Patterico's Pontifications


Let’s Revisit The Math As It Pertains To Obama Winning By Less Than 53-47 Nationwide, And How That Might Be Reflected In The Electoral College

Filed under: General — WLS @ 5:16 pm

[Posted by WLS Shipwrecked]

About two weeks ago I posted something I called Revenge-of-the-small- states II which laid out a scenario by which Obama could win the nationwide electoral vote by as many as 4 points, completely consistent with current nationwide tracking polls, yet still lose the electoral college because of the over-representation in it by small states — by virtue of the fact that each small state has the same number of electors for its Senators as do the big states. California has 55 electoral votes, and in 2004 there were 12,260,00 votes cast for President. Thus, each electoral vote “represented” 222,900 voters.

Wyoming had 3 electoral votes, and in 2004 there were 238,000 votes cast for President. Thus, each electoral vote represented 79,468 voters. Each voter in Wyoming had 3 times the electoral impact on the election for President as did each voter in California.

So, what does this portend for a week from today? Well, as is commonly cited by the political punditry, the election of a President is actually the outcome of elections in 50 different states as well as in Washington D.C. At the end of the day, you can add up those 51 elections and come up with a total margin of victory nationwide. The question remains whether that margin of victory nationwide can be neatly correlated with pre-election nationwide tracking polls. Assuming that it can — and assuming that Obama wins 52-48, which is consistent with many of the tracking polls (I’ve been disregarding any of the media polls showing a 10+ point lead as simply not believable in the current partisan environment), Obama’s overall margin of “victory” in the gross vote total will likely be somewhere between 8 and 10 million votes, depending upon turnout.

But, if you consider where he is likely to roll-up a substantial majority of that margin, you have to wonder about the outcome in the battleground states.

Safe Dem States:

CA (55), NY (31), IL (21), MI (17), NJ (15), MA (12), WA (11), MN (10), WI (10), MD (10), OR (7), CT (7), IA (7), RI (4), ME (4), HI (4), VT (3), DE (3) DC (3) =

234 electoral votes

Safe GOP States:

TX (34), GA (15), TN (11), AZ (10), AL (9), LA (9), SC (8), KY (8), OK (7), AR (6), MS (6), KS (6), NE (5), UT (5), WV (5) ID (4), MT (3), WY (3), ND (3), SD (3), AK (3) =

163 electoral votes

Battle Ground States:

FL (27), OH (21), PA (21), NC (15), VA (13), IN (11), MO (10), CO (9), NM (5), NV (5), NH (4)

141 electoral votes

Scenario #1

Let’s consider what an Obama “blowout” might look like were he to win convincingly in PA, and pull out narrow-to-modest wins in FL, OH, VA, MO, CO, NM, NV, and NH as is being suggested by lefty Obamaniacs. That would give him a 349-189 electoral win.

Kerry beat Bush in the “Safe Dem” states by 5.6 million votes out of 54.25 million cast. That’s 55-45%.

Assuming that in a blowout Obama would do better than Kerry did — let’s say 58-42 in those safe states — and assuming a 25% increase in turnout, Obama would win by a popular vote margin of 39.3 million to 28.5 million, or 9.8 million votes in the safe states alone.

In 2004, the net vote differential between Bush and Kerry in the battleground states I’m giving to Obama (with McCain holding on in NC and IN) in a blowout was Bush by 900,000 votes — 15 million to 14.1 million (29.1 million total), or 51.5-48.5%.

Increase the turnout by 25% to 36.25 million in those states, and give Obama an 8% edge — 54-46 in a blowout with him winning by close to double digits in PA, and by 3-5 points in VA, FL, and OH. His advantage would be 19.6 million to 16.6 million — adding 3 million more votes to his 9.8 million edge in the safe Dem states, for an overall margin of 12.8 million votes in safe states and battleground states in a blowout.

In the safe GOP states in 2004, Bush beat Kerry by an aggregate total of 6.9 million votes out of 32.8 million cast, or by 61-39%. But that included a 1.7 million vote win in Texas — 25% of his total margin — which McCain certainly won’t replicate. So, rather than win by 12%, let’s give McCain an 8% margin in these safe states. There isn’t likely to be a 25% increase in turnout in mostly GOP states, so let’s make it only a 15% increase in these states, for a total vote of 37.7 million. If McCain wins 54-46, he would win by 20.4 million to 17.3, or 3.1 million votes.

