26.7%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 54.8-39.6 D, 59-39 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [61.3% chance Obama]
Vermont: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 60.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 50.9-44.2 D, 59-39 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [66.2% chance Obama]
Washington: Since 1948 D 51%+ 46.7%, R 51%+ 20.0%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 50.9-45.3 D, 53-46 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 9-point swing from 2004. [69.1% chance Obama]
States leaning McCain:
Alabama: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 56.8-33.5 R, 63-37 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 28-point swing from 2004. [56.8% chance McCain]
Arkansas: Since 1948 D 51%+ 46.7%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 48.6-45.1 D, 54-44 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 12-point swing from 2004. [55.4% chance McCain]
Georgia: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 3 elections, avg since 1948 49.0-45.7 D, 57-41 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require an 18-point swing from 2004. [54.7% chance McCain]
Iowa: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 1 election, avg since 1948 50.1-46.3 R, 50-49 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 3-point swing from 2004. [67.4% chance McCain]
Kentucky: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 50.4-46.1 R, 60-40 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [62.5% chance McCain]
Louisiana: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 46.4-42.6 R, 57-42 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 17-point swing from 2004. [58.8% chance McCain]
Mississippi: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 47.2-37.3 R, 59-40 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 20-point swing from 2004. [61.9% chance McCain]
Missouri: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 49.1-48.1 R, 53-46 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 9-point swing from 2004. [59.8% chance McCain]
Nevada: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 52.3-42.4 R, 50-48 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 3-point swing from 2004. [69.0% chance McCain]
New Jersey: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 49.7-46.3 R, 53-46 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require an 8-point swing from 2004. [56.2% chance McCain]
New Mexico: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 1 election, avg since 1948 50.3-46.2 R, 50-49 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 2-point swing from 2004. [62.8% chance McCain]
South Carolina: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 48.4-41.5 R, 58-41 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 19-point swing from 2004. [61.5% chance McCain]
Tennessee: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 49.6-45.4 R, 57-43 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 16-point swing from 2004. [66.3% chance McCain]
Texas: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 50.5-44.9 R, 61-38 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 25-point swing from 2004. [59.7% chance McCain]
West Virginia: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 48.3-47.1 R, 56-43 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 15-point swing from 2004. [58.1% chance McCain]
Toss-up States:
Maine: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 49.8-45.5 R, 56-43 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 25-point swing from 2004. [51.6% chance Obama]
Michigan: Since 1948 D 51%+ 33.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.2-47.8 R, 51-48 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 5-point swing from 2004. [53.3% chance McCain]
North Carolina: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 49.8-45.7 R, 56-44 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 14-point swing from 2004. [51.6% chance Obama]
Oregon: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 53.3-46.7 R, 51-47 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 6-point swing from 2004. [50.2% chance Obama]
Pennsylvania: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.8-48.0 D, 51-48 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 5-point swing from 2004. [51.5% chance Obama]
Wisconsin: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 48.7-46.9 R, 50-49 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 2-point swing from 2004. [52.3% chance McCain]
The percentage chance of a candidate taking a state is a formula incorporating the percentage of wins by a party in a state since 1948, the percentage of elections where a party candidate claims 51% or more of the vote, the average support for a party in a state since 1948, the lowest and highest support levels for a party in a state since 1948, the RCP average polling for each candidate, and the 2004 results by party.
Please note that these are historical patterns only, and do not take into account demographic changes. But it does lend some historical perspective on the situation. Take it as you will.
The race to the White House is actually 51 separate races, each of which awards between 1 and 55 electoral votes (the 1 comes from Nebraska and Maine, which award individual electoral votes according to results from the state’s precincts. As Mister Gore found out in 2000, it is entirely possible for a candidate to lose the popular vote yet win the election, although because of the way states line up it is almost impossible for Obama to win the election without also winning the popular vote. Anyway, the finish line is set at 270 electoral votes, and the goal therefore is to reach or pass that line.
We’ve heard so much for so long about “blue” states and “red” states, that we start to miss the significance of those tags. First off, some states get tagged “red” or “blue” just because they went one way in the last election. But in some cases, the name is valid. What I want to do here, is separate the states which do not shift much, from the ones which truly are possible losses or gains, what I call “turners”. Any state can be had, of course, under the right circumstances, but the history gives us a good look at how likely that really is to happen.
