Showing posts with label electoral college spectrum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electoral college spectrum. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

The 1996 Electoral College Spectrum

From 1992 to 1996:

The 1996 Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-12
(15)2		MN-10
(124)		NH-4
(256)		KY-8
(379/167)		SC-8
(54)
RI-4
(19)		MD-10
(134)		PA-233
(279/282)
GA-13
(159)		ND-3
(46)
NY-33
(52)		DE-3
(137)		OR-7
(286/259)		CO-8
(146)		AL-9
(43)
HI-4
(56)		WV-5
(142)		NM-5
(291/252)		VA-13
(138)		OK-8
(34)
VT-3
(59)		MI-18
(160)		OH-21
(312/247)		MT-3
(125)		WY-3
(26)
ME-4
(63)		CA-54
(214)		MO-11
(323/226)		SD-3
(122)		AK-3
(23)
CT-8
(71)		WA-11
(225)		FL-25
(348/215)		NC-14
(119)		KS-6
(20)
NJ-15
(86)		LA-9
(234)		TN-11
(359/190)		TX-32
(105)		ID-4
(14)
IL-22
(108)		IA-7
(241)		AZ-8
(367/179)		MS-7
(73)		NE-5
(10)
AR-6
(114)		WI-11
(252)		NV-4
(371/171)		IN-12
(66)		UT-5
(5)
1Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%).

2The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Dole had won all the states up to and including Tennessee, he would have gained 282 electoral votes. Dole's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Dole's is on the right in italics.

The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots.

3Pennsylvania is the state where Clinton crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

NOTES:
1) Again, the movement of the color lines from cycle to cycle is not as important as the changes in ordering of the states.

2) 1996 is the first year in the time period being examined in which a sitting president was reelected. The spectrum from 1992, then, should bear some resemblance to the figure above. What's interesting is how regional groupings of states shift in similar directions more clearly in 1996 than they have in other years. Bear in mind that we are talking about shifts in positioning on the spectrum and not changes in shares of the vote or margins between the candidates. For example, this spectrum shows a certain consolidation of the northeast for the Democratic Party. Of the ten states in the far left column -- the most Democratic -- seven are from the northeast (or mid-Atlantic). New Hampshire even moved over an entire column to the left of the tipping point state (Pennsylvania).

On the whole, midwestern states (see Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin) pushed over toward Clinton in the order in 1996 and border (Arkansas, Missouri, West Virginia) and Pacific (California, Oregon and Washington) states moved in the opposite direction; toward Dole.

3) If we shift our focus to the evolution of the positions of the 2012 swing states, we also see a closer alignment with what has been witnessed in terms of the electoral college spectrum order over the last two cycles. Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and New Hampshire are all collectively more proximate to the tipping point than they were in the prior cases. Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia are all within striking distance competition-wise but on the opposite end of the partisan line from the winning candidate. The full group of toss up states (in FHQ's typology) is clustered much more in 1996 than was the case in, say, 1984. And mind you, that is in no ways a surprise. Again, this is an evolutionary process and we should expect to see movement toward the most recent alignment of states (within the context of the other idiosyncratic factors unique to each election cycle).

4) FHQ will spare you another nearly duplicate spectrum to account for the influence of Perot in the 1996 election. It was far more muted than was the case in 1992 and that translated to the spectrum as well. The two-party version of the 1996 electoral college spectrum was not overly different from the one above. No state shifted more than one position on the table. So, we're talking about a limited number of less than consequential flip-flops.


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:15 AM 0 comments
Labels: ,
Share |

Monday, December 3, 2012

The 1992 Electoral College Spectrum

From 1988 to 1992:

The 1992 Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-12
(15)2		WA-11
(173)		IA-7
(263)		NH-4
(357/185)		IN-12
(64)
RI-4
(19)		HI-4
(177)		TN-113
(274/275)
GA-13
(370/181)		AL-9
(52)
AR-6
(25)		MO-11
(188)		LA-9
(283/264)		NC-14
(168)		SC-8
(43)
NY-33
(58)		OR-7
(195)		WI-11
(294/255)		FL-25
(154)		OK-8
(35)
VT-3
(61)		PA-23
(218)		CO-8
(302/244)		AZ-8
(129)		MS-7
(27)
IL-22
(83)		NM-5
(223)		KY-8
(310/236)		TX-32
(121)		AK-3
(20)
MD-10
(93)		ME-4
(227)		NV-4
(314/228)		SD-3
(89)		ND-3
(17)
CA-54
(147)		DE-3
(230)		MT-3
(317/224)		VA-13
(86)		ID-4
(14)
WV-5
(152)		MI-18
(248)		NJ-15
(332/221)		KS-6
(73)		UT-5
(10)
MN-10
(162)		CT-8
(256)		OH-21
(353/206)		WY-3
(67)		NE-5
(5)
1Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%).

2The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Bush had won all the states up to and including Tennessee, he would have gained 275 electoral votes. Bush's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Bush's is on the right in italics.

The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots.

3Tennessee is the state where Clinton crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

NOTES:
1) Again, the movement of the color lines from cycle to cycle is not as important as the ordering of the states. Though there are some southern and border states that were pulled into a more competitive area on the spectrum (due to the nomination of Clinton), they are all with the exception of Arkansas to the right of the tipping point state.

2) Tennessee was the tipping point state in 1992. George H. W. Bush would have needed an approximately five percentage point (4.65%) swing in his direction to bring enough states with enough electoral votes to surpass the 270 threshold in order to have claimed victory. Despite the post-1990 reapportionment, the tipping point state stayed in the same position as it had been in 1988.

3) Looking at the 2012 swing states, Pennsylvania and Iowa continued to be on the left side of the tipping point state and the partisan line. Iowa, however, shifted considerably toward the center, occupying the space just to the Clinton side of the tipping point state. Similarly Nevada and New Hampshire jumped from the column furthest to the right in toward the center. Both were on the Clinton side of the partisan line separating both candidates' shares of states. Florida followed Nevada and New Hampshire, but reverted to a position closer to where it was in the 1984 ordering. That position in 1992 was much closer to the partisan line and tipping point than was the case in Reagan's reelection. Colorado, as in 1988 but not 1984, laid claim to slot in the order in the middle and typically most competitive column.

4) North Carolina and Virginia, unlike the other 2012 swing states above, are among the stickiest of states. Across the three election cycles from 1984-1992, neither states moved all that much in the rank ordering. To put it in Silverian terms but in a slightly different context, North Carolina less elastic than Virginia, but both are comparatively inelastic compared to the other 2012 swing states. North Carolina only moved one spot across the three elections. Virginia oscillated within a five spot radius across the three cycles.

5) Notably, Ohio was closer to the partisan line than the tipping point in 1992 as compared to the two immediately prior cycles. The Buckeye state was on the winning side of the partisan line, and it was more a part of a national swing than a state that put Clinton over the top in the electoral college. That is quite a bit different from how we have grow accustomed to viewing Ohio.

6) With few exceptions, this spectrum looks a lot like -- in order and in color on the left side of the figure -- the spectrum that we have witnessed in the time since 1992. West Virginia is still off to the left side, "protected" by the nomination of a southerner on the Democratic ticket. The same can be said, though to a lesser extent, about Missouri. Arkansas, obviously as a home state of the candidate at the top of the ticket, moved well off to the left of where it had been in 1984 or 1988.

7) If one caveat could be added to the discussion, it is that Ross Perot's candidacy and general election success (19% of the vote nationally) could cause problems in the analysis in terms of the comparability to the two earlier elections examined. It is not a perfect solution, but if we exclude Perot and look at just the percentage of the two-party vote that Clinton and Bush received (and the resulting margin between them), the picture does not differ all that substantially (see below) from the spectrum above. There is some movement -- particularly in terms of the shading of cells -- but no state shifted more than three cells and no state changed columns. There was continuity, then, in the clustering if not ordering of states. It is worth pointing out that under that scenario Colorado becomes the tipping point state.


The 1992 Electoral College Spectrum (Two-Party Vote)1
MA-12
(15)2		WA-11
(173)		IA-7
(263)		NH-4
(357/185)		AL-9
(64)
RI-4
(19)		HI-4
(177)		CO-83
(271/275)
GA-13
(370/181)		IN-12
(52)
VT-3
(22)		OR-7
(184)		WI-11
(282/267)		NC-14
(168)		SC-8
(43)
AR-6
(28)		MO-11
(195)		LA-9
(291/256)		FL-25
(154)		MS-7
(35)
NY-33
(61)		ME-4
(199)		TN-11
(302/247)		AZ-8
(129)		OK-8
(28)
IL-22
(83)		PA-23
(222)		KY-8
(310/236)		TX-32
(121)		AK-3
(20)
CA-54
(137)		DE-3
(225)		NV-4
(314/228)		SD-3
(89)		ND-3
(17)
MD-10
(147)		NM-5
(230)		MT-3
(317/224)		VA-13
(86)		ID-4
(14)
WV-5
(152)		MI-18
(248)		NJ-15
(332/221)		KS-6
(73)		NE-5
(10)
MN-10
(162)		CT-8
(256)		OH-21
(353/206)		WY-3
(67)		UT-5
(5)
1Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%).

