Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Why #2 is the New #1
State-by-state poll watching is an enjoyable sport: Who’s up, who’s down, who’s gaining, who’s losing… But the prize of the nomination process is the electoral college votes come November. The mathematics are simple: Whomever receives 270 votes is the next president of the
Advertisement
Comments (9)
Of the what?!? Of the what?!?
C'mon...don't leave me in suspense here.
March 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
...of the TPMCafe Tech Staff Subcommitte on Bugs in their New Program.
March 12, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just saw my second try and I give up. Here's the full text of the original post:
State-by-state poll watching is an enjoyable sport: Who’s up, who’s down, who’s gaining, who’s losing… But the prize of the nomination process is the electoral college votes come November. The mathematics are simple: Whomever receives 270 votes is the next president of the United States.
Obama has won 11 more states than Clinton: 27 to 16. But if we just count up those states electoral votes it’s Clinton by 61 electoral votes: 163 to 202. Now adjust for the fact that many of these states will go Republican in 2008 no matter who the Democratic nominee is, and again it’s Clinton ahead by 52 electoral votes: 138 to 86. Of course if you add these two results together (224) you’ll see that it’s still shy of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
The swing states are the key, and the three largest swing states are Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, none of which look promising for Obama. He didn’t bother with Florida since their delegates were excluded from the nominating process. Clinton’s Ohio win was decisive across multiple demographics and geographies. And Pennsylvania is polling like an Ohio doppelganger. Clinton would need Florida and either Ohio or Pennsylvania to become president (no Florida, no presidency--Dr. Dean’s got to be grinding his teeth at night over this one).
So we can cry foul that Obama’s impressive popular vote may not be enough to win him the nomination, but popular votes have failed in the past. What matters is the calculus of the electoral college. While seated state delegates may or may not be terribly familiar with this equation, you can bet the superdelegates understand the byzantine mathematics of presidential elections.
Obama’s challenge will be unifying the Democratic masses after he loses the nomination. Perhaps Clinton is serious about offering him a spot on the ticket just for this eventuality.
March 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
how many examples are there where the candidate who won the state primary is polling worse vs mcCain for the ge?
Just one example blows a big hole in your logic.
March 12, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I think the way these things work is to provide some real examples.
Second, I just trolled around google and found multiple examples from 2000 and 2004 where either a Republican or Democrat nominee polled behind their projected opponent in primary season and won the state.
I'm not sure if you really have a point here at all, other than I've relayed some analysis that doesn't support your guy.
Sorry for that. I blame Excel and the data from the preceding presidential elections.
March 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I took a look back over the last 8 election cycles as the sample in my analysis. The assumptions were conservative, and I am confident the analysis is accurate as of this date.
If Clinton garrotes a pensioner on the Philadelphia ABC affiliates 5:00 newscast, or if she were to eviserate a manatee on channel 5 in Miami, or show up to a rally in a Nissan Maxima in Toledo, then the calcs change. I think these examples, however, hold more promise to John McCaine than Barrack Obama.
The point is that Florida and Ohio (PA is yet to play out) are very weak for Obama, and these are the most important states in the 2008 election.
March 12, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
conorflynn,
I find your logic a bit flawed. You failed to consider that some of the states that HRC won will vote Democratic no matter who is on the ticket. You have to include these totals in Obama's electoral votes as well. I believe you will find that gives him a comfortable lead.
March 12, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. No error. If we make the safe assumption that you suggest, that the solid Dem states will go with either nominee, we have 138 electoral votes. If we believe as JohnDoe does, and I do not, that Obama can garner Virginia, NC and Colorado (37 additional electoral votes), but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, McCain becomes president.
Virginia, has voted Republican in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. During this period their governors were Democrats 50% of the time. Virginia has no problem voting Republican in presidential contests whether or not their sitting governor is a Democrat.
Same story for North Carolina and Colorado for the same elections (except they actually had Democratic governors more than 50% of the time in the same period). All three states have had a mixed congressional composition during the period as well.
So don't be fooled if these states elect Democrats to the governorship, US Senate and House. They vote for Republican presidential candidates, and have for some time.
It's all about Florida plus Ohio or PA and Obama has to date (PA results not in for a few more weeks) blown it. He avoided courting Florida and was roundly traunced in Ohio. If PA goes Clinton in double digits then the superdelegates have nowhere to go.
As for the analysis, I've taken care to include a large sampling and to make intepretations as conservative as possible. I have not "wished" any electoral votes in Clinton's direction, nor gone out on a limb for Obama. If it is uncertain, then the votes sit in a parking lot.
As for who I am supporting, I'll be honest; it's Clinton. That said, I think the two are so close on issues I care about that I'd be thrilled with a president Obama. I just cannot model it without significant leaps.
Here's one: if he can take Virginia, NC and Colorado and win Florida, then we've made history. I just need some data on Florida that suggests he can beat McCain there. If you find it, let me know and I will interrogate it and adjust the model.
March 12, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your premise is wrong.
If Obama were the Democratic nominee, he certainly will carry all of the traditional blue states and can very possibly pick up some of those red states (Virginia, N. Carolina, & Colorado) to gain a large win over McCain. Hillary, not so much.
March 12, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment