« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Good news for the Canadian housing market
According to http:\\electoral-vote.com, Sen. Barack Obama currently leads in states that represent 289 electoral votes. This would assure him of a victory in November, but...
Of these 289 electoral votes, forty-six are in Colorado, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan. Take away these electoral votes and the Senator falls below the magical 270-vote threshold to 243.
Let's make a few of assumptions:
-- Those 243 votes are solid.
-- Sen. McCain will hold all his barely-held states (not a bad assumption: they are North and South Dakota, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio) in addition to his strong and weak states. (The Republicans will undoubtedly manage to steal Ohio and Florida again if they have to.)
-- Virginia (currently tied) goes Republican as well, as it has done in every single presidential election since Christ was a corporal.
-- Indiana (currently barely Obama) continues the practice of giving its support to the Republican -- a habit that dates back to the Pleistocene.
What's left? Thirty-five electoral votes
-- Colorado 9
-- Nevada 5
-- New Hampshire 4
-- Michigan 17
If Sen. Obama fails to carry Colorado or Michigan, Sen. McCain wins. If he carries them both but drops both Nevada and New Hampshire, Sen. McCain wins.
This looks scary, even before we start worrying about Pennsylvania. Colorado has gone for a Democrat exactly once since 1968. Nevada twice. New Hampshire three times. Michigan is only 50/50 in the last 40 years.
Comments (66)
Make our day, why don't you?
sigh
Looking at 538, Poblano's not far off your chosen site's estimates.
I notice that his 294 is related to a popular vote of 49.3.
Al Gore, familiar, unsurpassed experience, lily-white, got just over 48% of the popular vote.
Clinton, gubanatorial experience, lily-white, in 92 got only 43%!
Given the Bradley effect, given the reptilian swift-boating that's to come, small wonder that Obama's prayer in the Wailing Wall asked his God to protect him from despair.
August 5, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bradley effect?
August 5, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wikipaedia: "The name Bradley effect is derived from a 1982 campaign involving Tom Bradley, the long-time mayor of Los Angeles, California. Bradley, who was black, ran as the Democratic party's candidate for Governor of California against Republican candidate George Deukmejian, who was white. The polls on the final days before the election consistently showed Bradley with a lead.[6] In fact, based on exit polls on election day, a number of media outlets projected a Bradley win that night; early editions of the next day's San Francisco Chronicle featured a headline proclaiming "BRADLEY WIN PROJECTED". However, Bradley narrowly lost the race. Post-election research indicated that a smaller percentage of white voters actually voted for Bradley than polls had predicted, and that voters who had been classified by those polls as "undecided" had gone to Deukmejian in statistically anomalous numbers."
August 5, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
aka
[white voters to pollster] - yeah, i like his position on the issues!
[white voters inside voting booth] - i do like his position on the issues but... i'm not voting for the black guy!
August 6, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bradley effect = lame excuse for losing.
August 6, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bradley effect = the price to pay for displaying courage
August 6, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some pretty thorough studies have shown that the Bradley effect has faded to almost zero over the last two decades.
See Kevin Drum, who links to them.
August 6, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going out on a limb, but here's my prediction:
Obama might win: N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Montana, N. Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Michigan
McCain might win: N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Montana, N. Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Michigan
It's August. The conventions haven't happened, the VPs haven't happened, the debates haven't happened, and a large percentage of the country is on vacation. The polls in these states are so close that they provide very little grounds for prediction.
By all means, pay attention to the way the candidates position themselves and develop their strategies, but unless one candidate starts to pull dramatically ahead, you can safely ignore the polls until October.
August 5, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls, schmolls. Check out the histories of those states in presidential elections, particularly the recent histories.
August 5, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
History does constitute evidence, it's true, but election patterns aren't static. It was not so long ago that southern states voted Democratic, and CA and NY were in play. Let's see where things stand in September-October.
August 5, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama might win: N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Montana, N. Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Michigan
Care to make any wagers about Virginia, North Carolina, and/or Indiana? You can name the stakes. I'll take McCain and I'll even give you odds.
There is no way the 'Pubs will let any of those states go blue. They'll do whatever it takes -- negative advertising, legal maneuvering, voter suppression, or illegal ballot tampering -- to hold on to these strongholds.
I hate to say this, but I'm afraid your candidate -- well, I was going to say "is toast" but you might take that as a racial slur.
August 6, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only if you meant rye toast.
It's a bad idea to bet on the home team, since it's so hard to be objective, but I feel frisky this morning, so I'll take Obama in VA and overall. IN and NC, I agree, are long shots. What are the stakes?
PS You would get much better odds at in-trade.
August 6, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are the stakes?
Make it easy on yourself. I'll give you 3-2.
August 6, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take it. But those are the odds, not the stakes.
August 6, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said, you call it. Ten'll getcha $15. Five hundred'll get you $750. I'm good for it.
Let's clarify the terms. You're betting that Sen. Obama will take VA and will win the Presidency via the electoral count in the Nov 2008 election. I'm betting that he will lose one or the other. Is that correct?
<disclaimer>Always gamble responsibly. Never bet more than you can afford to lose. If you need help with a gambling problem, call Gamblers' Anonymous at 213-386-8789.</disclaimer>
August 6, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take those terms at those odds. VA will be the tough one. But email me if you're serious (the address is in my profile) b/c I don't think TPM wants us using the cafe for gambling, your disclaimer notwithstanding.
August 6, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah. I want you on record.
August 6, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all seriousness, I would prefer not to be banned by TPM just yet.
If you just want me on the record, I hereby state: I'm willing to wager that Obama has better than 40% odds of winning both Virginia's electoral vote and the Presidency.
August 6, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have not proven that anyone who emigrates after a McCain will actually buy a house in Canada. I fail to see house this is good for Canada's realtors.
August 6, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed yesterday a report (sorry , I cannot find the link this morning) that McCain has substantially cut back his ad spending in Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Ohio. You can look at that three ways: 1) he is so confident that he will win in those states that he sees no reason to pour resources into them or 2) that he has so despaired of winning them that he is cutting his losses or 3) some combination of the two (confidence in Colorado but despair in Iowa, etc). I am hard pressed to see how he might really have confidence in any of those states, however, so #2 is looking a darn site more likely to my mind. If that is the case - that is, if he is essentially conceding defeat in Ohio, then it is very hard to see how he might win this. The only plausible way forward in that scenario is that he should pick up Michigan, but that is a tough row to hoe. In other words, I am having a hard time buying into your gloomy outlook. Thinks look at least as bleak for McCain in the states that he needs to pick up as they look for Obama in the states that he needs.
August 6, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Er, "things look..." not "thinks look."
August 6, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure why he would despair of winning Ohio when he has a small-to-medium lead there, depending on the poll, not to mention control of the voting apparatus.
As far as MI is concerned, it has been the quintessential swing state for the last 10 presidential elections, going red 5 times and blue 5 times. And as hair-brained as it is, his energy policy seems to do rather well with the folks who make cars.
August 6, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure why he would despair of winning Ohio either, but I find that idea far more plausible than the idea that he is coolly confident of carrying the state. Let us say, however, that he is neither confident nor woebegone about his chances of winning there; the bald fact of his cutting back his efforts there still stands. If he does not campaign there and we do campaign there are our prospects really so bleak? My broader point still stands - your assumptions, while not beyond the realm of possibility, are nonetheless not especially plausible vis-a-vis Ohio, and if you take Ohio out of your red column the rest of your point dissolves into irrelevancy.
August 6, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
He needed the money to by TV advertising on the Olympics. Ohio voters will watch the Olympics.
If you take Ohio out of my red column, my point is weakened, not dissolved. McCain could still take MI and the rest of the barely-Obama states and walk away with the keys to the White House.
But McCain will take Ohio. You don't have to take my word for it -- ask Diebold.
August 6, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, I realize that he is using the money saved to buy time on the Olympics, but he could have taken that money from any state. He could have cut back in Minnesota or Michigan or Florida or Missouri (etc and so forth). He took it out of Ohio. Evidently, then, Ohio is one of the states which, when push comes to shove, he is willing to regard as either so safe or so lost that further efforts are less critical.
