Most of the talk regarding the state of American politics recently has been about how the results of the 2012 election indicate that future elections will be difficult for the Republicans if they don't change their policies. They're right, but not, I think, in the way the Democrats and the liberal press think.
Truth is Republicans have a bigger problem going into 2016 than they imagine. The problem isn't with winning the Presidency, it's with winning the Senate. Before 2012 Democrats held a 4-vote majority, and now they have a 6-vote majority. In normal election years, even when Presidents are elected, the opposition usually picks up 1 or usually 2 seats in the Senate. It happened with Nixon. It happened with Reagan. And it even happened with Clinton. If that had happened to Obama, the Democrats would now have a 2 vote majority. What does this matter? Republicans are well placed in a number of Red states to pick up Senate seats in 2014, but with the current 6-vote margin Republicans will really need to take six to eight seats to win control. That's the not so good news. The bad news comes in 2016.
Only 1/3rd of the Senate seats come up every two years, and the reason Republicans didn't take over the Senate in 2010 is because they already had a majority of those seats contested that year. Well these are the same seats that will be contested in 2016 and Republicans now hold 24 of those 34 seats, which means that even if Republicans win the Presidency in 2016 they're not only not likely to win any more of the Senate, they're actually likely to lose a couple seats. So unless they pick up 8 seats in '14 (which is really big for 1 election) the Democrats will almost certainly control the Senate after the 2016 election, EVEN if Republicans win the White House.
And this assumes Republicans win their 6 in 2014. If they fall short of 6 next year, Republicans will have to run in 2016 on the assumption that Democrats will still be in charge in 2017, fundamentally changing the dynamic of the next Presidential race. They won't be able to run a partisan campaign. If Republicans had gained 2 instead of losing 2 in 2012, the Democratic majority would have almost certainly been defeated in 2014, regardless of Republican weaknesses and they'd have been a good bet to hold the Senate in 2016 assuming they won the Presidency.
Now things look bleak. Republicans didn't lose to Barack Obama due to changing demographics as so many have assumed last year. The election was won in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, and New Hampshire. In 3 of these states the minority vote is negligible. In Colorado the Hispanic vote is significant but not yet the swing vote, and in Florida that vote is even smaller. In Virginia, the Black vote is smaller than in most southern states and there is no guarantee they'll give just any Democrat the same support they've given President Obama. Republicans could easily have won the election last year.
But on top of this challenge they now face really long odds on being able to promise partisan solutions in the 2016 election.
And the reason for all this is that in 2012 Republicans lost 4 seats in states that Romney carried for President. Their real deficit is with Independent voters in these mostly Western and Midwestern Republican states. If Republicans do poorly there again in 2014 they'll almost have to forfeit the 2016 election to have any chance of governing in the near future. In fact, should she run, Hillary Clinton would be able to run on the assumption that Democrats are a better bet to retake the House than Republicans are to take the Senate.
The Deck is now stacked against them.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Rob Portman and the Arrogance of the GOP
Do We the People govern or do our politicians rule for us, supplanting our views
with their own? This is the question I am asking myself today as I read news that Ohio
Senator Rob Portman has decided to take it upon himself to overturn the will of those
who elected him by declaring (without an election) that HE supports legalizing Gay
Marriage. His decision only serves to underscore the degree to which Republicans
tend to govern according to the Leader principle, that is, allowing our, 'leaders,' to decide
what Republicans stand for instead of Republicans themselves. And allowing the Left
to govern by default rather than giving the American people a democratic choice.
More and more, as I start to see things in Mid-Life terms, I am coming to the conclusion
that the Baby Boom generation (as they have been termed) doesn't know how to lead, except
by reading polls. This, of course, is not leadership, but pandering.
The only polls that should really count are the ones on election day. You know, like the
one where Rob Portman was elected as a Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage Republican. And the
opinions of the American people are pretty decisive on this question. This is not a
Republican vs Democrat issue. Millions of Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters are also
quite traditional in their opinions on Marriage.
Before last years Presidential election, the question of whether marriage was between one
Man and one Woman had been placed before the voters directly as a ballot proposition
Thirty-Two times and every....Single.....TIME the decision was YES. Even in liberal-
leaning states like California a majority voted in favor of Marriage, with the votes of
Black and Asian Americans providing the margin of victory.
Given this decisive unanimity on the question of Marriage it should have been a given that
Republicans would make it a priority to place a Marriage amendment to the Constitution
before the voters to settle this question for the time being and prevent the courts from
misconstruing Civil Rights law contrary to the opinion of the American People.
Opponents of traditional Marriage will point to the Presidential election last year and
votes in Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington, overturning Marriage in favor
of a Gay Right to marry as an indication that this battle is over and their opinion is final.
In each of these genuinely Blue Democratic states, however, the vote was exceedingly
narrow (with votes between only 51 and 53 percent of the total) and really begs the
question of whether the outcome would have been the same if Barack Obama had not
been on the ballot, and therefore whether the question should not be revisited in 2014.
Which brings me back to the fecklessness of Ohio Sen. Rob Portman and the corruption
of the Republican Party. Why is it that with the overwhelming support for Marriage as
it has always been, EVEN in staunchly Democratic states that Republicans in Washington
feel they have the right to overturn over a decade of democratic votes with only one election?
Again, I sense the weak-knees of the Baby Boom generation deciding that their "cooler,
hipper, cohort,' are right and they still want to be cool and should just give in and go along.
Each of these elections should be revisited in 2014. Voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota
and Washington should be given the opportunity to decide if they they feel the same way
2 years on, and Senator Portman should have to face his Ohio voters immediately in a Recall
election so that the American People's authority is not supplanted by the whims of elitists like
him.
Opponents will say the Constitution does not provide for the immediate recall of U.S. Senators.
But given the arrogant elitism that dominates Washington, D.C. and BOTH major political
parties can We as Americans any longer afford not to have that choice? I think not.
The Constitution should be amended to provide for the Recall of U.S. Senators to ensure it
is THEIR views and not the changing views of ONE man alone that is the Law of this country.
On this and EVERY issue OUR government decides.
with their own? This is the question I am asking myself today as I read news that Ohio
Senator Rob Portman has decided to take it upon himself to overturn the will of those
who elected him by declaring (without an election) that HE supports legalizing Gay
Marriage. His decision only serves to underscore the degree to which Republicans
tend to govern according to the Leader principle, that is, allowing our, 'leaders,' to decide
what Republicans stand for instead of Republicans themselves. And allowing the Left
to govern by default rather than giving the American people a democratic choice.
More and more, as I start to see things in Mid-Life terms, I am coming to the conclusion
that the Baby Boom generation (as they have been termed) doesn't know how to lead, except
by reading polls. This, of course, is not leadership, but pandering.
The only polls that should really count are the ones on election day. You know, like the
one where Rob Portman was elected as a Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage Republican. And the
opinions of the American people are pretty decisive on this question. This is not a
Republican vs Democrat issue. Millions of Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters are also
quite traditional in their opinions on Marriage.
Before last years Presidential election, the question of whether marriage was between one
Man and one Woman had been placed before the voters directly as a ballot proposition
Thirty-Two times and every....Single.....TIME the decision was YES. Even in liberal-
leaning states like California a majority voted in favor of Marriage, with the votes of
Black and Asian Americans providing the margin of victory.
Given this decisive unanimity on the question of Marriage it should have been a given that
Republicans would make it a priority to place a Marriage amendment to the Constitution
before the voters to settle this question for the time being and prevent the courts from
misconstruing Civil Rights law contrary to the opinion of the American People.
Opponents of traditional Marriage will point to the Presidential election last year and
votes in Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington, overturning Marriage in favor
of a Gay Right to marry as an indication that this battle is over and their opinion is final.
In each of these genuinely Blue Democratic states, however, the vote was exceedingly
narrow (with votes between only 51 and 53 percent of the total) and really begs the
question of whether the outcome would have been the same if Barack Obama had not
been on the ballot, and therefore whether the question should not be revisited in 2014.
Which brings me back to the fecklessness of Ohio Sen. Rob Portman and the corruption
of the Republican Party. Why is it that with the overwhelming support for Marriage as
it has always been, EVEN in staunchly Democratic states that Republicans in Washington
feel they have the right to overturn over a decade of democratic votes with only one election?
