tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post7810000372465178909..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map (version 2.0)Josh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-63384683246397277682009-02-26T22:03:00.000-05:002009-02-26T22:03:00.000-05:00Oops. I hit publish accidentally.Yes, there will ...Oops. I hit publish accidentally.<BR/><BR/>Yes, there will be an updated version when Obama signs his name to the bill.<BR/><BR/>...and it will make it to his desk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-33795552251842050502009-02-26T22:00:00.000-05:002009-02-26T22:00:00.000-05:00This is a very good question, Jack. I've been sit...This is a very good question, Jack. I've been sitting on this without comment since <A HREF="http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/01/12/congressional-bill-to-give-dc-a-voting-member-of-us-house-re-introduced-in-both-houses/" REL="nofollow">Ballot Access News</A> first started talking about it last month. I've dropped the ball on this one.Josh Putnamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-84910744661243026432009-02-26T17:33:00.000-05:002009-02-26T17:33:00.000-05:00Is there going to be an updated version covering t...Is there going to be an updated version covering the <A HREF="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/fivethirty-nine.html" REL="nofollow">possibility of an extra electoral vote?</A>Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365194237710177589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-9006332372465896102008-12-30T21:32:00.000-05:002008-12-30T21:32:00.000-05:00Jack,Let's look to the Electoral College Spectrum ...Jack,<BR/>Let's look to the Electoral College Spectrum on this one. I'll put up a separate post shortly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-41568017741678234902008-12-30T19:07:00.000-05:002008-12-30T19:07:00.000-05:00In which state is a one-state election most likely...In which state is a one-state election most likely? Probably depends on the candidates. VA was the state closest to the national vote this year but is still trending Dem. It could still happen in FL; a lot of votes there and Obama only underperformed his national totals by a few points.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365194237710177589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-31248091408759012902008-12-29T11:49:00.000-05:002008-12-29T11:49:00.000-05:00Alright folks. I'm back. I hate to post somethin...Alright folks. I'm back. I hate to post something like this and then not be around to talk about it. But I was on the road over the weekend.<BR/><BR/>A couple of things:<BR/>1) Jack, I concur that structurally the Democrats do have an advantage in the electoral college (and likely in congressional seats following the 2010 census), but I'd temper that with one recent historical footnote. It wasn't that long ago that pundits were talking about the GOP having a similar advantage that would lead to their domination of Congress and an edge in the electoral college. In other words, things change and can do so rapidly. Caution aside, in the near term, I think it is relatively clear that the Democrats have an advantage, and unless, as I've said several times, they really mess things up, they are likely to stay there. Not, perhaps, to the degree they are now, but plus or minus a few seats or electoral votes here and there.<BR/><BR/>2) To call the types of elections that we had in 2000 or 2004 dead is a bit strong. [Yes, this is more semantics than anything.] They are hibernating, perhaps, but they aren't dead. I agree that such elections don't look likely after last month, but let's see what happens once the Democrats assume power in a few weeks. <BR/><BR/>Let's put it this way: The GOP is going to have to come up with a different strategy than the old confederacy plus some other states -- even with these changes -- to be successful. And that is going to be the question of the next two years. <BR/><BR/>Good discussion, folks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-44282741928809376782008-12-27T19:25:00.000-05:002008-12-27T19:25:00.000-05:00Scott, I'm not sure that I would say that the ...Scott, I'm not sure that I would say that the likelihood of an election being concentrated in one state is shrinking — I think it's already gone. We saw quite a high number of states in play this year. In fact, I think the battlefield is going to shrink as we see a bit more polarization. We've seen some of the old bellwether states move away from that status; Missouri, for example, and other swing states like OR, PA and NH seem to be trending Democratic, while others such as MO, are trending Republican. Yes, those states are being replaced by others such as North Carolina and Indiana, but that already happened this year. The only state that wasn't a swing state this year but seems likely to be one in the future is Arizona. In short, the era of the one-state election is not just dying; it's already dead, and while we're quite far from it now, we may move somewhat closer in the next few years, before a new batch of swing states arrive.<BR/><BR/>One more thought: If we use the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index" REL="nofollow"> state PVIs based on 2000 and 2004</A> — I don't have the data for 2004 and 2008 — Democrats have an even more pronounced 296-242 advantage. With the new map, that's still, if my counting is right, 291-247. Eliminating +/- 0 or 1 states would give Democrats an advantage of about 60 EVs.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365194237710177589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-87767081752596841592008-12-27T11:10:00.000-05:002008-12-27T11:10:00.000-05:00Jack--interesting! Your new numbers are close enou...Jack--interesting! Your new numbers are close enough that the home states of the candidates become very important. If McCain wasn't from Arizona, it pretty clearly would have gone blue this time. On the other hand, if he'd been from Ohio, it might have gone red.<BR/><BR/>Josh--It's interesting to me that the shifts are taking party away from the big, traditional swing states: Ohio, Missouri, and Pennsylvania lose. Even though Florida gains, it doesn't make up for that. I think 2000 or 2004 style campaigns, where one state becomes the entire focus (Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004) become somewhat less likely, as it becomes easier for a group of small states to offset the loss of a big one.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14690577323454357276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-64599681139439384262008-12-27T02:10:00.000-05:002008-12-27T02:10:00.000-05:00Democrats still seem to have an advantage. I know ...Democrats still seem to have an advantage. I know this is a rather crude way of assessing this, but I made a map in which states which went more Democratic than the country went blue and those more Republican than average were red, in an attempt to see who would win the average election that was tied in the popular vote. In the current map, Democrats would have 278 EVs and Republicans 247, with Virginia essentially mirroring the national popular vote and therefore a tossup. Under the changes from your second map, if my math is right, it would still be 272-253. Even though my method doesn't take into account a number of important factors, that seems to be enough of a gap to illustrate that even after the changes, the electoral map will structurally favor Democrats.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365194237710177589noreply@blogger.com