 This rank ordering of states excludes Ross Perot, examining the vote percentage margin between Clinton and Bush in the two-party vote. 

2The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Bush had won all the states up to and including Colorado, he would have gained 275 electoral votes. Bush's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Bush's is on the right in italics.

The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots.

3Colorado is the state where Clinton crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.



Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 3:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: ,
Share |

Friday, November 30, 2012

The 1988 Electoral College Spectrum

From 1984 to 1988:

The 1988 Electoral College Spectrum1
RI-4
(7)2		IL-24
(136/426)		CO-8
(260/286)		NJ-16
(170)		NV-4
(64)
IA-8
(15)		PA-25
(161/402)		MI-204
(280/278)
AR-6
(154)		NE-5
(60)
HI-4
(19)		MD-10
(171/377)		LA-10
(258)		NC-13
(148)		AZ-7
(55)
MA-13
(32)		VT-3
(174/367)		OH-23
(248)		TN-11
(135)		FL-21
(48)
MN-10
(42)		CA-47
(221/364)		ME-4
(225)		OK-8
(124)		WY-3
(27)
WV-63
(48)		MO-11
(232/317)		KY-9
(221)		AL-9
(116)		AK-3
(24)
OR-7
(55)		NM-5
(237/306)		DE-3
(212)		IN-12
(107)		SC-8
(21)
NY-36
(91)		CT-8
(245/301)		TX-29
(209)		GA-12
(95)		ID-4
(13)
WI-11
(102)		MT-4
(249/293)		ND-3
(180)		VA-12
(83)		NH-4
(9)
WA-10
(112)		SD-3
(252/289)		KS-7
(177)		MS-7
(71)		UT-5
(5)
1Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%).

2The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Dukakis had won all the states up to and including Michigan, he would have gained 280 electoral votes. Dukakis's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Dukakis's number is on the left in italics and Bush's is on the right.

The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots.

3Just five of West Virginia's electoral votes were cast for Dukakis. The final electoral vote was cast for Democratic vice presidential nominee, Lloyd Bentsen. For this exercise, the sixth electoral vote is counted as being in favor of the Democratic ticket in terms of the electoral vote allocation in table above.

4Michigan is the state where Bush crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

NOTES:
1) To reiterate a point from the previous post, it is also worth noting that some cycle-to-cycle shuffling of states has to do with the idiosyncrasies of any given election. Too much, then, should not be drawn from the shifts over time. ...not yet anyway. Stay tuned for subsequent updates for a more robust picture.

2) Michigan was again the tipping point state in 1988. Instead of taking a nearly 20% shift toward the Democrats to swing the election -- as was the case in 1984 -- it would have taken an approximately 8% swing in Dukakis's direction to shift enough states/electoral votes and just cross the victory threshold.

3) The 2012 toss up states are again all over the map. Notably, New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada are deep into Republican territory. Virginia and North Carolina are less so. Ohio continued to cluster around, but not immediately next to, the tipping point of the electoral college majority. On the other hand, Iowa and Pennsylvania persisted in being further to the right of the tipping point, though the Keystone state remained (slightly) Republican. Colorado is also closer to the tipping point in 1988 than was the case in 1984.

4) Other notable states include West Virginia and Tennessee. The Mountain state in 1988 remains an oddity when compared to 2012. It was even deeper into the Democratic column in 1988 than in 1984. The 1988-2012 shift on the spectrum is a net 40 positions. Tennessee, in 1984, was the only southern state to the left of the tipping point. The entire south -- including the Volunteer state -- was not only to the right of the tipping point, but was greater than 10% in Bush's favor.

5) Compared to 1984, 1988 was more competitive. There were 12 states that were within five points. However, just the states with an over 10% margin for Bush got the (at the time) vice president within 12 electoral votes of 270. And even if Dukakis had won all of the toss up states he still would have come up 33 electoral votes short of 270. Bush was working with a cushion in 1988 that was similar to but much greater than the cushion of states Obama enjoyed in 2008.