Again, I sense the weak-knees of the Baby Boom generation deciding that their "cooler,
hipper, cohort,' are right and they still want to be cool and should just give in and go along.
Each of these elections should be revisited in 2014. Voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota
and Washington should be given the opportunity to decide if they they feel the same way
2 years on, and Senator Portman should have to face his Ohio voters immediately in a Recall
election so that the American People's authority is not supplanted by the whims of elitists like
him.
Opponents will say the Constitution does not provide for the immediate recall of U.S. Senators.
But given the arrogant elitism that dominates Washington, D.C. and BOTH major political
parties can We as Americans any longer afford not to have that choice? I think not.
The Constitution should be amended to provide for the Recall of U.S. Senators to ensure it
is THEIR views and not the changing views of ONE man alone that is the Law of this country.
On this and EVERY issue OUR government decides.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
It's time to think Big.
Well, Mitt Romney came close to coming close to winning, but not quite close and certainly not close enough to win. As it turns out, only those states (Indiana and North Carolina) in 2008 where the President received less than half the vote ended up flipping to Mitt Romney. Every other state, including the all-important Ohio, Florida, and Virginia ended up tipping to Obama. But even if Romney had carried these states his losing percentages in those Remainder states (Iowa, New Hampshire, and Colorado) which I mentioned in my last post, would have re-elected President Obama anyway. He won them all. So.... it really wasn't close.
Election 2012 clearly broke some, "rules," of American politics. In almost every successful re-election campaign of the past half-century, the President's party usually picks up a few seats in the House and loses two in the Senate. It happened with Nixon in 1972, with Reagan in 1984, and even with Bill Clinton in 1996, the voters clearly voting the status quo but cutting out the excesses of both parties. In 2012, the Democrats did make some gains in the House, perhaps as many as 8 seats, but contrary to historical precedent, the Democrats actually gained 2 seats in the Senate putting them in a much stronger position to retain control in 2014 and beyond. With their new 55 seat majority compared with 45 Republicans the GOP is guaranteed nothing, whereas if they had managed to achieve the historic average gain of 2 seats (Dems 51 and GOP 49) the next 2 years would have been shadowed by the reasonable assumption that the Democrats (defending 20 seats, many in vulnerable territory) were destined to lose in 2014, no matter what events transpired in Washington, D.C. or around the world.
So the Democrats really did defy the historical trend.
Another rule that seemed to be cast in considerable doubt in 2012 was that undecided voters always break for the challenger at the end of the campaign. The result this time was mixed. In states where Romney was ahead, almost all the late deciders DID break for Romney. The President gained no more than half of 1 percent of the undecideds in these states. Where the President led before the election, however, the result was the exact opposite. Even in the swing states, almost all the undecided votes broke for Obama. So it may be that, in the future, these voters do break all one way or the other in each state, but not necessarily nation-wide. The challenger can no longer be assumed to have the advantage.
It's also important, I think, at this juncture to point out that not all polls are alike. The media's willingness to accept a weighted average of ALL the polls as an accurate predictor is a sham. And what is more, THEY KNOW IT. Not all polls are equal. Some have a better predictive value than others, and the only way to get an accurate reading is to compare polls by the same pollster to each other and watch to see if the percent change from day to day, week to week, month to month, between one pollster and another, is the same and in the same direction. Americans have got to understand (and I think a great many of them DO) that the Press bias our political system by telling voters some interesting things that are almost certainly not true. That in order to maintain the interest of their readership they have become lax in their commitment to the facts and the truth. You can almost hear them argue: "Well, who can say really, what the truth is?" and so they'll report anything to get people's attention. Americans need to keep in mind the press is part of the system and they bias their reports with sensationalism and controversy.
Still, outside of the Senate result, this really was a status-quo election very similar to the others I cited. Despite how typical party-line voting has become in the last decade or so, Republicans retained control of the U.S. House of Representatives by a higher margin than any they achieved in the 1990's or during the Bush Presidency. Considering that Democrats believed the President's coattails might actually bring back their majority in the House and actually did achieve significant gains in California, Illinois, and New York, only underscores this achievement by Republicans.
The chief difference is the President's party clearly made just about all the gains in this election. Gains in the Senate. Gains in the House. Victories for legalizing gay-marriage narrowly won in 3 states (Maryland, Maine, breaking the perfect winning streak for gay-marriage opponents) and a Minnesota initiative to place traditional marriage in that state's Constitution was defeated by 1 percentage point. But the only gains made by Republicans were in the South where the GOP finally took control of the legislature in Arkansas, the last of the 11 states of the Old Confederacy where Democrats were still in the majority. But even there Democrats made gains since 2010 in states like Texas, Florida, and Arizona where Republican majorities were paired back a bit.
But the most startling fact the election of 2012 is fewer Americans actually voted in 2012 than did so in 2008. Considering how contentious this election campaign has been that is remarkable and it says to me that Americans really are looking for something new.
I am a firm believer that something has been missing from our politics in the last 20 years. Ever since the end of the Cold War, it's as if America has lost it's way. It's political institutions have not kept up with the needs of its voters. We may really be trending towards an end to competitive elections in America. I still think there are opportunities for change but the Republican leadership is particularly ill-suited to taking advantage of them and I suspect they will learn all the wrong lessons from these election results. We need a competitive two-party system, not a system where 2 parties advocate the same things.
It's time to think Big.
Election 2012 clearly broke some, "rules," of American politics. In almost every successful re-election campaign of the past half-century, the President's party usually picks up a few seats in the House and loses two in the Senate. It happened with Nixon in 1972, with Reagan in 1984, and even with Bill Clinton in 1996, the voters clearly voting the status quo but cutting out the excesses of both parties. In 2012, the Democrats did make some gains in the House, perhaps as many as 8 seats, but contrary to historical precedent, the Democrats actually gained 2 seats in the Senate putting them in a much stronger position to retain control in 2014 and beyond. With their new 55 seat majority compared with 45 Republicans the GOP is guaranteed nothing, whereas if they had managed to achieve the historic average gain of 2 seats (Dems 51 and GOP 49) the next 2 years would have been shadowed by the reasonable assumption that the Democrats (defending 20 seats, many in vulnerable territory) were destined to lose in 2014, no matter what events transpired in Washington, D.C. or around the world.
So the Democrats really did defy the historical trend.
Another rule that seemed to be cast in considerable doubt in 2012 was that undecided voters always break for the challenger at the end of the campaign. The result this time was mixed. In states where Romney was ahead, almost all the late deciders DID break for Romney. The President gained no more than half of 1 percent of the undecideds in these states. Where the President led before the election, however, the result was the exact opposite. Even in the swing states, almost all the undecided votes broke for Obama. So it may be that, in the future, these voters do break all one way or the other in each state, but not necessarily nation-wide. The challenger can no longer be assumed to have the advantage.
It's also important, I think, at this juncture to point out that not all polls are alike. The media's willingness to accept a weighted average of ALL the polls as an accurate predictor is a sham. And what is more, THEY KNOW IT. Not all polls are equal. Some have a better predictive value than others, and the only way to get an accurate reading is to compare polls by the same pollster to each other and watch to see if the percent change from day to day, week to week, month to month, between one pollster and another, is the same and in the same direction. Americans have got to understand (and I think a great many of them DO) that the Press bias our political system by telling voters some interesting things that are almost certainly not true. That in order to maintain the interest of their readership they have become lax in their commitment to the facts and the truth. You can almost hear them argue: "Well, who can say really, what the truth is?" and so they'll report anything to get people's attention. Americans need to keep in mind the press is part of the system and they bias their reports with sensationalism and controversy.
Still, outside of the Senate result, this really was a status-quo election very similar to the others I cited. Despite how typical party-line voting has become in the last decade or so, Republicans retained control of the U.S. House of Representatives by a higher margin than any they achieved in the 1990's or during the Bush Presidency. Considering that Democrats believed the President's coattails might actually bring back their majority in the House and actually did achieve significant gains in California, Illinois, and New York, only underscores this achievement by Republicans.
The chief difference is the President's party clearly made just about all the gains in this election. Gains in the Senate. Gains in the House. Victories for legalizing gay-marriage narrowly won in 3 states (Maryland, Maine, breaking the perfect winning streak for gay-marriage opponents) and a Minnesota initiative to place traditional marriage in that state's Constitution was defeated by 1 percentage point. But the only gains made by Republicans were in the South where the GOP finally took control of the legislature in Arkansas, the last of the 11 states of the Old Confederacy where Democrats were still in the majority. But even there Democrats made gains since 2010 in states like Texas, Florida, and Arizona where Republican majorities were paired back a bit.
But the most startling fact the election of 2012 is fewer Americans actually voted in 2012 than did so in 2008. Considering how contentious this election campaign has been that is remarkable and it says to me that Americans really are looking for something new.
I am a firm believer that something has been missing from our politics in the last 20 years. Ever since the end of the Cold War, it's as if America has lost it's way. It's political institutions have not kept up with the needs of its voters. We may really be trending towards an end to competitive elections in America. I still think there are opportunities for change but the Republican leadership is particularly ill-suited to taking advantage of them and I suspect they will learn all the wrong lessons from these election results. We need a competitive two-party system, not a system where 2 parties advocate the same things.
It's time to think Big.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Part II: The Electoral College
Now we come to the interactive portion of our analysis. Thanks to the folks
at 270-to-win, we begin our assessment of who wins the Electoral College
and the Election.
Here's the link we'll be using: http://www.270towin.com/
Be sure to hold down your control button before clicking.
If it doesn't work for you, typing, '270,' into your browser
should.
The most defining elections in recent memory, I believe, are the Presidential
election in 2008 and the mid-term elections in 2010 which saw the biggest shift
of power in one election since, "Dewey beat Truman," in 1948. The outcome of
2012 will almost certainly be a mash-up of the two telling us where the balance
of power lies between them.
The map you see colored here reflects what the polls say is the starting point for
each candidate with Obama almost certain to win the Blue states, Romney the Red
states, and the rest being within the realm of possibility for either. It also puts both
candidates at roughly the same starting point, Obama at 201 vs. Romney at 191.
While I do believe the science of polling has improved in the last 20 years, knowing
what I know of past election results in that time we need to make some changes:
Michigan (MI), Pennsylvania (PA), and Wisconsin (WI) should be moved to Blue.
Both Indiana (IN) and New Mexico (NM) should, for the movement be moved to
undecided (Tan).
This is my starting place. Every state in Blue you see here voted for the Democrat in
EVERY election of the last 20 years going back at least to Bill Clinton's first election
in 1992. That means none of them, not one, voted for George W. Bush in either 2000
or 2004. He came close in a few, but never prevailed, and though it isn't impossible
that Romney will win one of them (Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin) he only
ever led in Wisconsin this summer shortly after he selected Paul Ryan as his running
mate. Polls currently show the President not just leading but with a majority of the vote
in each of them. What's more, the President won them in 2008 by margins far higher
than even Bill Clinton ever won them let alone Al Gore or John Kerry. Sometimes by
twice as much.
Again holding down the your control key on your keyboard, you can check the
percentage results for 2008 here: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Just move the arrow over each state with your mouse to see.
The Red states are those Senator John McCain carried in 2008. My assessment is that
with the possible exception of Arizona, none of these states is competitive for the
President. Given the politics of electing the first black President in our history, voting
against that choice required of the voter a fairly conservative point of view. If self-
identified moderates voted for McCain they certainly didn't do so AS moderates. And
not all of these have a consistent history of voting Republican. SIX of them (Arkansas,
Tennessee, Louisiana, Kentucky,West Virginia, and Missouri) voted twice for Bill
Clinton and with the exception of Kentucky and Missouri they actually gave McCain
a larger share of the vote than they gave to George Bush. And, it means they actually
gave fewer votes to Senator Obama who won, than Senator Kerry, who lost.
Obviously, this map would seem to give the President a huge head start, fewer than 30
electoral votes from 270, while Romney needs 90 more to win. Consistent with the 48%
or so every Democrat won from Clinton to Gore to Kerry these 18 Democratic states
comprise about 90% of what is necessary to elect a President and they would seem to
start each election with probably that much.
In my last post I said that the President was favored to win the popular vote in 2012, but
that no President had ever been re-elected when the economy was in recession as it is now.
It is these facts that cause me to believe that if re-elected, Obama would likely be the first
to do so with a smaller percentage of the vote than when he first took office.
It also brings us to our next changes: North Carolina (NC) and Indiana (IN) back to Red.
One of the most interesting and frankly, helpful dynamics in American politics is that among
those states which are the most highly contested between the parties a consistent ranking can
be made between them. That is, the states can be ranked from most Republican to most
Democratic and with the exception of the most partisan, the states line up in about the same
order in every election. So as the national popular vote moves from one party to the other it's
not difficult to predict which states will flip to the other party first.
Both Ohio and Virgina gave the President a margin of victory matching his national popular
vote. A fact more than coincidental as we'll see later. But Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina
gave the President smaller margins. In fact, four states denied a majority to either candidate.
Indiana and North Carolina went to the President. Missouri and Montana to Sen. McCain.
If the President were running for re-election in a good economy, it is likely his national popular
vote would about what it was in 2008; probably even a little bigger, in which case it would be these 4 states and maybe Florida being fought over, none of which the President needs to be re-elected. He'd be a shoo-in for re-election. Instead, as the President's national support has narrowed, it's these states that fall first into Romney's camp. Polls in all 4 show Romney with a majority of the vote.
And so we move Indiana (IN) back to Red and North Carolina (NC) as well.
Almost immediately, however Romney must confront a basic reality: Moving Florida (FL) to
Blue puts Obama at 271, which means Obama would win and Romney can't afford to lose it.
If Obama wins Florida it will not just be due to the support of its older population, but almost certainly because of the substantial Cuban population which is trending Democratic especially
among the younger generation. The President's support among Hispanics generally in 2008 was
2-to-1 over McCain. He shows the same support among them today. As we consider the Southwest where the substantial Mexican vote is even more Democratic than the Cubans in Florida, this fact must be taken into consideration. Polls have shown the President consistently ahead in both though Romney almost caught up to him in Nevada right after the conventions. Given Romney's decision not to go with an Hispanic Governor or Senator as his candidate for President I suspect Romney was prepared to concede both to the President early despite the substantial Mormon vote that's also in Nevada.
Thus, we now move both Nevada (NV) and New Mexico (NM) to Blue.
Polls in Florida, though, have been pretty good for Romney. In fact, before the 1st debate in Denver, when it looked as if it might all be over for him, he was still competitive in Florida, Colorado, and New Hampshire as the rest looked like they'd decided on Obama before a single debate. After the first debate Romney overtook the President in Florida and now consistently surpasses the President
there.
So we move Florida (FL) Red. The President is still closer to winning but Romney is closing
only 35 electoral votes away from victory and the President at 17 away from winning.
Shifting Ohio (OH) to Blue again shows just how little margin for error Romney really has, as
Obama again moves to 271. Even if Romney won all the remaining undecided states, he'd still lose. Ohio is dead center politically and worse for Romney it's unlikely he could win another midwestern state (Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania) without Ohio as it has voted consistently to the right of these states for well over half-a-century. Stipulating that this state could go either way, let's move Ohio (OH) Red for the moment.
The race is now tied at 253 a-piece and we begin to see the real balance of power emerge. Before 2008 states like Virginia and Indiana voted consistently Republican. Arizona and Colorado also leaned that way, and so it became fashionable after 1996 to say that of Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, whoever won 2 out 3 would win the election.
As we can see our map now, that is no longer enough for Romney HOWEVER moving Virginia (VA) either Blue or Red shows again why Ohio and Virginia matched the nation's popular vote.
Assuming Romney can win Ohio, Virginia becomes almost certainly decisive. At this point the President has to either win Ohio or carry ALL of the remaining 3 (Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire) in order to win without Virginia. Romney would have to do both. So the same edge
given by the, "keys to the Presidency," would seem to be born out in the Electoral College.
at 270-to-win, we begin our assessment of who wins the Electoral College
and the Election.
Here's the link we'll be using: http://www.270towin.com/
Be sure to hold down your control button before clicking.
If it doesn't work for you, typing, '270,' into your browser
should.
The most defining elections in recent memory, I believe, are the Presidential
election in 2008 and the mid-term elections in 2010 which saw the biggest shift
of power in one election since, "Dewey beat Truman," in 1948. The outcome of
2012 will almost certainly be a mash-up of the two telling us where the balance
of power lies between them.
The map you see colored here reflects what the polls say is the starting point for
each candidate with Obama almost certain to win the Blue states, Romney the Red
states, and the rest being within the realm of possibility for either. It also puts both
candidates at roughly the same starting point, Obama at 201 vs. Romney at 191.
While I do believe the science of polling has improved in the last 20 years, knowing
what I know of past election results in that time we need to make some changes:
Michigan (MI), Pennsylvania (PA), and Wisconsin (WI) should be moved to Blue.
Both Indiana (IN) and New Mexico (NM) should, for the movement be moved to
undecided (Tan).
This is my starting place. Every state in Blue you see here voted for the Democrat in
EVERY election of the last 20 years going back at least to Bill Clinton's first election
in 1992. That means none of them, not one, voted for George W. Bush in either 2000
or 2004. He came close in a few, but never prevailed, and though it isn't impossible
that Romney will win one of them (Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin) he only
ever led in Wisconsin this summer shortly after he selected Paul Ryan as his running
mate. Polls currently show the President not just leading but with a majority of the vote
in each of them. What's more, the President won them in 2008 by margins far higher
than even Bill Clinton ever won them let alone Al Gore or John Kerry. Sometimes by
twice as much.
Again holding down the your control key on your keyboard, you can check the
percentage results for 2008 here: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Just move the arrow over each state with your mouse to see.
The Red states are those Senator John McCain carried in 2008. My assessment is that
with the possible exception of Arizona, none of these states is competitive for the
President. Given the politics of electing the first black President in our history, voting
against that choice required of the voter a fairly conservative point of view. If self-
identified moderates voted for McCain they certainly didn't do so AS moderates. And
not all of these have a consistent history of voting Republican. SIX of them (Arkansas,
Tennessee, Louisiana, Kentucky,West Virginia, and Missouri) voted twice for Bill
Clinton and with the exception of Kentucky and Missouri they actually gave McCain
a larger share of the vote than they gave to George Bush. And, it means they actually
gave fewer votes to Senator Obama who won, than Senator Kerry, who lost.
Obviously, this map would seem to give the President a huge head start, fewer than 30
electoral votes from 270, while Romney needs 90 more to win. Consistent with the 48%
or so every Democrat won from Clinton to Gore to Kerry these 18 Democratic states
comprise about 90% of what is necessary to elect a President and they would seem to
start each election with probably that much.
In my last post I said that the President was favored to win the popular vote in 2012, but
that no President had ever been re-elected when the economy was in recession as it is now.
It is these facts that cause me to believe that if re-elected, Obama would likely be the first
to do so with a smaller percentage of the vote than when he first took office.
It also brings us to our next changes: North Carolina (NC) and Indiana (IN) back to Red.
One of the most interesting and frankly, helpful dynamics in American politics is that among
those states which are the most highly contested between the parties a consistent ranking can
be made between them. That is, the states can be ranked from most Republican to most
Democratic and with the exception of the most partisan, the states line up in about the same
order in every election. So as the national popular vote moves from one party to the other it's
not difficult to predict which states will flip to the other party first.
Both Ohio and Virgina gave the President a margin of victory matching his national popular
vote. A fact more than coincidental as we'll see later. But Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina
gave the President smaller margins. In fact, four states denied a majority to either candidate.
Indiana and North Carolina went to the President. Missouri and Montana to Sen. McCain.
If the President were running for re-election in a good economy, it is likely his national popular
vote would about what it was in 2008; probably even a little bigger, in which case it would be these 4 states and maybe Florida being fought over, none of which the President needs to be re-elected. He'd be a shoo-in for re-election. Instead, as the President's national support has narrowed, it's these states that fall first into Romney's camp. Polls in all 4 show Romney with a majority of the vote.
And so we move Indiana (IN) back to Red and North Carolina (NC) as well.
Almost immediately, however Romney must confront a basic reality: Moving Florida (FL) to
Blue puts Obama at 271, which means Obama would win and Romney can't afford to lose it.
If Obama wins Florida it will not just be due to the support of its older population, but almost certainly because of the substantial Cuban population which is trending Democratic especially
among the younger generation. The President's support among Hispanics generally in 2008 was
2-to-1 over McCain. He shows the same support among them today. As we consider the Southwest where the substantial Mexican vote is even more Democratic than the Cubans in Florida, this fact must be taken into consideration. Polls have shown the President consistently ahead in both though Romney almost caught up to him in Nevada right after the conventions. Given Romney's decision not to go with an Hispanic Governor or Senator as his candidate for President I suspect Romney was prepared to concede both to the President early despite the substantial Mormon vote that's also in Nevada.
Thus, we now move both Nevada (NV) and New Mexico (NM) to Blue.
Polls in Florida, though, have been pretty good for Romney. In fact, before the 1st debate in Denver, when it looked as if it might all be over for him, he was still competitive in Florida, Colorado, and New Hampshire as the rest looked like they'd decided on Obama before a single debate. After the first debate Romney overtook the President in Florida and now consistently surpasses the President
there.
So we move Florida (FL) Red. The President is still closer to winning but Romney is closing
only 35 electoral votes away from victory and the President at 17 away from winning.
Shifting Ohio (OH) to Blue again shows just how little margin for error Romney really has, as
Obama again moves to 271. Even if Romney won all the remaining undecided states, he'd still lose. Ohio is dead center politically and worse for Romney it's unlikely he could win another midwestern state (Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania) without Ohio as it has voted consistently to the right of these states for well over half-a-century. Stipulating that this state could go either way, let's move Ohio (OH) Red for the moment.
The race is now tied at 253 a-piece and we begin to see the real balance of power emerge. Before 2008 states like Virginia and Indiana voted consistently Republican. Arizona and Colorado also leaned that way, and so it became fashionable after 1996 to say that of Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, whoever won 2 out 3 would win the election.
As we can see our map now, that is no longer enough for Romney HOWEVER moving Virginia (VA) either Blue or Red shows again why Ohio and Virginia matched the nation's popular vote.
Assuming Romney can win Ohio, Virginia becomes almost certainly decisive. At this point the President has to either win Ohio or carry ALL of the remaining 3 (Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire) in order to win without Virginia. Romney would have to do both. So the same edge
given by the, "keys to the Presidency," would seem to be born out in the Electoral College.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Obama vs Romney 2012: O.k., who wins? Part I cont.
With only 5 keys left to decide the outcome, we start into more questionable territory. The first 4 keys, entirely political and very specific in nature, plus Mandate key #7 are easy to determine. The 2 economic indicators are also pretty straightforward. Key #8 (social unrest) is admittedly vague, but even though it is difficult to assess when the key is turned, it is relatively easy to assess when it's not. Perhaps that gets us closer to an accurate call, and clearly it's not something America has had to deal with during the Obama Presidency.
With remaining keys, however, we get into making judgement calls. Calls that many political analysts believe discredits this model. This may be a case of an imperfect design that has significant potential but could be made more exact. Would it's accuracy survive such scrutiny? Because of the ideal that underpins it, I believe it's potential is worth the attempt.
I believe metrics like these are useful, because when looking through the eyes of the average voter (disparaged by both parties as they may be) this metric seems to have accurately predicted the winner of the popular vote in every election since Lincoln was elected in 1860. A more partisan observer may have trouble with the vagueness of each statistic, but when an impartial assessment is made, I believe it's predictive value is persuasive.
We continue:
9) Scandal: The Administration is untainted by major scandal. Assuming Republicans were willing to concede the value of this method, they would cite this key as a definite strike against the President. There have been a number of accusations made against the Administration about malfeasance and misuse of office. A number of these concern the President's handling of the Border with Mexico, starting with a program known as Fast and Furious where the U.S. covertly allowed firearms to be sold to agents of Mexican drug-cartels hoping to be able to trace them to those running the cartels and shut them down. In the process however, these weapons were used in the murder of both innocent civilians as well as a member of the U.S Border Patrol.