August 6, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if ...
Suppose ...
OMG, if ...
Maybe ...
Oh, no ...
Yes, yes, yes ...
Lather, rinse, repeat. Or just wait until October, meanwhile cooling excited brain neurons.
August 6, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
But then how would I get the attention of former kings?
August 6, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard... this is a decidedly "negative" post with regards to Obama!
Un. Ac. Ceptable.
August 6, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
More like "Un. Con. Vincing."
August 6, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You had me at "Un."
August 6, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
More like "Un. Con. Vincing."
Convince us otherwise then. Is it your contention that Sen. Obama is likely to capture GA? NE? AZ? FL? A Carolina or two?
I hope your argument will help us understand how your state recently moved into solid McCain territory. Could it have anything to do with the argument I made in this article?
As far as I can see, the IL Senator has peaked and has nothing to do but lose from here on out. I could be wrong, but if I recall correctly, Sen. Kerry had a lead of about 17 points this time four years ago. The country seems to be settling back into the same red/blue pattern that Mr. Rove created in 2000. You have evidence to the contrary?
August 6, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Three brief points:
1) Missouri is not "solid" McCain territory. I will not be surprised if McCain wins Missouri, but neither will I be surprised if Obama wins Missouri. This state is very much up in the air right now. Who is ahead here depends entirely on which poll you are reading.
2)
You are wrong. As luck would have it, Paul Krugman posted data on this subject just this morning.
3) Your assumptions are weak (despite the blithe assertion that they are "not bad").
a) Ohio had a republican governor in 2004. It does not this year. It had a republican Sec of State in 2004. It does not this year. This makes your "they will steal Ohio if necessary" premise a good bit harder to credit than you are taking into account in the above.
b) Michigan may have gone 50/50 in the past 40 years, but this is a bad year for the Republicans. The odds of them taking Michigan this year, as a result, are a good bit weaker than 50/50.
Take away the OH/MI plank of your argument and the rest of it is not supportable. Colorado, Virginia, Indiana, etc all cease to matter at that point.
August 6, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This chart implies that Sen. Kerry's biggest lead in the entire campaign was a tiny smidgen above 2 percent? You know, I have a very bad memory in my dotage, but I'm going to need to see more support for that.
August 6, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true -- I saw the same data over at open left.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6322
August 6, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, of course. I am in no position to vouch for the accuracy of these numbers. If you think that Dr Franklin at Pollster.com is not a reliable authority, I am in no strong position to gainsay you. That said, I would note that Dr Franklin is plotting a composite of the polling from August 2004 to arrive at that 2% lead. If you remember a wider lead, that might well be true of just one poll, but I am not sure how much such an observation might really matter. Indeed, I notice that on another chart Dr Franklin posts the individual data from which his aggregate is calculated, and it is clear that many of those polls showed a much wider lead for Kerry (although none of them show a 17 pt lead in August). As I said, however, it is not clear to me that we can meaningfully say that Kerry was doing better than Obama at this stage in the game just because one outlier for Kerry was higher than Obama's present average.
August 6, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
although none of them show a 17 pt lead in August
And I am not in the least sure that the big lead was in Aug, either. But I need to do a buncha research before I'm willing to admit that my Alzheimers' has advanced that far.
August 6, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do make good points and I like the way you argue, if that makes any difference to you, but...
1) I will concede that MO is still there for the taking if you will do the same for PA.
2) See above.
3) If you are willing to predict -- or even speculate about -- an Obama victory in MO, ND, SD, or NC and are proved correct, you should go into the political forecasting business no later than Jan-2009.
3a) Ohio is takable -- true. But if you know anything about voting machines, you know that they are not necessarily invulnerable to remote hacking. I can't see Uncle Karl allowing OH to go Dem.
3b) 2008 is a bad year for Republican legislators, but the only way to know that is to rely on the polls. If you are buying the poll results, you have to buy the slide that Sen. Obama is in. And Sen. McCain's smear campaign has not gotten out of low gear yet.
Take away the OH/MI plank of my argument and I'll take away the PA plank of your argument, and we're right back to my original scenario, only a little bit worse for Sen. Obama.
