As anybody who has at least a passing interest in politics understands, presidential elections in the United States are not determined by which candidate receives the most votes nationwide, but rather by which candidate receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Because the Electoral College (EC) has 538 total votes, at least 270 electoral votes (EVs) are needed by a presidential candidate to secure victory.
Because of the winner-take-all system of the EC (with the exceptions of Nebraska and Maine), one fault of the EC is that votes in a politically uncompetitive state, such as New York or Texas, can essentially be wasted while votes in highly competitive states, such as Ohio and Florida, have more of an impact. There is no benefit for Barack Obama if he beats Mitt Romney in New Jersey by 1 percentage point or by 15 percentage points because the EV total would remain the same. This is how George W. Bush was able to narrowly defeat Al Gore in the 2000 election. Gore won by healthy margins in states that were less consequential while Bush eked out several squeakers in states that were more significant.
Keeping this in mind, The 7-10 will endeavor to handicap the general state of the 2012 presidential campaign in terms of how both major candidates (Obama and Romney) can amass the 270 EVs necessary to either ensure Obama's second term as president or elevate Romney to the presidency. This post will focus on Obama's paths to 270; the next post in this installment will address Romney's paths.
Here are the results of the 2008 presidential race (in which Obama defeated John McCain 365-173):
This map will serve as the basis for all reasonable paths to 270 in 2012. However, it must be adjusted to account for the effects of redistricting (for Maine and Nebraska) and the shifting of allotted EVs because of population shifts as reflected in the decennial census. According to the 2010 Census, more Americans are leaving the industrial Midwest and Northeast and moving to the West and South. The booming Latino population and immigration are also contributing to growth in the West and the South. Taking these demographic changes into consideration, if the 2008 election were based on the 2012 electoral map, Obama still would have beaten McCain handily, but by a marginally smaller 358-180 margin:
We start this analysis by making a few assumptions based on Obama's performance in the 2008 race, general polling data, and socioeconomic trends:
1. "Red" (Republican) states that Obama narrowly lost in 2008 are out of reach for him in 2012. If Obama is campaigning in Montana and Missouri this fall, then that likely indicates a Romney wipeout. Slightly redder states that are potentially competitive in future election years due to demographic shifts (Arizona, Georgia and possibly even Texas) are also off the table. This keeps Obama at 358EVs.
2. Historically red states that went "blue" (Democratic) in 2008 will revert to their traditional leanings in 2012. Indiana and North Carolina were probably the two biggest surprises of 2008. If Obama is still competing in these two states in October, Romney is probably in serious trouble. Both states are culturally conservative to moderate, but perhaps the Black, Latino, and college vote may save Obama in North Carolina while the auto workers in Indiana may reward him for providing emergency assistance for the auto industry. For now, The 7-10 will put these states in Romney's column and lower Obama's EV total to 332.
Barring unforeseen circumstances, such as a military strike on Iran or a sudden drop in the unemployment rate, this map, a 332-206 Obama win, is probably the best the president can do in November. It assumes that the other more "purple" (political battleground) states, such as Ohio and Colorado, all break for Obama and that Romney is unable to pick off a blue state like Pennsylvania or Michigan. This map appears to be a healthy victory for Obama but it would likely obscure a much closer popular vote. Keeping in mind that this map is probably Obama's best-case scenario, we now must adopt a more pragmatic or sobering set of circumstances for the Obama team. These scenarios are listed in order of most likely to least likely.
3. Iowa is going to be a very difficult state for Obama to hold. While its unemployment rate is much lower than the national average, social issues may torpedo the president in the very state that launched his presidential campaign. Obama's stance on gay marriage probably will not play well in a state that recalled three state supreme court justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage. And because Obama ran for the Democratic Party's nomination unopposed this year, Republicans had the airwaves all to themselves. Even though these ads were generally targeted against other Republicans, their antipathy towards Obama was a common theme. After hearing months and months of ads about "repealing Obamacare" and "ending Obama's reckless spending," Obama's popularity may have suffered even further. Obama can still win this state because of its favorable economic conditions and the possibility that voters may tune out Republican attacks because of saturation, but this state is highly vulnerable to being poached by Romney. This reduces Obama's EV total to 326.