Other accusations include, Federal spending on Green energy technology companies which have been found to be major contributors to the President's re-election including Solyndra, which spent a half-Billion dollars but went bankrupt. And more recently, you have questions into how seriously the President considers the attacks on our Consulate in Libya to be acts of terrorism by Muslim extremists which resulted in the death of our ambassador there.
Were the author here to make the call, he would likely say the 9th key holds for Obama. This one is harder for me as I find the President's liberal agenda wreckless and unrepresentative of American ideals.
Key 9? What do you think?
10) Foreign/Military Failure: Whether the Administration suffers no major failure in Foreign or Military Affairs. Again many accusations can be made with regards to whether the President's foreign policy represents the true ideals of the country. I don't believe they do, however, as a metric the keys are meant to be a report card on what the Administration has set out to do. For the purposes of this excercise the question is whether America has suffered a setback in it's foreign policy. If there had been another terrorist attack like 9-11 on U.S. soil this would obviously have been a major hit on President Obama. Do the events in Libya comprise a major defeat in our political position in the world. While the President's response to these event seem to be a manipulation of the truth it's questionable as to whether this amounts to a failure in foreign policy.
Key 10? What do you think?
11) Foreign/Military Success: The Administration achieves a major success in Foreign or Military Affairs. While many contest whether the President should be given the credit for an operation that has been years in development, there can be doubt that Presidents receive the blame as well as the credit for most of what occurs during their term of office. The capture and death of Osama Bin Laden occured as a result of his order to proceed even as we've learned there was at least one major advisor
(Valerie Jarrett) who opposed the operation. Result: The President holds at -3 with only 4 keys left undecided.
12) Incumbent Charisma: Whether the incumbent party's candidate is a charismatic figure or National Hero. Is Barack Obama charismatic? Many who claimed he was in 2008 now say that he is no longer or never really was. I will admit that without a speech in front of him the President seems less eloquent on the stump, but one of the reasons I believe he was successful in being nominated for President and elected in 2008 was his disarming approach when he speaks. I can remember thinking when he was interviewed before his keynote address to the Democrats in 2004 that this really stood out.
Whether President Obama is charismatic is a judgement call. He is not the equal of candidates like Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, or Clinton. As the first black man elected President Barack Obama definitely speaks to the aspirations of many Americans even if his lineage could suggest that link is only skin deep in some respects.
Key 11? What do you think?
13) Challenger Charisma: Whether the opposition party candidate is a charismatic figure or National Hero. This last indicator is the only key that does not concern the incumbent President. The only lever the opposition has to increase it's chances of winning the election.
Although I did not support Mitt Romney during the Republican primaries, he does have my vote in the November 6th General Election. Having said this, even his supporters should admit that he's not a charismatic figure. Therefore the final key fails to fall against the President, who still remains at only -3 keys with only 3 keys left potentially undecided.
Obviously, there is room for interpretation. A Republican party analysis, would rightly address the President's weakness in foreign policy, which could yet emerge as a problem for him before election day. But they'd also need to make personal assessments about the level of corruption in his Administration, and whether he is charismatic. Under this system the President could still be held accountable for Fast & Furious, Solyndra, and the Libya debacle (he still might), and fall 1 key short of the 6 needed to elect Romney. To get the 6th key they'd have to challenge Obam's claims to be a charismatic figure.
Given that Mitt Romney is not a charismatic figure and that Barack Obama was clearly responsible for the order that led to the elimination of Osama Bin Laden, the margin of error for determining an Obama loss is zero. Scandal, a major failure in foreign policy, and Obama's lack of Charisma would all have to be satisfied in order to predict it.
So, while you can see the weaknesses of this interesting thesis, it is clear that, to the extent it is predictive, it would tend to suggest President Obama's re-election.
There are 2 important caveats, however, that must now be stated:
First, in explaining how he came up with these keys, Prof. Lichtman broke down the success and failure rates of each of the individual keys in predicting the final result on their own. It is therefore important to mention that Short-Term Economy #5 currently has a 100% success rate in predicting a loss of the Presidency. That is, no President running for re-election when the country is in recession has been re-elected. Not One. Presidents have lost when the economy was good, but that is not the case this year and hence is one of the 3 keys that has been toppled in my analysis. Which means, either the predictive value of key #5 will finally lose it's perfect score or Prof. Lichtman's 13 Keys will be undone.
Second. as I mentioned before, the Keys only successfully predict the winner of the Popular vote, so the possibility this whole analysis could be turned on its head by a repeat of the 2000 election is real,
and either one of them, Obama or Romney, could be the beneficiary.
And so it is to this, the most fascinating part of the election, that I turn to next in Part II: The Electoral College.
With remaining keys, however, we get into making judgement calls. Calls that many political analysts believe discredits this model. This may be a case of an imperfect design that has significant potential but could be made more exact. Would it's accuracy survive such scrutiny? Because of the ideal that underpins it, I believe it's potential is worth the attempt.
I believe metrics like these are useful, because when looking through the eyes of the average voter (disparaged by both parties as they may be) this metric seems to have accurately predicted the winner of the popular vote in every election since Lincoln was elected in 1860. A more partisan observer may have trouble with the vagueness of each statistic, but when an impartial assessment is made, I believe it's predictive value is persuasive.
We continue:
9) Scandal: The Administration is untainted by major scandal. Assuming Republicans were willing to concede the value of this method, they would cite this key as a definite strike against the President. There have been a number of accusations made against the Administration about malfeasance and misuse of office. A number of these concern the President's handling of the Border with Mexico, starting with a program known as Fast and Furious where the U.S. covertly allowed firearms to be sold to agents of Mexican drug-cartels hoping to be able to trace them to those running the cartels and shut them down. In the process however, these weapons were used in the murder of both innocent civilians as well as a member of the U.S Border Patrol.
Other accusations include, Federal spending on Green energy technology companies which have been found to be major contributors to the President's re-election including Solyndra, which spent a half-Billion dollars but went bankrupt. And more recently, you have questions into how seriously the President considers the attacks on our Consulate in Libya to be acts of terrorism by Muslim extremists which resulted in the death of our ambassador there.
Were the author here to make the call, he would likely say the 9th key holds for Obama. This one is harder for me as I find the President's liberal agenda wreckless and unrepresentative of American ideals.
Key 9? What do you think?
10) Foreign/Military Failure: Whether the Administration suffers no major failure in Foreign or Military Affairs. Again many accusations can be made with regards to whether the President's foreign policy represents the true ideals of the country. I don't believe they do, however, as a metric the keys are meant to be a report card on what the Administration has set out to do. For the purposes of this excercise the question is whether America has suffered a setback in it's foreign policy. If there had been another terrorist attack like 9-11 on U.S. soil this would obviously have been a major hit on President Obama. Do the events in Libya comprise a major defeat in our political position in the world. While the President's response to these event seem to be a manipulation of the truth it's questionable as to whether this amounts to a failure in foreign policy.
Key 10? What do you think?
11) Foreign/Military Success: The Administration achieves a major success in Foreign or Military Affairs. While many contest whether the President should be given the credit for an operation that has been years in development, there can be doubt that Presidents receive the blame as well as the credit for most of what occurs during their term of office. The capture and death of Osama Bin Laden occured as a result of his order to proceed even as we've learned there was at least one major advisor
(Valerie Jarrett) who opposed the operation. Result: The President holds at -3 with only 4 keys left undecided.
12) Incumbent Charisma: Whether the incumbent party's candidate is a charismatic figure or National Hero. Is Barack Obama charismatic? Many who claimed he was in 2008 now say that he is no longer or never really was. I will admit that without a speech in front of him the President seems less eloquent on the stump, but one of the reasons I believe he was successful in being nominated for President and elected in 2008 was his disarming approach when he speaks. I can remember thinking when he was interviewed before his keynote address to the Democrats in 2004 that this really stood out.
Whether President Obama is charismatic is a judgement call. He is not the equal of candidates like Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, or Clinton. As the first black man elected President Barack Obama definitely speaks to the aspirations of many Americans even if his lineage could suggest that link is only skin deep in some respects.