Subtract that 3.1 million from Obama’s margin of 12.8 million, and you have an overall win by Obama of 9.7 million votes. A 22.5% increase in voting nationwide over 2004 would be 147 million votes. A 9.7 million margin would be 78.15 million votes for Obama and 68.85 million for McCain. That would be a 53-47 overall victory for Obama.

Scenario #2

McCain wins very close contests in PA, OH, FL, IN, NC, MO and NV, while losing VA, CO, NM, and NH. McCain would win in the electoral college 273-265. But, how different would the nationwide vote total be?

In a non-Obama blowout, let’s close his gap in the “Safe Dem” states. These are still very red states, and Obama is going to win by huge margins in populous states like CA, NY, IL, MI, NJ and MD. In a non-blowout he would probably win by less in places like WA, MN, WI and IA, but those states aren’t as populous, so they won’t cut into his margin too significantly. A 56.5-43.5 margin would be halfway between Kerry’s results and a blowout Obama win, and in the safe states that would be a vote of 38.3 million to 29.5 million, or a difference of 8.8 million votes.

In the battleground states of FL, OH, PA, IN, NC, MO, and NV, there were 28.4 million votes cast in 2004, with Bush winning 14.9 to 13.5 million in these states, a margin of 52.5 to 47.5.

With a 25% increase, the voting would be around 35.5 million. If McCain wins them 51.5-48.5 overall — slightly worse than Bush did with narrower wins in FL, OH, NC, and IN especially, and winning rather than losing PA as Bush did — he would win by only 18.3 million to 17.2 million, a difference of 1.1 million.

That would cut Obama’s nationwide lead to 7.7 million votes. Obama would win VA, CO, NH, and NM by a total of around 300,000, with the biggest portion coming in VA and CO. That would extend his nationwide lead to 8 million.

In the safe GOP states, everywhere but Texas, McCain would perform equal to or slightly better than Bush’s performance in 2004. But he’ll do worse than Bush’s 1.7 million vote win in Texas, and that will offset the smaller states where he does better, for no net change. If he still won in those states by around 3 million votes, Obama would still lead nationally by 5 million votes.

Yet in this scenario he loses the electoral college by 273-265.

If the total vote is 147 million votes — 22.5% higher than 2004 — a 5-million vote difference would be 76.5 million to 71.5 million. That would be 52% to 48%.

Obama would win the popular vote by 4%, but lose in the electoral college.

So if Obama is at 52-48 or worse going into election day, McCain has a great chance to win.


65 Responses to “Let’s Revisit The Math As It Pertains To Obama Winning By Less Than 53-47 Nationwide, And How That Might Be Reflected In The Electoral College”

  1. Kind of interesting, while 2000 saw a electoral college win for George W. Bush in the face of an Al Gore popular vote win, it was not as nearly lopsided.

    Should that McCain victory scenario prevail, it would be fodder for a call to the end of the electoral college.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. McCain is in Pennsylvania for a reason. It’s not over. I don’t believe the polls. It could be an Obama landslide; I could be wrong that way, but I don’t believe the polls. There are too many variables.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  3. Obama will likely be declared the winner before Western voters get home from work, so we probably won’t get good data for ths election.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  4. Comment by snuffles — 10/28/2008 @ 5:43 pm

    That’s about the first intellingent thing you’ve said about this election.

    Another Drew (c8adc2)

  5. Dee, thx AD.

    Speaking of campaigning in Pennsylvania Mike K., McCain canceled his appearance because of the weather, Obama toughed it out and gave a very rousing and inspiring speech in the downpour.

    Obama’s speech reminded me of Aragorn’s, btw.

    Sometimes I almost pity McCain.


    snuffles (677ec2)

  6. Obama will likely be declared the winner before Western voters get home from work, so we probably won’t get good data for ths election.