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in. 
Posted by Josh Putnam at 1:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: ,
Share |

Thursday, November 29, 2012

The 1984 Electoral College Spectrum

This is part of something bigger that FHQ is working on, but we will roll it out piece by piece starting with 1984.

The 1984 Electoral College Spectrum1
MN-10
(13)2		OR-7
(137/408)		GA-12
(249)		IN-12
(166)		KS-7
(50)
MA-13
(26/525)		IL-24
(161/401)		NM-5
(237)		NC-13
(154)		AZ-7
(43)
RI-4
(30/512)		WA-10
(171/377)		KY-9
(232)		MS-7
(141)		NV-4
(36)
MD-10
(40/508)		CA-47
(218/367)		NJ-16
(223)		VA-12
(134)		AK-3
(32)
PA-25
(65/498)		TN-11
(229/320)		CT-8
(207)		SD-3
(122)		NH-4
(29)
IA-8
(73/473)		VT-3
(232/309)		ME-4
(199)		TX-29
(119)		OK-8
(25)
NY-36
(109/465)		OH-23
(255/306)		AR-6
(195)		SC-8
(90)		NE-5
(17)
WI-11
(120/429)		MI-203
(275/283)
AL-9
(189)		CO-8
(82)		WY-3
(12)
WV-6
(126/418)		DE-3
(263)		MT-4
(180)		FL-21
(74)		ID-4
(9)
HI-4
(130/412)		MO-11
(260)		LA-10
(176)		ND-3
(53)		UT-5
(5)
1Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. The darker the color of the cell, the higher the margin was for the winning candidate (Light: < 5%. Medium: 5-10%, Dark: > 10%).

2The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked up to that state. If, for example, Mondale had won all the states up to and including Michigan, he would have gained 275 electoral votes. Mondale's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Mondale's number is on the left in italics and Reagan's is on the right.

The electoral votes for Washington, DC are included in the first cell at the top left. Conveniently, the district is historically the most Democratic unit within the electoral college which allows FHQ to push it off the spectrum in the interest of keeping the figure to just 50 slots.

3Michigan is the state where Reagan crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

NOTES:
1) The colors are fun to look at here if only to see what an essentially spectrumless spectrum looks like in an electoral college and popular vote landslide. But they (the colors) are far less consequential in the grand scheme of this exercise than the ordering of the states.

2) It is also worth noting that some cycle-to-cycle shuffling of states has to do with the idiosyncrasies of any given election. Too much, then, should not be drawn from the shifts over time. ...not yet anyway. Stay tuned for subsequent updates for a more robust picture.

3) Notice where the tipping point state (Michigan) is. In 1984 that was slightly further left -- five spots -- than in 2012; in the second column instead of middle (third) column. The rightward shift indicates that the concentration of population and thus electoral votes has shifted toward the right (into the west and south) due to reapportionment but also because of some shuffling of states.

4) Check out where the 2012 swing states are. New Hampshire and Nevada are all the way over in the column to the far right. Colorado, Florida and Virginia, too, are further to the right of the tipping point. Iowa and Pennsylvania, on the other hand, are further to the left of Michigan. Ohio, surprisingly or not, is huddled up against the tipping point state.

5) Still overwhelmingly red -- owing to the advantage President Reagan held in the electoral college in 1984 -- West Virginia has shifted in the three decades since all the way from the far left column to the far right column of the spectrum. If rankings are assigned, the Mountain state shifted from the tenth slot in 1984 to the 47th position in 2012!



Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 4:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: ,
Share |

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

If Virginia is tied, Obama wins1

Despite the fact that the FHQ weighted average formula does not reflect it, I am sympathetic to the notion of the state of Virginia being if not tied, then very close to it at the moment. As FHQ has mentioned over the last several days the polling in the Old Dominion has been back and forth in the time since the first debate in Denver.

But if we are talking electoral strategies, Virginia being the closest state on November 6 translates into an Obama reelection considering the order of states that has been established based not only on historical precedent but also via state level polling throughout 2012. If the partisan line -- the line separating both candidates' shares of states -- is drawn on the Obama side of Virginia (see the Electoral College Spectrum below), then that is enough to get Governor Romney to 257 electoral votes, but pushes Iowa, Ohio and New Hampshire into the president's column and additionally hands him victory with 281 electoral votes.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
VT-3
(6)2
WA-12
(158)
NH-4
(257)
MT-3
(159)
MS-6
(58)
HI-4
(10)
NJ-14
(172)
OH-183
(275/281)
GA-16
(156)
KY-8
(52)
RI-4
(14)
CT-7
(179)
IA-6
(281/263)
SD-3
(140)
AL-9
(44)
NY-29
(43)
NM-5
(184)
VA-13
(294/257)
IN-11
(137)
KS-6
(35)
MD-10
(53)
MN-10
(194)
CO-9
(303/244)
SC-9
(126)
AR-6
(29)
IL-20
(73)
OR-7
(201)
FL-29
(332/235)
NE-5
(117)
AK-3
(23)
MA-11
(84)
PA-20
(221)
NC-15
(206)
ND-3
(112)
OK-7
(20)
CA-55
(139)
MI-16
(237)
AZ-11
(191)
TX-38
(109)
ID-4
(13)
DE-3
(142)
WI-10
(247)
MO-10
(180)
WV-5
(71)
WY-3
(9)
ME-4
(146)
NV-6
(253)
TN-11
(170)
LA-8
(66)
UT-6
(6)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.

2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 281 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics.

3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

Now, the obvious response here is, "Well, sure, but how good are the polls or a [weighted] average of them at accurately predicting the order of states (based on margin) on election day?" The answer is pretty good and especially good in the case of toss up states. That latter point is a function of the fact that the toss up states are the most polled states more often than not. [There is some variation within toss up states based on how many electoral votes each has and thus their likelihood of altering the outcome of the election.]

Where this potentially breaks down is when states are very closely jumbled together as it appears some or are now in 2012 or when there is late-breaking but insufficient information to predict a swing toward one candidate or another. Looking back four years ago, for instance, the FHQ averages correctly identified that Indiana, Missouri and North Carolina were a distinct cluster (and all on the McCain side of the partisan line), but did not get the election day order right. The best example of a state where late information changed the positioning in the order is Nevada, where signs late in the race four years ago pointed to a wider Obama margin, but there was not enough data to move the averages enough to reflect the reality on the ground (...though the Silver state did move out of the toss up category in the very last election day map).

All this is to say that the order of states is pretty well baked in two weeks out from election day. Given the information we have gathered to this point in the race, if Virginia is tied or if Romney wins the commonwealth by one vote, then it will not be enough to get him north of 270 in the electoral vote tally. However, if the post-Denver compression of the average margins continues it could -- could -- disrupt the tiers of states that have formed. Right now there is a very clear Virginia/Colorado/Florida tier (Tier 1), a New Hampshire/Ohio/Iowa tier (Tier 2) and a Wisconsin/Nevada tier (Tier 3). If Tier 1 leans to Romney and Tier 3 leans to Obama, then the next two weeks in New Hampshire, Ohio and Iowa will be a lot of fun.

...or something less than fun to anyone who is not counting electoral votes.

--
1 If the election was held today.


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:00 PM 1 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Electoral Vote Counting 53 Weeks in Advance

FHQ doesn't know that any new ground was broken yesterday when both the RNC and an anonymous Obama administration official revealed at least some information about their likely target states for the 2012 presidential race. I say that simply because none of it is terribly revealing in the first place. A look at FHQ's Electoral College Spectrum -- particularly the middle column -- shows that the list below is predominantly comprised of states that were the most competitive in 2008.


Table 1: The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-4
(7)2		ME-4
(153)		NH-4
(257)		GA-16
(166)		NE-4
(58)
VT-3
(10)		WA-12
(165)		IA-6
(263)		SD-3
(150)		KY-8
(54)
RI-4
(14)		MI-16
(181)		CO-93
(272/275)		ND-3
(147)		LA-8
(46)
MA-11
(25)		OR-7
(188)		VA-13
(285/266)		AZ-11
(144)		AR-6
(38)
NY-29
(54)		NJ-14
(202)		OH-18
(303/253)		SC-9
(133)		AL-9
(32)
DE-3
(57)		NM-5
(207)		FL-29
(332/235)		TX-38
(124)		AK-3
(23)
IL-20
(77)		WI-10
(217)		IN-11
(343/206)		WV-5
(86)		ID-4
(20)
MD-10
(87)		NV-6
(223)		NC-15+14
(359/195)		MS-6
(81)		UT-6
(16)
CA-55
(142)		PA-20
(243)		MO-10
(179)		TN-11
(75)		OK-7
(10)
CT-7
(149)		MN-10
(253)		MT-3
(169)		KS-6
(64)		WY-3
(3)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, McCain won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Obama's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. McCain's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics.
3 Colorado is the state where Obama crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.
4 Nebraska allocates electoral votes based on statewide results and the results within each of its congressional districts.  Nebraska's 2nd district voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

That the RNC is going on offense in traditionally close states and states that flipped to Obama and the Democrats in 2008 is no real surprise. Nor is it a stretch to consider that Obama is staring down the reality of playing more defense in 2012 as a known quantity -- as an incumbent. The only target for offense mentioned in the Obama administration official's thoughts was Arizona. But let's have a look at the states listed in the RNC strategic memo:

Table 2: 2012 RNC/DNC Targets -- Presidential Battleground States
StateEVsRed to Blue in '08?Traditionally Blue?Traditionally Red?2004 Margin12008 Margin2
NC15√

12%~1%
IN11√
21%1%
FL29√
5%3%
OH18√

3%4%
VA13√
9%7%
CO9√

5%9%
IA6√
~1%10%
NV6√

2%12%
NM5√

~1%15%
NH4
√
1%9%
PA20
√
3%10%
WI10
√
~1%14%
MI16
√
3%16%
WA12
√
7%17%
AZ11

√11%8%
Total185




1 Source: Leip's Atlas
2 Source: Leip's Atlas

Note that, as is the custom in this time of the cycle, the RNC has cast its net widely. That is not to suggest that the DNC is not also considering states Obama may or more appropriately may not win next November, but it is usually the party on offense that can be and actually is a bit more aggressive in terms of the states it is considering. There were times in 2008, for instance, when the polling looked not necessarily good but promising in states like the Dakotas, Montana, Georgia and even Alaska before Palin was added to the Republican ticket in the late summer. Did that mean that Obama would have won those states after all was said and done on election day? Probably not, but there comes a time in every general election campaign where the tough decisions have to be made about which states to focus on. North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado were much more realistic to Obama than, say, Georgia or Arizona. In the same way, the RNC is able to throw a few states on the board that the eventual nominee may not win, but are intriguing possibilities nonetheless.

[Note also that the fifteen states in the table immediately above are ordered roughly in terms of how close the margin was between Obama and McCain in 2008. Another way of thinking about this is that the closer a state was in 2008, the hypothetically easier it will be for the Republican candidate to flip it in 2012. Those states moved largely in line with the national average shift in the vote from 2004 to 2008.]

Some states, however, are more or less intriguing than others. The "Red in 2004, Blue in 2008" states at the top of the table are more realistic targets for the GOP than some of the "lean blue" states that may be close in a more competitive presidential election year but crested above a 10% margin in Obama's favor in 2008. Are they pie in the sky states for Republicans? Perhaps, but they are steeper climbs for the Party of Lincoln than they are for Obama and Democrats to maintain. If the average shift in the vote is large enough they may shift too, but that would require a larger shift.

History is not always the best predictor -- Obama did win longstanding red states like North Carolina, Indiana and Virginia in 2008 -- but the states at the bottom of Table 2 are states a Republican candidate has not won in most cases in over 20 years. New Hampshire flipped to George W. Bush in 2000, but has been reliably Democratic since Clinton carried the Granite state in 1992. Michigan and Pennsylvania have been fairly close in some election cycles over the last generation but both been in the Democratic column in the time since George H.W. Bush won the Keystone and Wolverine states in 1988.  For Wisconsin and Washington, one has to go back to Reagan's 1984 landslide to find the last time a Republican carried either state. And on the other side of this, Arizona voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, but for the last time the Grand Canyon state went blue, one has to go all the way back to 1948.

That said, those are all macro views that may fail to capture trends on a more micro level: that for instance Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (not to mention New Hampshire) saw large Republican gains in offices across the states in the 2010 midterm elections. [Is that a function of something growing at the grassroots for Republicans or was it attributable to Obama not being on the ticket?] All this is to say that this is a big list of swing states (185 total electoral college votes). There will be additions and subtractions over the course of the next year, but the list will contract more than it will expand. The contraction is more likely to include Arizona and Pennsylvania on one end of the list and Indiana and North Carolina on the other than it will for more traditionally volatile states like Ohio and Florida.

--
Note: Shockingly -- or not so shockingly -- enough, no one seems to be saying much of anything about former bellwether, Missouri.



Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:00 PM 3 comments
Labels: , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)