Key 11? What do you think?
13) Challenger Charisma: Whether the opposition party candidate is a charismatic figure or National Hero. This last indicator is the only key that does not concern the incumbent President. The only lever the opposition has to increase it's chances of winning the election.
Although I did not support Mitt Romney during the Republican primaries, he does have my vote in the November 6th General Election. Having said this, even his supporters should admit that he's not a charismatic figure. Therefore the final key fails to fall against the President, who still remains at only -3 keys with only 3 keys left potentially undecided.
Obviously, there is room for interpretation. A Republican party analysis, would rightly address the President's weakness in foreign policy, which could yet emerge as a problem for him before election day. But they'd also need to make personal assessments about the level of corruption in his Administration, and whether he is charismatic. Under this system the President could still be held accountable for Fast & Furious, Solyndra, and the Libya debacle (he still might), and fall 1 key short of the 6 needed to elect Romney. To get the 6th key they'd have to challenge Obam's claims to be a charismatic figure.
Given that Mitt Romney is not a charismatic figure and that Barack Obama was clearly responsible for the order that led to the elimination of Osama Bin Laden, the margin of error for determining an Obama loss is zero. Scandal, a major failure in foreign policy, and Obama's lack of Charisma would all have to be satisfied in order to predict it.
So, while you can see the weaknesses of this interesting thesis, it is clear that, to the extent it is predictive, it would tend to suggest President Obama's re-election.
There are 2 important caveats, however, that must now be stated:
First, in explaining how he came up with these keys, Prof. Lichtman broke down the success and failure rates of each of the individual keys in predicting the final result on their own. It is therefore important to mention that Short-Term Economy #5 currently has a 100% success rate in predicting a loss of the Presidency. That is, no President running for re-election when the country is in recession has been re-elected. Not One. Presidents have lost when the economy was good, but that is not the case this year and hence is one of the 3 keys that has been toppled in my analysis. Which means, either the predictive value of key #5 will finally lose it's perfect score or Prof. Lichtman's 13 Keys will be undone.
Second. as I mentioned before, the Keys only successfully predict the winner of the Popular vote, so the possibility this whole analysis could be turned on its head by a repeat of the 2000 election is real,
and either one of them, Obama or Romney, could be the beneficiary.
And so it is to this, the most fascinating part of the election, that I turn to next in Part II: The Electoral College.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Obama vs Romney 2012: O.k. Who Wins? Part 1
So now the pertinent question at hand: Who wins the Presidential election of 2012? Well, of course we all know that it is the Electoral College according to the Constitution that elects our Presidents. Still only one man in over a century has been elected President without the greatest share of the popular vote. In fact, not a single election in the 20th Century was determined contrary to the popular vote. So the first part of my analysis will address who I believe will win the popular vote
and the 2nd part will address the all-important college and the possibility that it may in fact split from the popular vote as it did in 2000.
According to a statistical analysis, the best way to determine the results of Presidential elections is to use those statistics with the highest degree of predictive accuracy. Those who make their living predicting election results have used a multitude of different statistics to determine who will prevail. Some use an economic anlysis by reviewing charts of America's GDP or the national unemployment rate during the current President's term. Others study polls of the President's popularity or America's opinion of his job performance. Rather amusingly, some will even study the outcome of sporting events in comparison with the terms of previous Presidents. In each case, an attempt is made to predict the outcome of a Presidential election by comparing statistics that have a high level of consistency with respect to past results in relation to each of these indicators.
When conducting my analysis, I begin with an admittedly controvsersial method devised almost 20 years ago by Prof. Alan Lichtman of American University in Washington D.C., called, "TheThirteen Keys to the Presidency."
In it, he asserts that regardless of the strengths of the candidates campaigns; how much money they raise, how many campaign stops they make across the country, how well the candidates do in debates, or who gets picked to be the Vice Presidential running mate, the outcome of the election is determined by 13 questions primarily regarding the current President's performance in office. If any 6 of these are answered in the negative, the President's party loses the popular vote and most likely, the election. If 5 or fewer are answered negatively, the President's party wins the Popular vote.
These are the Keys (from the book):
Key 1: Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous mid-term.
Key 2: Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
Key 3: Incumbency: The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting President.
Key 4: Third Party: There is no significant third-party or independent campaign.
Key 5: Short-Term Economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Key 6: Long-Term Economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous 2 terms.
Key 7: Policy Change: The Incumbent Administration effects major changes in national policy.
Key 8: Social Unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Key 9: Scandal: The incumbent adminsitration is untainted by major scandal.
Key 10: Foreign/Military Failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Key 11: Foreign/Military Success: The incumbent administration achieves a mahor success in foreign or military affairs.
Key 12: Incumbent Charisma: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Key 13: Challenger Charisma: The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
The reason I find this method of analysis so provocative is because it's fundamental focus on accountability and how it potentially puts the lie to the idea that time we as Americans spend on politics int his country is fundamentally unnecessary.
The first four of these are entirely political: 1) The Mandate: Does the President's party retain numbers in the House of Representatives after the mid-term election in excess of what they held before the last Presidential election. In our case we'd be comparing the current House controlled by Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans with that run by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats at the end of George Bush's last term, after 2006, but before Obama was elected. Clearly, with change in party control the Democrats' legislative mandate was overturned. RESULT: Obama takes a hit, losing one key to Romney.
Remember, if Romney takes six keys from the President he wins the popular vote. Otherwise, he loses it. Can the Electoral College still go the other way? Yes, and perhaps we're in a period of history where the odds of this are higher, but they still aren't favorable. And the impact of the popular vote on the outcome in Congress will be the same regardless. More on this at the end.
2) Party primary: Is the President subject to a challenge from within his own party? There was serious concern immediately after the Democrat's major mid-term losses in the 2010 elections would result in a primary challenge to the President, however except for brief mentions of Hillary Clinton, most of those who were asked and considered the possibility were on the Far Left, eg. Dennis Kucinich and the Socialist from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. In combination with a bad economy a primary challenge, even when it fails, can be fatal to a Presidency. In fact, the last successful primary challenge to a sitting President was in 1852 for the Whig Party nomination and resulted in the party's demise and the emergence of the Republicans.
In this case no challenge emerged. RESULT: Obama holds at -1 key.
3) Incumbency: Is the incumbent running for re-election? This one is a gimme.
RESULT: Obama holds at -1 key.
4) Third Party: Third party or Independent challenge. The final political key is also considered by Prof. Lichtman to be a given. If such a challenge had emerged, pundits would be analyzing which of the major parties would lose the most votes. For instance, if Ron Paul had decided to run again for the Libertarian nomination or an independent campaign, would his fiscal conservatism have hurt Romney more, or would his opposition to intervention abroad have taken votes from Obama?
Lichtman says ALL original 3rd parties or independents ARE a strike against the incumbent. Candidates of existing 3rd parties, taking less than a percentage point nationally don't count. Perhaps that's a judgement call, but if the candidate isn't thought to be able to effect the popular vote outcome, it's safe to hold this key for the Democrats. RESULT: Obama holds 3 of the 4 political keys and is still down only -1 key.
The next 2 keys concern the economy.
5) Short-Term Economy: Whether the economy is in recession DURING the Fall election campaign.
Of any of the 13 keys, #5 would easily be considered the President's greatest weakness. As Labor Day passed it seems unlikely they win this one. And this could be decisive, as you will see. Result: Obama at -2.
6) Long-Term Economy: Whether economic growth during the current Presidential term equals or exceeds the average growth during the two just prior (in this case, the 8 years of President Bush.) According to Wikipedia growth during the Bush years averaged 2.5 even accounting for the recession that began at the very end of his 2nd term and the attacks on 9-11. By comparison, though the economy did emerge from economic contraction of late 2008 and early 2009, growth estimates during 2012 had to be adjusted downwards by the Administration with economic growth during the Obama term over all averaging 1.5%. RESULT: Obama now at -3, due primarily to the state of the economy.
At this point it would seem the President is halfway to losing his job, however...
7) Policy Change: Whether the incumbent Administration effects major change in National policy.
This one is a no-brainer. In a word: Obamacare. I could go into all the other pieces of legislation the Democrats enacted when they were in the Supermajority, but for the purposes of this excercise it's unnecessary. Result: The President holds at -3.
8) Social Unrest: This one is a little harder to define. As the Author says, "as the criteria for social unrest are less specific than for the other keys, " defining social unrest, "is the most difficult to call retroactively." In fact, the author elaborates on a number of events in U.S. history, a few of which I knew (John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry helped start the Civil War, and the Bonus March on Washington where WWI veterans were attacked by Gen. Pershing's troops was a major strike against Herbert Hoover anticipating the election of FDR), but also a few I'd never even heard of. According to the author all but 3 of the incidents that counted against a President occured during the 19th Century. He gave a number of unsatisfying reasons for what should count and what should not. But in looking over his choices a possible answer is that to turn this key against a President the violence involved in the unrest must be viewed by the voters as the harbinger of something unresolved.
I don't see anything like that today. Protests by the Tea Party have been peaceful and those of the Occupy Wall Street movement, if a bit unsanitary at times, were also ended in an orderly fashion once authorities requested them to leave. RESULT: The President continues to hold: -3
At this point, the balance has clearly shifted. The President is still half way to defeat, however, with 5 keys still left to decide, 3 of the 5 (a majority) would have to fall in order for that to happen. The odds are now even.
A good time to take break.
and the 2nd part will address the all-important college and the possibility that it may in fact split from the popular vote as it did in 2000.
According to a statistical analysis, the best way to determine the results of Presidential elections is to use those statistics with the highest degree of predictive accuracy. Those who make their living predicting election results have used a multitude of different statistics to determine who will prevail. Some use an economic anlysis by reviewing charts of America's GDP or the national unemployment rate during the current President's term. Others study polls of the President's popularity or America's opinion of his job performance. Rather amusingly, some will even study the outcome of sporting events in comparison with the terms of previous Presidents. In each case, an attempt is made to predict the outcome of a Presidential election by comparing statistics that have a high level of consistency with respect to past results in relation to each of these indicators.
When conducting my analysis, I begin with an admittedly controvsersial method devised almost 20 years ago by Prof. Alan Lichtman of American University in Washington D.C., called, "TheThirteen Keys to the Presidency."
In it, he asserts that regardless of the strengths of the candidates campaigns; how much money they raise, how many campaign stops they make across the country, how well the candidates do in debates, or who gets picked to be the Vice Presidential running mate, the outcome of the election is determined by 13 questions primarily regarding the current President's performance in office. If any 6 of these are answered in the negative, the President's party loses the popular vote and most likely, the election. If 5 or fewer are answered negatively, the President's party wins the Popular vote.
These are the Keys (from the book):
Key 1: Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous mid-term.
Key 2: Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
Key 3: Incumbency: The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting President.
Key 4: Third Party: There is no significant third-party or independent campaign.
Key 5: Short-Term Economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Key 6: Long-Term Economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous 2 terms.
Key 7: Policy Change: The Incumbent Administration effects major changes in national policy.
Key 8: Social Unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Key 9: Scandal: The incumbent adminsitration is untainted by major scandal.
Key 10: Foreign/Military Failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Key 11: Foreign/Military Success: The incumbent administration achieves a mahor success in foreign or military affairs.
Key 12: Incumbent Charisma: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Key 13: Challenger Charisma: The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
The reason I find this method of analysis so provocative is because it's fundamental focus on accountability and how it potentially puts the lie to the idea that time we as Americans spend on politics int his country is fundamentally unnecessary.
The first four of these are entirely political: 1) The Mandate: Does the President's party retain numbers in the House of Representatives after the mid-term election in excess of what they held before the last Presidential election. In our case we'd be comparing the current House controlled by Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans with that run by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats at the end of George Bush's last term, after 2006, but before Obama was elected. Clearly, with change in party control the Democrats' legislative mandate was overturned. RESULT: Obama takes a hit, losing one key to Romney.
Remember, if Romney takes six keys from the President he wins the popular vote. Otherwise, he loses it. Can the Electoral College still go the other way? Yes, and perhaps we're in a period of history where the odds of this are higher, but they still aren't favorable. And the impact of the popular vote on the outcome in Congress will be the same regardless. More on this at the end.
2) Party primary: Is the President subject to a challenge from within his own party? There was serious concern immediately after the Democrat's major mid-term losses in the 2010 elections would result in a primary challenge to the President, however except for brief mentions of Hillary Clinton, most of those who were asked and considered the possibility were on the Far Left, eg. Dennis Kucinich and the Socialist from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. In combination with a bad economy a primary challenge, even when it fails, can be fatal to a Presidency. In fact, the last successful primary challenge to a sitting President was in 1852 for the Whig Party nomination and resulted in the party's demise and the emergence of the Republicans.
In this case no challenge emerged. RESULT: Obama holds at -1 key.
3) Incumbency: Is the incumbent running for re-election? This one is a gimme.
RESULT: Obama holds at -1 key.
4) Third Party: Third party or Independent challenge. The final political key is also considered by Prof. Lichtman to be a given. If such a challenge had emerged, pundits would be analyzing which of the major parties would lose the most votes. For instance, if Ron Paul had decided to run again for the Libertarian nomination or an independent campaign, would his fiscal conservatism have hurt Romney more, or would his opposition to intervention abroad have taken votes from Obama?
Lichtman says ALL original 3rd parties or independents ARE a strike against the incumbent. Candidates of existing 3rd parties, taking less than a percentage point nationally don't count. Perhaps that's a judgement call, but if the candidate isn't thought to be able to effect the popular vote outcome, it's safe to hold this key for the Democrats. RESULT: Obama holds 3 of the 4 political keys and is still down only -1 key.
The next 2 keys concern the economy.
5) Short-Term Economy: Whether the economy is in recession DURING the Fall election campaign.
Of any of the 13 keys, #5 would easily be considered the President's greatest weakness. As Labor Day passed it seems unlikely they win this one. And this could be decisive, as you will see. Result: Obama at -2.
6) Long-Term Economy: Whether economic growth during the current Presidential term equals or exceeds the average growth during the two just prior (in this case, the 8 years of President Bush.) According to Wikipedia growth during the Bush years averaged 2.5 even accounting for the recession that began at the very end of his 2nd term and the attacks on 9-11. By comparison, though the economy did emerge from economic contraction of late 2008 and early 2009, growth estimates during 2012 had to be adjusted downwards by the Administration with economic growth during the Obama term over all averaging 1.5%. RESULT: Obama now at -3, due primarily to the state of the economy.
At this point it would seem the President is halfway to losing his job, however...
7) Policy Change: Whether the incumbent Administration effects major change in National policy.
This one is a no-brainer. In a word: Obamacare. I could go into all the other pieces of legislation the Democrats enacted when they were in the Supermajority, but for the purposes of this excercise it's unnecessary. Result: The President holds at -3.
8) Social Unrest: This one is a little harder to define. As the Author says, "as the criteria for social unrest are less specific than for the other keys, " defining social unrest, "is the most difficult to call retroactively." In fact, the author elaborates on a number of events in U.S. history, a few of which I knew (John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry helped start the Civil War, and the Bonus March on Washington where WWI veterans were attacked by Gen. Pershing's troops was a major strike against Herbert Hoover anticipating the election of FDR), but also a few I'd never even heard of. According to the author all but 3 of the incidents that counted against a President occured during the 19th Century. He gave a number of unsatisfying reasons for what should count and what should not. But in looking over his choices a possible answer is that to turn this key against a President the violence involved in the unrest must be viewed by the voters as the harbinger of something unresolved.
I don't see anything like that today. Protests by the Tea Party have been peaceful and those of the Occupy Wall Street movement, if a bit unsanitary at times, were also ended in an orderly fashion once authorities requested them to leave. RESULT: The President continues to hold: -3
At this point, the balance has clearly shifted. The President is still half way to defeat, however, with 5 keys still left to decide, 3 of the 5 (a majority) would have to fall in order for that to happen. The odds are now even.
A good time to take break.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Battle of the Polls
One of the ways in which the state of the Presidential race is often gauged is by analyzing the number and population of the states in which they're competitive. Often, an election will seem to have been decided even before the votes are counted because one of the candidates (usually the challenger) appeared to have a much narrower path to winning the Presidency. That is, the number of states in which they were competitive simply shrank to where they could not afford to lose ANY the remainder and still hope to win.