    That’s why I’m going to vote before work. (I would vote anyway, but I want to do so before any states are called.) My employer allows up to two hours off in order to vote on election day.

    aunursa (c07e29)

  7. You have been wrong before, wls. You were wrong about the Obama money issue. You are wrong again. Obama will win by a landslide. He will win both the popular vote and the EC vote. You wanna bet?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  8. That’s not my point love — my point is that he can win by a large margin in the national vote, and at the same time lose in the electoral college, and it’s not a totally absurd scenario.

    McCain is within 7 in PA — 53-46. At the same time Obama’s negatives are up, McCain’s positives are up.

    When Obama’s lead widens, the stock market tanks. Obama’s lead shrinks, and the stock market rallies. The investor class sees this, and knows its fear of tax-policy induced recession.

    Workers who are employed by small businesses are smart enough to know that increased taxes on their employers mean decreased wages/benefits or even layoffs for them.

    This stuff is all starting to register.

    The nationwide tracking polls have it as a 4-5 point race. If it gets below that — while Obama struggles to get or stay above 50% nationwide — he’s got problems.

    He’s the new and unknown. Given the hundreds of millions he has spent, and the unwavering favorable press coverage he has received for 6 months, and the turmoil in the economy — why hasn’t Obama put McCain away? Why is Obama campaigning in Pennsylvania?

    WLS (26b1e5)

  9. It’s an interesting analysis and I would be more than pleased to see it play out that way next week* but… I don’t accept your assumption of a 25% increase in turnout. How do you justify that?

    *The MSNBC troika would be the funniest thing to watch the next day.

    Arthur (9ed5f3)

  10. Democrats should watch what they wish for — with reapportionment favoring the Red States they may find those two Senatorial EVs each from Vermont and Delaware handy in the next tight general election.

    But then, the Democrats didn’t grasp the distinction between points scored (popular vote) vs. games won (electoral vote) in 2000, either.

    furious (56af6d)

  11. Sniffles:

    Aragorn’s a fictional character. But then, Obama’s narrative belongs in the Fantasy section, too.

    furious (56af6d)

  12. Arthur — the popular vote increased 20% in 2004 over 2000. The Dems have made much of the fact that they have unprecedented levels of voter enthusiasm and new voter registration. But this is being matched somehow on the GOP side because the polls remain close.

    My 25% estimate is just a guess — it’s probably too high. But even it it is, its across the board. If its only 15%, the numbers will be smaller, but the calculation would be the same. The vote might be only 135 million, and Obama might win by 4 million votes but lose the electoral college.

    WLS (26b1e5)

  13. WLS, you did see that ACORN’s “1.3 million new registered voters” number was debunked? My theory is that those bogus numbers from ACORN have the pollsters exaggerating Democrat turnout a bit in Obama’s favor.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  14. SPQR — I do agree. And the pollsters extremely wide divergence in terms of how they are forecasting the makeup of the electorate in weighting their “likely voter” polls shows that no one really knows what the make-up is going to be on Nov. 4.

    And, I don’t think “early” voting is an accurate indicator of massive turnout. The offering of early voting is a relatively new phenomenon. The people voting early are the people who would have been most likely to vote anyway.

    It’s at the margin where the outcome can be influenced by increased turnout — when the last 10% of the turnout is made up of voters who ordinarily wouldn’t vote because they forgot, or got too busy, or didn’t know where their polling place was, etc. — if you can turn those voters out in your favor then you add meaningfully to your totals. Simply turning out the regulars — whether early or on election day — doesn’t suggest a massive surge in overall voting.

    WLS (26b1e5)

  15. How come your analysis is so far from those who are looking at this state by state, like, electoral-vote, and 538?

    imdw (24abbf)

  16. I’m not looking at the polls where they stand today. I’m looking forward to what the outcome will be on election day IF — and that’s the key — IF Obama prevails by an overall nationwide vote of 52-48 or less.

    I was first moved to look at this question by what seems to be the undisputed fact that Obama is going to win Cal. by 10-12 points, NY by 14-18 points, and IL by 10-15 points.

    If you assume the nationwide vote is in the neighborhood of 140 million votes, and Obama wins 52-48, the math says it’s a 5.6 million vote win.

    Well, how many of those votes are going to be accumulated in those large populous states, where winning by 2 points or winning by 20 points produces the same number of electoral votes?