August 6, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us look at the Pollster.com trendlines for Missouri. Now let us look at the trendlines for Pennsylvania. I do not think that I am just being willfully obtuse to call one of those a toss-up but not the other. Of course, anything can change between now and November, but looking at the data we have right now, I just cannot see how you sustain at the premises from which your argument proceeds.
August 6, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good numbers, Mr. Scientist. Let me take another guess: alchemy?
August 6, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clarification: By "nothing to do but lose," I did not mean to predict his defeat -- I meant lose ground.
I DO think his defeat is likely and due in some measure to his on-going impersonation of Joe Lieberman, but I think he can still pull it out with a gargantuan effort and expenditure.
August 6, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being a scientist, I find this thesis insipid. It is phrased in such a way as to be beyond the reach of empirical verification or falsification. What, for instance, constitutes a "gargantuan" effort and/or expenditure? It is difficult to have a discussion with the Oracle of Delphi as an interlocutor. Do you care to make your position less opaque?
August 6, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being a scientist, I find this thesis insipid.
Insipid, huh? And I just got done saying I like the way you argue. It just goes to show ya, no matter how he sweet talks you, a girl needs to take her own measures to insure that the guy doesn't come in her mouth.
I think I have made my position quite transparent in this article, and although I admit I haven't been particularly empirical about this particular issue in this thread, I provided a link to my earlier article where I supported my interpretation of the numeric trends.
Now, do you care to show how you have scientifically supported your claims that "MO is still up in the air" -- aside from your rock solid assertion that you would not be surprised either way? How about the data you gave us that backs up the "fact" that my assumptions are weak?
What branch of scientist do you practice? Phrenology?
August 6, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it is any consolation, I wrote the post to which you are responding before you paid me your very gracious compliment, and (here is the part that may be a consolation) I felt like a genuine heel for authoring this post when I read your kind words.
While I repent of the brusque phrasing of my post, however, I stand by the essential thrust of it - your claim is ambiguous. Obama (or any other candidate for the presidency) is going to end up spending a gargantuan sum and putting in a heroic effort regardless of circumstances. As such, it is rather a frivolous claim to say that he will lose unless he puts in a gargantuan effort and spends a gargantuan sum. Presumably you mean to say that he has let himself get far enough behind that he will need to spend even more than he would have had he not "tacked to the center" a few weeks back; fair enough, how much more? I want to know the criteria by which your claim can be evaluated as true or false come November 5.
August 6, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, astrology?
August 6, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gave you the MO trendlines above. Their composite averages in this state are less than 2% apart and Obama's number is waxing while McCain's is waning. If that constitutes a "solid" lead for McCain in your book then you have a very idiosyncratic definition of the word "solid."
August 6, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kinesiology?
August 6, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a pity that I am running out of points to make, as I am becoming interested to see how many of these you can manage to come up with.
August 6, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a pity that I am running out of points to make
Good one! Implying that you had one in the first place.
August 6, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a pity that I am running out of points to make
Here's another compliment for you: This is artfully phrased. It implies that you actually had a point to make in the first place, but relieves you of the requirement to actually state what is so manifestly false.
August 6, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch.
August 6, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, is Kinesiology really a pseudoscience? The University of Michigan (hardly a crackpot institution) has a Division of Kinesiology, but no Dept of Pataphysics or School of Astrology. I gather, then, that kinesiology is not so terribly outre.
August 6, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so incidently, are there any major advances lately in Dianetics?
August 6, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your assumptions are that McCain is reliably entitled to count on almost all the swing states that went red last time (except CO and NV) but Obama is not entitled to count on all the swing states that went blue. Historically, however, it is exceedingly rare for one party to hold on to the White House for three consecutive terms and it is nearly unheard of for the party in power to retain control of the White House when the present occupant's approval rating is below 50%. In other words, historically speaking, the odds are strongly in our favor (and before you dismiss historical arguments, take note of the fact that you are employing them to explain away Obama's present lead in Virginia and Indiana). As such, your assumption that the initiative is McCain's is altogether counter-intuitive. It requires us to believe that this year will be the great exception to a centuries old trend. Possible, but not especially plausible. I stand by my claim - you assumptions are unsound, and thus your conclusion unconvincing.