4. Florida is the mother of all swing states. Only 527 votes separated Bush and Gore in 2000. It's also worth so many EVs that a loss in this state could only be offset by winning two or three medium-sized states elsewhere. Romney almost certainly has to win Florida if he is to have any plausible chance of defeating Obama. If Obama holds onto Florida, that forces Romney to try to flip Ohio, Michigan or Wisconsin. Florida is a highly gerrymandered state at the state level and is dominated by Republicans in its state legislature. It also gave rise to the conservative Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Rick Scott. While Governor Scott may be unpopular, Rubio is considerably better liked. Florida was also hit particularly hard by the crisis in the housing market. Obama can hold this state, but it will come at a tremendous financial cost because of the sheer number and size of Florida's media markets (Miami, Orlando, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Pensacola, etc.). If Obama is at a disadvantage in fundraising, he might not have the resources to match Republican spending in the state on advertising and voter outreach. This could force Obama to cede Florida to Romney so he can hold more critical states, such as Colorado and Ohio. Losing this state would drop Obama to 297 EVs.
5. Nevada is getting the worst of both the housing crisis and high unemployment. That alone should make Romney's economic message may resonate more strongly than it would in a state that is in a better economic situation, such as Virginia. This state overwhelmingly went for Romney in the Republican primaries. There is also a significant Mormon population in Nevada that could turn out for him. The state also has a popular Republican governor and a competitive Senate race that could drive up turnout. At only 6 EVs, Nevada is not nearly as critical as a state like Virginia or Florida, but it does give Obama less margin for error regarding ceding other combinations of battleground states. This would drop Obama to 291 EVs and result in the following map:
This leaves the following seven contested states (listed in order from most vulnerable to least vulnerable for Obama): Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. These states will all likely be decided by fewer than 5 percentage points for either Obama or Romney. But the advantage for Obama with these seven states is that at 291 EVs, Obama still has several viable paths to victory. Obama can still secure 270 EVs even if he loses the following combinations of states:
1. Colorado and Wisconsin
2. Ohio
3. Virginia and New Hampshire
4. Wisconsin, Nevada and Virginia (if he holds Nevada)
5. Ohio and New Hampshire (if he wins the congressional district in Omaha, Nebraska)
These scenarios illustrate how Obama has to be at least a slight favorite to win reelection in June despite his mid-40 approval ratings and the tightness of the national polls. The onus is on Romney to actually take states away from Obama. Obama has the luxury of ceding marginal states (e.g., Indiana) at the expense of shoring up more critical ones (e.g., Ohio and Virginia).
A growing Latino population and Romney's "self deportation" remarks from the Republican primaries may save Obama in Colorado. Colorado also has a marijuana legalization initiative on the ballot that may drive up youth turnout even if Obama is opposed to its legalization.
Ohio voters will probably support Obama in November simply because he supported rescuing Detroit. More importantly, he he can remind voters that Romney penned an opinion piece entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". That alone should make Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and even Pennsylvania uphill climbs for the former Massachusetts governor. If Ohio stays blue, then Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania will almost certainly remain blue as well.
Virginia has a low unemployment rate and benefits from government contractors and federal employees in the Washington suburbs in the northern part of the state. Virginia's population growth is also concentrated in these northern suburbs which have a decidedly more mid-Atlantic (more diverse and immigrant-friendly) feel than Southern feel like towns in the southern part of the state. A combination of Black voters in Richmond, socially moderate-to-liberal voters in the DC suburbs, and voters who believe Republican Governor Bob McDonnell may have overreached or mishandled controversial issues related to women's health may be enough to offset Romney's likely victories in the military-heavy Hampton Roads area (Norfolk, Chesapeake, etc.) and the rural areas of southern and southwestern Virginia. Demographically, Virginia may be trending blue in the long term. One other important factor is a high-profile Senate race between former Republican Governor George Allen and former Democratic Governor Tim Kaine. The winner of this Senate campaign will almost certainly match the winner of its electoral votes.
New Hampshire is a tough state to analyze. Romney was the governor of neighboring Massachusetts and won the state handily in the GOP primaries. Obama also lost the state handily to Hillary Clinton in 2008. But New Hampshire also elected a Democratic Governor John Lynch four times. And on social issues, New Hampshire is not the same as Georgia. Whether the libertarian leanings of New Hampshire concerning taxation offset the socially moderate-to-liberal leanings of Northeasterners in general is up for debate. Romney is not going to win Massachusetts. But will he make a play for New Hampshire in the fall?
To be sure, the 2012 election will probably resemble the 2004 election more than the 2008 election. But because individual battleground state polling matters more than national polling, it would seem that Obama has a slight, but noticeable and important advantage regarding the electoral calculus. Even though this election will be close, perhaps campaign strategist David Axelrod said it best when he said, "I would rather be us than them."
(Coming next: Romney's Electoral Calculus: June 2012)
4 comment(s):
Presidential elections don't have to be this way.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the primaries.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
Superb analysis...
...but I wish they awarded electoral college votes proportionally.
It would be interesting...
I agree with Reginald. Very well thought out, very professional. But of course I have to toss in my 2 cents' worth. :)
Florida and Ohio have corrupt Republican administrations and legislative majorities. Both have extremely proactive, well-financed, anything-to-win conservative Republican politcal infrastructures.
Yes, Obama acted quickly, deftly and effectively to save the auto industry, and with it at least 1 million jobs. In just about every other way imaginable, Obama has been labor's sunshine soldier who's nowhere to be found when push comes to shove.
If Obama wins Ohio it will be because a whole lot blue-collar workers, union and nonunion alike, suck it up and push hard to prevail in the face of all the voter-suppression, jiggered voting machines and other dirty tricks Kasich and his big-money backers can arrange. It will be because, they take V.P. Joe Biden's advice and consider the alternative.
An Obama Ohio win can happen if enough non-conservative-Republican voters are convinced a Romney presidency will be as bad for them and for the country as there is every logical reason to believe one would be. But it's a long way from a sure thing.
In Florida, if enough blacks, Hispanics and blue-collar people mobilize, register and vote despite all the impediments crooked Republicans in and out of state government are putting in their way, and if enough older people can be convinced that a black president who's fair-minded and competent is better for them than a white biz-whiz who says Paul Ryan's Medicare-destroying budgets is the way to go, Obama could win the state. However, if it's close, he and the Democratic Party had better have an army of lawyers and "operatives" on the ground there to keep Republicans from stealing the Florida election the way they did in 2000.
One final note. If Obama could win back the support his months of squandering political capital and momentum for meaningful health care reform lost for him, all in a futile attempt to gain one or two Republican senators' support, he'd have this election in the bag.
Likewise, if Obama could belatedly win the votes that breaking up the nation's dozen biggest banks and holding out for really tough and effective financial industry reform would've gained for him, he'd have blue skies and green lights all the way to re-election.
Obama's biggest failing is that he evidently believed Americans wanted a mild-mannered healer and cool-tempered manager for president. What most Americans wanted, the change they hoped for, was an impassioned reformer ready to be as implacable and tough as the obstructionists opposing reform, and willing sometimes to go to the wall for something he believed to be right, no watering it down, even if the battle was likely to be a losing one.
Sometimes a few lost battles are required if a war is to be won. That's how leaders of the Civil Rights movement looked at it. They suffered some lost battles but kept at it until they won the war.
Good to see you back posting.
Dr. Williams,
I am a strong advocate of allocating EVs proportionally. That would prevent blowout elections and give third parties a larger voice in the process. And if you're a Republican in New York or a Democrat in Alabama, your vote would actually be worth something.
-----
Toto,
The NPV bill you reference has merit. I thought there was already a compact among 20-some odd states that stated their EVs would automatically go to the winner of the popular vote. I am not sure if the combined EVs of these 20-something states is at least 270, however. I appreciate the comment.
-----
Mr. Anderson,
A lot of states, especially battleground states, are awash in Republican red in their state legislatures. Many of them have passed voter ID laws that disproportionately impact Democratic-leaning constituencies, such as Blacks, Latinos, and even the elderly. Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida have tinkered with this stuff, as far as I know. If these stringent new laws are able to shave off 1-2% of the vote, that might be enough to tilt a state towards Romney in November. But this is the price for thinking "all parties are the same" or that "your vote doesn't matter." If you don't vote, you get the government you deserve.
-----
To anyone else who used to be a regular reader, I cannot make any guarantees that I'll be able to update The 7-10 as often as I used to back in 2007-08 (it sometimes takes 3-4 hours to make one post), but I am trying to bring this blog back into the conversation, be it at the local, state or even national level. Thank you all for supporting this blog.
Post a Comment