    The fact is that outside of Texas, McCain is going to get about 1/2 of the votes he needs to be President (129) on the back of about a 2 million vote difference in those safe GOP states. Obama will win by that much in NY alone.

    So, Obama will have 31 electoral votes, McCain will have 129 electoral votes, and they will have each recieved the same number of popular votes.

    Then Obama will win Calif. by nearly 2 million votes, and get 55 EVs. McCain will win FL, OH, and MO by a combined total of around 500,000 votes, and get 58 electoral votes. McCain now has an electoral lead, while trailing by 1.5 million popular votes.

    And you could go on from there.

    WLS (26b1e5)

  17. If McCain wins, I expect a lot of nasty behavior from the anointed one’s supporters. It would be worth it.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  18. Speaking of campaigning in Pennsylvania Mike K., McCain canceled his appearance because of the weather, Obama toughed it out and gave a very rousing and inspiring speech in the downpour.

    Yeah, because McCain knows nothing about “toughing it out”

    Roy Mustang (2f688e)

  19. McCain: Tortured by Communists
    Obama: Tutored by Communists

    Roy Mustang (2f688e)

  20. snuffles–

    You need to brush up on your lit. Aragorn’s speech was just another example of a “St Crispin’s Day” speech, after Henry V’s speech in Shakespeare’s play.

    Note that a “St Crispin’s Day” speech is usually given by the underdog, facing certain death agaisnt great odds. Does Obama think he’s in trouble?

    Kevin (0b2493)

  21. Some big-picture thinking:
    – America wants ‘change’ but America doesnt want to turn America sharply in the direction of socialistic redistribution and big-Govt liberalism
    – Obama has spent $500 million and gotten the liberam MSM to spend 24 months giving us hype and lies and promises that DONT MATCH WHO HE IS.

    Some people are clued in, many have not.

    Now it comes down to the wire and there are 3 words that will elect John McCain – that remind people of Obama’s dangerous tax positions, his radical pals, his extremist statements on the courts – The words that remind us that obama is no centrist, but way outside the mainstream and unacceptable for President.

    Tell everyone you know these 3 words, and it will elect McCain:


    PJM (cfa2f1)

  22. WLS–

    Gallup had it at 2% this morning, by one measure. Battleground has it at 3%. Depending on turnout that means the vote could go either way. Don’t need the EC to pull this out.

    One horrible possibility: It comes down to Ohio and the 200K dubious new voter registrations, not to mention the thousands of Republican absentee ballot requests that were wrongly rejected. Fighting over the actual votes is bad enough, but fighting over 100K provisionals? Extra fun.

    Kevin (0b2493)

  23. McCain cancelled one appearance in Quakertown on Tuesday. He made three other indoor appearances, so its not like he “Cancelled his appearance” in PA yesterday.
    Also, it looks like McCain and Palin will be living in OH and PA between now and election day.

    j.pickens (107f33)

  24. Comment by Kevin — 10/28/2008 @ 9:12 pm

    The GOP in OH has to make it a top priority to get to the polls on Tuesday every one of those who had their absentee application rejected.

    Another Drew (2f298d)

  25. Kevin,

    If even the most extreme fringe Republican-tilting polls show Obama winning, it’s time to give up.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  26. sniffles is kind enough to point out the newest meme – give up, and submit to Baracky.

    JD (5b4781)

  27. Comment by snuffles — 10/28/2008 @ 9:25 pm

    No, You Never Give Up.
    Did John McCain give up when:
    His plane was on fire on the deck of the Forrestal?
    When he was a POW?
    When he was sucked into the sleeze of the Keating-5 mess?
    When his campaign last year was out of money, and he was down to a few unpaid staffers?

    You, snuffles, may wish to fly a white flag, others will choose to differ.

    Another Drew (2f298d)

  28. Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no.

    JD (5b4781)

  29. The headline in the Los Angeles Times on November 5th will be: McCAIN WINS, CITIES BURN.

    Official Internet Data Office (7800f2)

  30. OIDO – I would have guessed that the LA Times headlines would be : America More Racist Than We Imagined

    JD (5b4781)

  31. And we’re not going to have to wait for The Chief Justice of the United States to write a majority opinion deciding a close election. Obama is going to be humiliated. People are simply not going to vote for Hopey and Dopey.

    Official Internet Data Office (7800f2)

  32. AD,

    I’ll admit McCain was a decent guy 50 years ago, but now he’s afraid of a little rain.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  33. sniffles – So, before VietNam, he was a decent guy, but not since?

    Proof that he is afraid of rain? Or, as some might point out, the smart man does not stand out in the cold rain.

    JD (5b4781)

  34. Maybe not even back then, JD:

    That would be a heck of a story to break here in the last few days of the campaign, eh?

    snuffles (677ec2)

  35. Too bad they have no interest in finding out what classes The One took at Occidental, or Columbia, or Harvard; and what his grades were.

    Another Drew (936c6f)

  36. snuffles – the Puffington Host is not *exactly* your best unbiased source for anything, never mind for responsibly-sourced information …

    Consider this …

    Much has been made of a possible Bradley effect … that US voters are racist, and say they will vote for Obama yet vote against him cuz he’s part-black …

    Now, Republican voters will not vote for Obama because Republicans do not respect Obama’s professed policies – and they respect his sketchy track record even less … so when Republicans vote against Obama, it’s not because of racism …

    On the other hand, Democrats seem to happily support Obama’s professed policies, in spite of his sketchy track record … so – this would seem to imply that, if anyone is going to be voting *against* Obama for reasons of racism, it will be the Democrats – since they would otherwise be expected to vote for the candidate of their own party …

    So, snuffles, are you a racist voter – or are you going to vote for your sketchy candidate ?

    Just asking, you know, with all due respect, of course …

    Alasdair (6b086e)

  37. This election is like 1960… in the home stretch Nixon started slowly eating away Kennedy’s lead. Nixon might have won if LBJ (among other things) hadn’t trucked in Mexicans to “vote” in Texas and Daley hadn’t accomplished the highest voter turnout among residents of cemeteries in decades in Chicago.

    McCain stands a very good chance to win if he continues in the polls as he has this week. The election is a coin toss. Why isn’t McCain talking about this? Why isn’t he putting out ads about Wright? Hey remember how he uh took public financing and doesn’t have hundreds of millions to spend? Now it’s all coming out, one day of bombshells after another on Obama (if you’re a conservative-leaning independent) a week before the election. You didn’t really think the GOP was going to wimp out, did you? Karl Rove’s surrogate son is in charge at Camp McCain, you’re worrying why?

    The Clintons, Obama’s best weapon, are all but invisible. He’s decided to run on his sterling personality and that’s given cranky old John McCain a chance.

    Considering the political climate and fear and uncertainty if McCain loses by anything less than 4% would be a solid showing by the GOP. He’s right where he needs to be right now.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  38. mcsame has already lost. Scenario or no scenario.
    we will see in a week!

    schivute (3f5cd6)

  39. There’s a small part of me that wants Obama to win (barely) in the Electoral College, but lose the popular vote by at least two percent.

    htom (412a17)

  40. schivute, McCain can’t have already lost. The election has not been held. You don’t get out much do you?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  41. H/T to M. Simon at PowerAndControl

    The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.

    We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama”

    We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.

    We did this the whole primary and it worked.

    Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.

    This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.

    Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.

    People makes posts to the effect that the world has “gone mad”

    Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.

    We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scarey to a mccain supporter. Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.

    see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become “sheeple”

    The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.

    Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.

    This is why nothing sticks.

    The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.

    The bottom line: the only poll that counts is the one in the voting booth. All else is propaganda.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  42. Again, the volume of Trolling has gone up exponentially here over the past 24 hours – smells like panic.

    Dmac (e30284)

  43. SPQR – The Left is trying to suppress and depress turnout.

    JD (5b4781)

  44. So? They’re doing it the legit way. Nothing wrong with trying to badger the other side into voluntarily suppressing their vote because they’re feeling too gloomy about their chances. That’s politics.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  45. SPQR, everything is fodder for some people to call for change in the Electoral College, because they don’t like the way it works.

    Rick C (cfe78c)

  46. So voter suppression and depression is good when the Dems do it. Add that to the list of things that are acceptable, given the right feelings, and political leanings. Thanks, chaos.

    JD (5b4781)

  47. You are predicating all this on the basis that PA is not a safe state for Obama, but only 1 poll, rassmussen, shows PA at 7, all the others and there are many, including very reliable ones with better track records than Rassmussen.

    RCP Average 10/20 – 10/27 — — 52.1 41.6 Obama +10.5
    Rasmussen 10/27 – 10/27 500 LV 4.5 53 46 Obama +7
    InAdv/PollPosition 10/26 – 10/26 588 LV 3.8 51 42 Obama +9
    Morning Call 10/23 – 10/27 589 LV 3.8 53 41 Obama +12
    Quinnipiac 10/22 – 10/26 1364 LV 2.7 53 41 Obama +12
    Associated Press/GfK 10/22 – 10/26 607 LV 4.0 52 40 Obama +12
    Franklin & Marshall 10/21 – 10/26 LV 4.2 53 40 Obama +13
    Temple Univ. 10/20 – 10/26 761 LV 3.6 50 41 Obama +9

    RCP’s average is 10.5 and 7 is the lowest poll, this iswhat Fox news does daily, they pick the lowest daily poll for Obama, no matter who releases it and show that.

    But even if it is just a 7 point margin, we are now down to 6 days. It would be hard to catch up 8 points, which is what McCain would need to do.

    Obama will win, he will probably have a bigger EV win than popular vote win. He will exceed 300 EV’s and get just about 52% of the vote, if the things tighten reasonably progressively until election day.

    Again, the calinm in your analogy is based upon a false premise that PA is winnable for McCain, it is not. He has no other choice but to try there, but this election is over.

    rg (e6955a)

  48. Again, the calinm in your analogy is based upon a false premise that PA is winnable for McCain, it is not.

    You know this how? How good were those polls in the primary, when Hillary bitch-slapped Teh Golden Child?

    JD (5b4781)

  49. Actually the primary polls were reasonably accurate, save NH and NV and she didn’t exactly bitch slap him, he is the nominee.

    Rassmussen, however was not a very accurate poller in the primary, but the RCP averages were pretty spot on and that is what I used.

    Also, ALL of the polls show Obama leading, if by varying amounts, if any polls showed McCain leading there it would be different, also there is general movement to Obama. Arizona is within 5-6 points now, of course McCain will win it, but it shouldn’t be that close. I didn’t say I was for Obama, I just said he will win. There are just TOO many polls and indicators that he will. I’m older nad havbe followed elections very closely since 1960.

    Additionally the Weekly Reader Poll, which is very accurate is in this morning and the kids went 55-43 Obama. WR has only missed once and in their first poll, THEY picked Truman when pollsters did not. Had the pollsters not stopped in 48 a week before the election, they would have gotten it right too.

    I see nothing that points to McCain being able to defy over 20 pollsters, early voting trends which heavily favor Obama and much much more.

    rg (e6955a)

  50. I was referring to the PA primary, rg, since that is the state you were referring to. The RCP numbers had Baracky losing by 6% and he lost by 9%.

    Actually the primary polls were reasonably accurate,

    Baracky also consistently underperformed his polling.

    JD (5b4781)

  51. (I’ve been disregarding any of the media polls showing a 10+ point lead as simply not believable in the current partisan environment)


    Sorry, so far it’s hard to read past that.

    Tell me WLS, would you feel the same way if some of the media polls showed a 10+ point lead as “Simply not believable”?

    Oiram (983921)

  52. Sorry, googed above:

    Tell me WLS, would you feel the same way if some of the media polls showed a 10+ (for McCain) point lead as “Simply not believable”?

    Oiram (983921)

  53. If a poll showed McCain with a 10+ point lead, it would be simply not believable.

    JD (5b4781)

  54. Ahh…… JD, wouldn’t it depend on current affairs, if it were “believable” or not?

    Oiram (983921)

  55. I guess in hypothetical world, one could say that, Oiram. But in the real world, if either candidate had a 10+ point lead, I would doubt the poll, out of hand.

    JD (5b4781)

  56. Yeah, your probably right JD. #55

    Oiram (983921)

  57. The earth just quit spinning and gravity has been reversed.

    JD (5b4781)

  58. Hey….. stranger things have happened :)

    Oiram (983921)

  59. Did Obama write the text to this blog entry?
    “you can add up those 51 elections and come up with a total margin of victory nationwide.” I believe that while DC votes in the national election, just as Puerto Rico does, neither Puerto Rico or Wash DC have any electoral votes as it is not a state and only has honorary representation in Congress.

    eaglewingz08 (98291e)

  60. Comment by eaglewingz08 — 10/29/2008 @ 11:17 am

    No, DC is given 3 EV.
    435 Rep’s in House
    100 Sen’s in Senate
    535 + 3 for Dc = 538 EV
    270 required for victory (no ties allowed)

    Another Drew (d394a6)

  61. The Pennsylvania polls mentioned above don’t account for the deluge of “Reagan Democrats” who will vote, almost unanimously, for McCain. This is the same phenomenon which shocked the news media in 1980, when Carter (after leading during the last week anywhere from 3 to 9 points) went on to lose by 10 points to Reagan. This is also why Democratic Congressman John Murtha appears to be on the way to losing his re-election contest.

    In addition, one-state polls tend to have small samples, larger margins of error, unreliable adjustments for party ID, and lag national polls.

    Official Internet Data Office (7800f2)

  62. rg @ 47

    PA is probably the least accurately polled state in the country. Bush was down 8 in PA a week before the 2004 election and lost by less than 3.

    Its a state that had two GOP senators until the last election, where it took an anti-abortion Catholic democrat to beat an incumbent in a overwhelming Dem. year.

    The other GOP senator is a moderate from the Philly suburbs who is in his 4th term.

    The state has an overwhelming Dem. registration advantage, and at the same time probably has the highest percentage of party splitting voters anywhere in the country. I’ve spent a lot of time in the Johnston-Altoona-Indiana triagle in West-Central PA, and while its about 75-25% registration favoring Dems due to historical connections to the steelworkers and coal mining unions. Its population is heavily Catholic and of Eastern European heritage. McCain will win that region by 60% or more. The closer to the Ohio and West Virginia borders, the higher his percentage will be.

    WLS Shipwrecked (26b1e5)

  63. Oiram @ 51 — yes. A 10 point lead for either candidate, in light of the 2000 and 2004 election results, where the country remains divided very closely along partisan lines, rules out +10 or better point leads for either candidates. The polls reflecting those leads have extreme imbalances in the weighting of voter turnout.

    The tracking polls which are polling every day and using an average across 3 or 5 days so the events of any particular one day don’t over-influence the result, have shown this race consistently between 3 and 7 points. And its not just one tracking poll, is 4 or 5 different tracking polls. And other than the odd blip or two along the way related to a specific event, they haven’t had single day polling greater than 10 points for Obama. So, why would anyone believe the NYT/CBS or ABC/WaPo polls that show those kinds od leads, given the extreme editorial bias of the sponsors of those polls?

    What is the editorial bias of Gallup or Battleground?

    WLS Shipwrecked (26b1e5)

  64. As soon as the Dems start their quadrennial whining about doing away with the Electoral College, you know their internal polls show they are in the danger zone of <4-5% lead, where the EC can overcome the popular vote.

    Since the polls have a 4-5% pro-Dem bias pretty much built in, they are already there in my estimation, but maybe 2008 is a vintage year for extra-strong kool-aid. Anyway, I eagerly await more Donk whining about the EC – it’s always a good sign!

    sherlock (b4bbcc)

  65. So voter suppression and depression is good when the Dems do it. Add that to the list of things that are acceptable, given the right feelings, and political leanings. Thanks, chaos.

    You know putting words in people’s mouths is a really amateurish and embarrassing thing to do.

    It’s even worse because I’m probably one of the most pro-GOP people who comments on this site.

    Now what I said was that trying to convince the other side that their cause is doomed and they should just stay at home is a completely legitimate and time-honored political tactic. There’s nothing wrong with it, as far as I can see anyway. All campaigns try to do it. You think McCain wouldn’t be happy if some large number of moderate Obama supporters decided to stay at home on election day?

    chaos (9c54c6)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4215 secs.