First, let’s look at the true blue states, states which have generally gone democrat in presidential elections since 1948 and we should expect no different now. Looking at the election results, we see the following:
“Locks” for Obama:
District of Columbia: Since 1960 D 51%+ 100.0%, R 51%+ 0.0%, Democrat last 12 elections, avg since 1960 83.2-13.8 D, 89-09 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require a 92-point swing from 2004. [92.0% chance Obama]
Hawaii: Since 1960 D 51%+ 58.3%, R 51%+ 16.7%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1960 53.2-43.0 D, 54-45 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [73.4% chance Obama]
Massachusetts: Since 1948 D 51%+ 66.7%, R 51%+ 20.0%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 55.1-48.2 R, 62-37 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require an 27-point swing from 2004. [70.1% chance Obama]
Minnesota: Since 1948 D 51%+ 53.3%, R 51%+ 20.0%, Democrat last 8 elections, avg since 1948 47.8-44.7 R, 51-48 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 5-point swing from 2004. [70.5% chance Obama]
“Locks” for McCain:
Alaska: Since 1960 D 51%+ 8.3%, R 51%+ 75.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1960 56.0-40.7 R, 61-36 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 27-point swing from 2004. [80.0% chance McCain]
Arizona: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 54.8-40.6 R, 55-44 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 12-point swing from 2004. [82.8% chance McCain]
Colorado: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 3 elections, avg since 1948 52.3-42.7 R, 52-47 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 7-point swing from 2004. [75.0% chance McCain]
Florida: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 51.5-42.9 R, 52-47 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 7-point swing from 2004. [70.6% chance McCain]
Idaho: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 59.1-34.7 R, 68-30 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 40-point swing from 2004. [77.7% chance McCain]
Indiana: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 60.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 54.8-41.6 R, 60-40 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [80.9% chance McCain]
Kansas: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 86.7%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 57.5-37.8 R, 62-37 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 27-point swing from 2004. [81.7% chance McCain]
Montana: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 3 elections, avg since 1948 52.7-42.5 R, 59-39 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [73.6% chance McCain]
Nebraska: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 86.7%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 60.9-35.2 R, 66-33 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 35-point swing from 2004. [80.9% chance McCain]
New Hampshire: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 66.7%, Democrat last 1 election, avg since 1948 53.5-42.3 R, 50-49 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 2-point swing from 2004. [75.5% chance McCain]
North Dakota: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 56.8-38.3 R, 63-35 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 30-point swing from 2004. [81.2% chance McCain]
Ohio: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 50.5-45.1 R, 50-46 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 6-point swing from 2004. [71.7% chance McCain]
Oklahoma: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 60.3%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 55.1-40.7 R, 66-34 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 34-point swing from 2004. [74.0% chance McCain]
South Dakota: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 54.9-41.5 R, 60-38 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 24-point swing from 2004. [81.5% chance McCain]
Utah: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 80.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 60.5-34.4 R, 72-26 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 48-point swing from 2004. [74.2% chance McCain]
Virginia: Since 1948 D 51%+ 6.7%, R 51%+ 60.0%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 52.3-42.1 R, 54-45 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [79.4% chance McCain]
Wyoming: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 10 elections, avg since 1948 58.3-37.2 R, 69-29 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 42-point swing from 2004. [74.4% chance McCain]
States leaning Obama
California: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.1-47.3 R, 54-44 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [56.2% chance Obama]
Connecticut: Since 1948 D 51%+ 33.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 47.9-47.9 tie, 54-44 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require an 11-point swing from 2004. [55.0% chance Obama]
Delaware: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.0-47.9 D, 53-45 D in 2004. For McCain to win, would require a 10-point swing from 2004. [54.7% chance Obama]
Illinois: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.5-48.3 R, 55-45 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 12-point swing from 2004. [54.4% chance Obama]
Maryland: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 49.6-46.8 D, 56-43 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 15-point swing from 2004. [57.2% chance Obama]
New York: Since 1948 D 51%+ 46.7%, R 51%+ 26.7%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 50.9-45.5 D, 58-40 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 19-point swing from 2004. [57.7% chance Obama]
Rhode Island: Since 1948 D 51%+ 53.3%, R 51%+ 26.7%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 54.8-39.6 D, 59-39 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [61.3% chance Obama]
Vermont: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 60.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 50.9-44.2 D, 59-39 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [66.2% chance Obama]
Washington: Since 1948 D 51%+ 46.7%, R 51%+ 20.0%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 50.9-45.3 D, 53-46 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 9-point swing from 2004. [69.1% chance Obama]
States leaning McCain:
Alabama: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 56.8-33.5 R, 63-37 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 28-point swing from 2004. [56.8% chance McCain]
Arkansas: Since 1948 D 51%+ 46.7%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 48.6-45.1 D, 54-44 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 12-point swing from 2004. [55.4% chance McCain]
Georgia: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 3 elections, avg since 1948 49.0-45.7 D, 57-41 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require an 18-point swing from 2004. [54.7% chance McCain]
Iowa: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 1 election, avg since 1948 50.1-46.3 R, 50-49 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 3-point swing from 2004. [67.4% chance McCain]
Kentucky: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 50.4-46.1 R, 60-40 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 22-point swing from 2004. [62.5% chance McCain]
Louisiana: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 46.4-42.6 R, 57-42 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 17-point swing from 2004. [58.8% chance McCain]
Mississippi: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 47.2-37.3 R, 59-40 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 20-point swing from 2004. [61.9% chance McCain]
Missouri: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 73.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 49.1-48.1 R, 53-46 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 9-point swing from 2004. [59.8% chance McCain]
Nevada: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 52.3-42.4 R, 50-48 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 3-point swing from 2004. [69.0% chance McCain]
New Jersey: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 49.7-46.3 R, 53-46 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require an 8-point swing from 2004. [56.2% chance McCain]
New Mexico: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 53.3%, Republican last 1 election, avg since 1948 50.3-46.2 R, 50-49 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 2-point swing from 2004. [62.8% chance McCain]
South Carolina: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 48.4-41.5 R, 58-41 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 19-point swing from 2004. [61.5% chance McCain]
Tennessee: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 49.6-45.4 R, 57-43 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 16-point swing from 2004. [66.3% chance McCain]
Texas: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 50.5-44.9 R, 61-38 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 25-point swing from 2004. [59.7% chance McCain]
West Virginia: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 46.7%, Republican last 2 elections, avg since 1948 48.3-47.1 R, 56-43 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 15-point swing from 2004. [58.1% chance McCain]
Toss-up States:
Maine: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 49.8-45.5 R, 56-43 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 25-point swing from 2004. [51.6% chance Obama]
Michigan: Since 1948 D 51%+ 33.3%, R 51%+ 40.0%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.2-47.8 R, 51-48 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 5-point swing from 2004. [53.3% chance McCain]
North Carolina: Since 1948 D 51%+ 40.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Republican last 7 elections, avg since 1948 49.8-45.7 R, 56-44 R in 2004. For Obama to win would require a 14-point swing from 2004. [51.6% chance Obama]
Oregon: Since 1948 D 51%+ 13.3%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 53.3-46.7 R, 51-47 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 6-point swing from 2004. [50.2% chance Obama]
Pennsylvania: Since 1948 D 51%+ 26.7%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 4 elections, avg since 1948 48.8-48.0 D, 51-48 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 5-point swing from 2004. [51.5% chance Obama]
Wisconsin: Since 1948 D 51%+ 20.0%, R 51%+ 33.3%, Democrat last 5 elections, avg since 1948 48.7-46.9 R, 50-49 D in 2004. For McCain to win would require a 2-point swing from 2004. [52.3% chance McCain]
The percentage chance of a candidate taking a state is a formula incorporating the percentage of wins by a party in a state since 1948, the percentage of elections where a party candidate claims 51% or more of the vote, the average support for a party in a state since 1948, the lowest and highest support levels for a party in a state since 1948, the RCP average polling for each candidate, and the 2004 results by party.
Please note that these are historical patterns only, and do not take into account demographic changes. But it does lend some historical perspective on the situation. Take it as you will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