Before the first presidential debate, Wednesday, it was beginning to look like this was happening to Mitt Romney. But oh how things can change over night!
At the beginning of the race over a year ago (I have a serious issue with that) the Republican primary race was already under way. Pollsters don't really poll the individual states so far in advance before the nominee is chosen because the choice of opposition candidate can make a difference. By the time pollsters really began to poll the candidates strengths against Obama, it seemed the President was a shoo-in for re-election.
Once Romney had secured the nomination, however, the focus shifted to the President and Romney quickly became competitive, even taking the lead in the national popular vote, though not in the battleground states. As you'll find out in later posts here, I am often suspicious of polls, as not all of them are of equal quality (you have to look at who is doing the polling) and many can be deceiving when it comes to predicting the final election results. A fact that is not surprising because the results of different polls seem to contradict each other, though interestingly enough, they do so in consistent ways. What this means with regard to the reliability of polls is that even though you can't really trust them to predict, they do give one a sense of the momentum of the race; in what direction the race is going.
If we start at the beginning of Summer we find that about 11 states were competitive between Obama and Romney, including Pennsylvania and Michigan which haven't voted Republican in 20 years, as well as North Carolina which the Democrats were so intent on winning they held their Convention there. The complete list was Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire. There were polls early on that indicated Missouri could be as well, however those didn't last, which means this traditional swing state is tilting to the right. (In fact, until McCain won it by a fraction of 1 percent over Obama it voted for the November winner in every election for half a Century.)
Polls began to stabilize during the Summer with the President holding consistent leads in Ohio and Virginia both of which came closest to mirroring the final winning percentage for Obama in 2008. This despite polls that showed Romney highly competitive in the national popular vote; even winning it ins some cases. It's important to add however, that in none of these 11 was either candidate over 50%, not even Ohio and Virginia. So the sense began to develop that the race was essentially tied.
Romney led in Florida probably about as often as the President which, given the tendency of undecided voters to break late for the challenger probably gives Romney the advantage. In some cases Romney performed better in Michigan and Pennsylvania than he did in Ohio, though I always found this highly suspect given Ohio has always been more Republican going back more than half a century. Romney moved briefly into the lead in Wisconsin after he chose Paul Ryan as his running mate and then settled into competitive territory with Obama ahead but with less than 50 %.
In conformity with the 2008 results Obama maintained a lead in Colorado and even seemed to nearly put Nevada away by holding there at 49%. In stark contrast, and in a surprising development both Iowa and New Hampshire gave Romney polling leads as often as Florida. North Carolina seemed to move out of range for Obama once Romney had secured his nomination, but re-emerged as competitive during and after their convention. A win there would ensure the President's election.
Just before the conventions, Michigan and Pennsylvania passed 50% for Presdient Obama, concerning Republicans who worried that Romney's path was narrowing, though oddly enough several polls had Romney taking the lead in Colorado and Nevada at the same time.
The Conventions were a turning point, with the Republican gathering seen as somewhat of a dud and the Democratic convo with Bill Clinton a major boost to Obama. By the end of September the election seemed nearly over as Ohio went to 50% for Obama. In fact, just before the debate, Obama appeared to pass 50% in every swing state except Florida, Colorado, and New Hampshire; North Carolina, again giving Romney a strong lead at nearly 50%.
What a difference a couple days make! In fact, this happened so quickly, it makes me wonder if the President's lead wouldn't have diminished even without Romney's debate performance. The night of the debate Romney was even in Florida and Virginia. As of Friday, Rasmussen came out with polls showing Romney leading in both and essentially tied at 49-50% in Ohio. Haven't seen any polls in Wisconsin or Iowa yet, however did see TWO that showed Romney at 50% in Colorado.
It's just amazing how these polls can swing so drastically, which only reinforces my belief that polls don't really accurately predict the final result until voters are fully re-engaged with the views of the political parties. How else to explain the return of what looks like the Bush maps of 2000 and 2004, with Ohio in the dead center, both candidates fighting over less than a fraction of 1 percent, tied at 50?
Simply amazing.
Before the first presidential debate, Wednesday, it was beginning to look like this was happening to Mitt Romney. But oh how things can change over night!
At the beginning of the race over a year ago (I have a serious issue with that) the Republican primary race was already under way. Pollsters don't really poll the individual states so far in advance before the nominee is chosen because the choice of opposition candidate can make a difference. By the time pollsters really began to poll the candidates strengths against Obama, it seemed the President was a shoo-in for re-election.
Once Romney had secured the nomination, however, the focus shifted to the President and Romney quickly became competitive, even taking the lead in the national popular vote, though not in the battleground states. As you'll find out in later posts here, I am often suspicious of polls, as not all of them are of equal quality (you have to look at who is doing the polling) and many can be deceiving when it comes to predicting the final election results. A fact that is not surprising because the results of different polls seem to contradict each other, though interestingly enough, they do so in consistent ways. What this means with regard to the reliability of polls is that even though you can't really trust them to predict, they do give one a sense of the momentum of the race; in what direction the race is going.
If we start at the beginning of Summer we find that about 11 states were competitive between Obama and Romney, including Pennsylvania and Michigan which haven't voted Republican in 20 years, as well as North Carolina which the Democrats were so intent on winning they held their Convention there. The complete list was Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire. There were polls early on that indicated Missouri could be as well, however those didn't last, which means this traditional swing state is tilting to the right. (In fact, until McCain won it by a fraction of 1 percent over Obama it voted for the November winner in every election for half a Century.)
Polls began to stabilize during the Summer with the President holding consistent leads in Ohio and Virginia both of which came closest to mirroring the final winning percentage for Obama in 2008. This despite polls that showed Romney highly competitive in the national popular vote; even winning it ins some cases. It's important to add however, that in none of these 11 was either candidate over 50%, not even Ohio and Virginia. So the sense began to develop that the race was essentially tied.
Romney led in Florida probably about as often as the President which, given the tendency of undecided voters to break late for the challenger probably gives Romney the advantage. In some cases Romney performed better in Michigan and Pennsylvania than he did in Ohio, though I always found this highly suspect given Ohio has always been more Republican going back more than half a century. Romney moved briefly into the lead in Wisconsin after he chose Paul Ryan as his running mate and then settled into competitive territory with Obama ahead but with less than 50 %.
In conformity with the 2008 results Obama maintained a lead in Colorado and even seemed to nearly put Nevada away by holding there at 49%. In stark contrast, and in a surprising development both Iowa and New Hampshire gave Romney polling leads as often as Florida. North Carolina seemed to move out of range for Obama once Romney had secured his nomination, but re-emerged as competitive during and after their convention. A win there would ensure the President's election.
Just before the conventions, Michigan and Pennsylvania passed 50% for Presdient Obama, concerning Republicans who worried that Romney's path was narrowing, though oddly enough several polls had Romney taking the lead in Colorado and Nevada at the same time.
The Conventions were a turning point, with the Republican gathering seen as somewhat of a dud and the Democratic convo with Bill Clinton a major boost to Obama. By the end of September the election seemed nearly over as Ohio went to 50% for Obama. In fact, just before the debate, Obama appeared to pass 50% in every swing state except Florida, Colorado, and New Hampshire; North Carolina, again giving Romney a strong lead at nearly 50%.
What a difference a couple days make! In fact, this happened so quickly, it makes me wonder if the President's lead wouldn't have diminished even without Romney's debate performance. The night of the debate Romney was even in Florida and Virginia. As of Friday, Rasmussen came out with polls showing Romney leading in both and essentially tied at 49-50% in Ohio. Haven't seen any polls in Wisconsin or Iowa yet, however did see TWO that showed Romney at 50% in Colorado.
It's just amazing how these polls can swing so drastically, which only reinforces my belief that polls don't really accurately predict the final result until voters are fully re-engaged with the views of the political parties. How else to explain the return of what looks like the Bush maps of 2000 and 2004, with Ohio in the dead center, both candidates fighting over less than a fraction of 1 percent, tied at 50?
Simply amazing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)