August 6, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your assumptions are that McCain is reliably entitled to count on almost all the swing states that went red last time (except CO and NV) but Obama is not entitled to count on all the swing states that went blue.
And YOU call ME insipid?!?!?! Probably in the same sense that you call Virginia a swing state. Zero-for-ten is not what even such an esteemed scientist and mathematician such as you would call a toss-up.
How's that lead-to-gold thing working out for you?
August 6, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your ad hominems are bright and shiny, but your quantitative argument is looking a little rusty.
August 6, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your ad hominems are bright and shiny, but your quantitative argument is looking a little rusty.
First, thanks. I'm just having some fun with the ad homs, since The Scientist decided that's how he wanted to play. I'm not really as pissed off as I sound.
Second, wrong. See First.
August 6, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a pretty thoughtful electoral-vote scenario from Chuck Todd:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/06/1249422.aspx
Technically, he leaves a whole lot in the "toss-up" bin. Cause it's August. But they also venture a guess. Here's the crucial part.
Among the toss-ups, FL, MO, and NV seem likely to go McCain, and MI, NM, and PA seem likely Obama.
That leaves NH, CO, VA, and OH as true toss-ups. But given the rest of the map (as they see it) McCain has to win all three of CO, OH, and VA in order to win.
August 6, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good link. I'd say Mr. Todd's view is a bit more pessimistic than mine.
McCain has to win all three of CO, OH, and VA in order to win.
Which is a completely credible possibility, CO and VA easily, OH likely.
August 6, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to pollster.com, Obama is currently ahead in all three states, though only by a margin of 2-3%.
McCain could certainly close that gap. Looking at any of the three states individually, I'd say he has decent odds of winning the state. Maybe not quite 50/50, but decent odds.
But if he has to win all three . . . well . . . it is, as you say, "a completely credible possibility." But not a very likely one.
Of course, it's August, and your mileage may vary.
August 6, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pataphysical science?
August 6, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, wrong guy. Sorry!
August 6, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specifically, if we suppose that McCain has a 50% chance of winning any of the three -- which would be generous, because he's trailing in all three -- but let's be generous . . .
then his chance of winning *all* three would be 12.5%.
I think that's quite optimistic. But if we're gaming out what an optimistic scenario for McCain would look like . . . it looks like 12.5%.
August 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my opinion, you are being extremely generous, but to Sen. Obama. Mr. Rove has barely started cranking up the Shit Mill, those states have a solid 'Pub tradition, and people who have no intention of voting for an AA will lie quite convincingly and joyfully to pollsters.
Fifty-fifty? Maybe 70-30. R to D.
August 6, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can see that I have rather fouled things up on this thread. Is it too late for me to apologize for my needlessly aggressive posts earlier in the thread? I do not imagine that I can reverse the course that the conversation is taking on this thread, but I would hate to make myself permanently persona non grata on any thread that you might author in future, dear Tankard. I am sorry for the brusque tone of my post, especially for the use of the word "insipid."
August 6, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's never too late to apologize, MoVo. I just took your, what? belligerence? as an excuse to riff on you. I was in a pissy mood already.
So, I accept yours because I know you're not really a shithead, you just play one sometimes on the internet, which don't we all?
And I apologize for following suit. Let's promise to play together better the next time.
Getting back to the argument. If feel that my numbers are perfectly adequate to justify what is my opinion about the way this election is going. I think your candidate is in some deep doodoo, and I think it'll get worse. Although I'm quite sure the popular vote will be close, barring one side or the other calling his wife a cunt during the debates, I'm guessing that Sen. McCain will have a narrow victory wrapped up early. I hope I'm wrong.
But it's an opinion, and as everyone keeps pointing out, it's August. Besides, what do I know? I was the one walking around the neighborhood practicing the words, "President Dukakis."
August 6, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think an unexamined issue that might explain a lot of our argument on the thread is the difference in methodology between electoral-vote and pollster.
The two sites show significantly different results, and they produce them in significantly different ways.
August 6, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment