ONTD Political

As Nation and Parties Change, Republicans Are at an Electoral College Disadvantage

6:27 am - 11/10/2012
As Nation and Parties Change, Republicans Are at an Electoral College Disadvantage

Two more presidential elections, 2016 and 2020, will be contested under the current Electoral College configuration, which gave Barack Obama a second term on Tuesday. This year’s results suggest that this could put Republicans at a structural disadvantage.

Based on a preliminary analysis of the returns, Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College. The last Republican to accomplish that was George H.W. Bush, in 1988. In the table below, I have arranged the 50 states and the District of Columbia from the most Democratic to the most Republican, based on their preliminary results from Tuesday. Along the way, I have counted up the number of electoral votes for the Democratic candidate, starting at zero and going up to 538 as he wins progressively more difficult states.

This process resembles how the FiveThirtyEight tipping-point analysis was calculated. In the simulations we ran each day, we accounted for the range of possible outcomes in each state and then saw which states provided Mr. Obama with his easiest route to 270 electoral votes, the minimum winning number. The state that put Mr. Obama over the top to 270 electoral votes was the tipping-point state in that simulation.



Now that the actual returns are in, we don’t need the simulations or the forecast model. It turned out, in fact, that although the FiveThirtyEight model had a very strong night over all on Tuesday, it was wrong about the identity of the tipping-point state. Based on the polls, it appeared that Ohio was the state most likely to win Mr. Obama his 270th electoral vote. Instead, it was Colorado that provided him with his win – the same state that did so in 2008.

The worry for Republicans is that Mr. Obama won Colorado by nearly five percentage points (4.7 points was his margin there, to the decimal place). In contrast, Mr. Obama’s margin in the national popular vote, as of this writing, is 2.4 percentage points. We estimate that it will grow to 2.5 percentage points once some remaining returns from states like Washington are accounted for, or perhaps slightly higher once provisional ballots in other states are counted. But it seems clear that Mr. Obama had some margin to spare in the Electoral College.

Had the popular vote been a tie – assuming that the margin in each state shifted uniformly – he would still have won re-election with 285 electoral votes, carrying Colorado and Virginia, although losing Florida and Ohio.

In fact, had Mr. Romney won the popular vote by two percentage points, Mr. Obama would still have won the Electoral College, losing Virginia but holding onto Colorado.

Of course, the relative order of the states can shift a bit from election to election: in 2000, after all, it was Democrats who lost the Electoral College despite winning the popular vote.

Ohio might be one of the Republicans’ lesser worries. Mr. Obama did win the state, but his margin is 1.9 percentage points based on the ballots in so far, slightly less than his margin of victory nationally, and he may have benefited there from the auto bailout, a one-off event.

But Mr. Obama did not need Ohio to carry the Electoral College, it turned out. Instead, states where there have been demographic shifts, like Colorado, gave him enough of a cushion.

Nor was Ohio the only formerly Republican-leaning state to move closer to the Electoral College tipping point. Mr. Obama’s margins in Virginia, Florida and North Carolina also held up well as compared to 2008.

Virginia, in fact, was incrementally more Democratic-leaning than the country as a whole this year, voting for Mr. Obama by three percentage points.

In Florida, Democrats now seem to have a real advantage with Hispanic voters. Non-Cuban Hispanics there voted for Mr. Obama by roughly the same two-to-one margins that they did in other states, and the Cuban-American vote, long considered Republican-leaning, is now divided about equally between the parties.

Mr. Obama lost North Carolina on Tuesday, but he did so by only about two percentage points. By contrast, in 2000 Al Gore lost North Carolina by 13 points despite winning the national popular vote.

If these states are becoming more Democratic-leaning, which ones are shifting toward Republicans?

Missouri, once a tossup, is now solidly Republican. And West Virginia, which was once Democratic-leaning enough that Michael Dukakis carried it in 1988, voted for Mr. Romney by 27 points on Tuesday.

The problem for Republicans is that in states like these, and others like Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas, they are now winning by such large margins there that their vote is distributed inefficiently in terms of the Electoral College.

By contrast, a large number of electorally critical states – both traditional swing states like Iowa and Pennsylvania and newer ones like Colorado and Nevada – have been Democratic-leaning in the past two elections. If Democrats lose the election in a blowout, they would probably lose these states as well. But in a close election, they are favored in them.

The Republican Party will have four years to adapt to the new reality. Republican gains among Hispanic voters could push Colorado and Nevada back toward the tipping point, for example.

States like Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Iowa are overwhelmingly white – but also highly educated, with fairly progressive views on social policy. If Republicans moderated their tone on social issues, they might be more competitive in these states, while regaining ground in Northern Virginia and in the Philadelphia suburbs.

Finally, some of the Democrats’ apparent advantage in the swing states may reflect Mr. Obama’s voter targeting and turnout operations – which were superior, by most accounts, to John McCain’s in 2008 and Mr. Romney’s in 2012.

It is not my job to give advice, but the next Republican nominee might be well served to remember that the party won the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote in 2000, when George W. Bush and Karl Rove put more emphasis on the “ground game.” But the Republicans seemed to be at a disadvantage in the last two years when their candidates put less of an investment into it.

If the parties continue down the same paths, however, this won’t be the last election when most of the swing states turn blue.



Source

OP: There are other charts and fancy-smancy election predictions at the source and how that played out but I couldn't figure how to put all those side graphs in. XD The video is from the The Young Turks. I just found it interesting.
lovedforaday 10th-Nov-2012 10:44 pm (UTC)
As Nation and Parties Change, Republicans Are at an Electoral College Disadvantage

That's probably why some conservatives are wishing each Congressional district gets one or two electoral votes instead of most states being winner-take-all and forcing people take civics tests before they're allowed to vote.
layweed 10th-Nov-2012 10:49 pm (UTC)
How long before the Republicans are yelling for Electoral College reform/abolishment? I mean I know Trump already did because for a brief moment it looked like Romney won the popular but got trounced in the Electoral College, but...yeah.
pennylane101 10th-Nov-2012 11:48 pm (UTC)
only repubs keep losing the popular vote as well...
layweed 11th-Nov-2012 12:01 am (UTC)
Yeah but they're only losing the popular vote by a few percent points, while they're getting trounced in the Electoral College.
karma_aster 11th-Nov-2012 01:51 am (UTC)
Getting rid of the Electoral College could still screw them over, though, given the high populations in largely left-leaning states. Unless the party makes some serious changes(i.e. stop being so damn racist, sexist, and homophobic!), the Electoral College is the only thing that gives them any advantage at all.
hinoema 11th-Nov-2012 06:15 am (UTC)
Exactly. The bulk of the population centers are in solid blue states. A straight popular vote would literally give the left a free pass.
anolinde 11th-Nov-2012 01:35 am (UTC)
I wouldn't blame them tbh, and if it gets the Electoral College abolished then great, but it still wouldn't have helped them this election, lol.
corinn 11th-Nov-2012 02:52 am (UTC)
LOL "The Electoral College should be abolished!" was happening on a FB friend's wall within an hour of the election being called. They were also still insisting that Romney would get the popular vote at the time, but didn't stop after that was called, too.
moonshaz 11th-Nov-2012 03:04 am (UTC)
Denial is a such powerful thing, lol!
mindrtist 11th-Nov-2012 03:28 am (UTC)
± 3 million, right?
zeonchar 11th-Nov-2012 10:54 pm (UTC)
I have a friend who said that Romney got the popular vote and then went on to say that the election wasn't over for him because they still had to count Florida, as if it would make any difference at that point. SMH at uninformed people.
martydressler 11th-Nov-2012 04:11 am (UTC)
There were rocket scientists* calling for electoral college abolishment in one of my classes Wednesday morning. :/
elobelia 10th-Nov-2012 11:27 pm (UTC)
They wouldn't be at a disadvantage if they weren't assholes to anyone who wasn't rich white men.
rainbow_fish 11th-Nov-2012 03:26 am (UTC)
ding ding ding!
bestdaywelived 10th-Nov-2012 11:42 pm (UTC)
Meh, I like the Electoral College, especially considering that, if Rethugs take over, education will be even more gutted than it already is, setting up more lemmings to vote against their interests.
layweed 11th-Nov-2012 12:31 am (UTC)
I really think they should change from a winner take all system to by district, but I'm not sure how that would work exactly when it comes to the senatorial votes? Idk I just want my vote to matter more than a "Hey look Texas is slowly turning blue!" way and have an actual impact on the results.
bestdaywelived 11th-Nov-2012 01:26 am (UTC)
That's fair. I live in PA, and if not for the liberal counties (Centre, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh, generally), we'd be red. I'd worry about the impact of district voting, especially since so many of the rural areas of the country are so deep red.
zeonchar 11th-Nov-2012 10:56 pm (UTC)
Same here with California.
bellichka 11th-Nov-2012 01:29 am (UTC)
If we had a district system instead of winner-takes-all, we'd get districts with 2 million people having the same "say" as districts with 2,000 people... and I'm not cool with that. Essentially, the electoral college is exactly what you're suggesting, except on a larger scale, and it's proportionally based on population (sort of). Actually, the numbers for the electoral college currently favor Republicans.
layweed 11th-Nov-2012 01:37 am (UTC)
Ah, that's a good point. I had completely forgotten about that fact.
mindrtist 11th-Nov-2012 03:26 am (UTC)
my brain isn't working right now. how does it favor them?
bestdaywelived 11th-Nov-2012 05:52 am (UTC)
If each district was given an equal vote in the Electoral College, those of us in highly-populated districts would have votes that counted "less" than those in rural areas. For instance, in some parts of PA there are large , sparsely populated areas that are districts, and (I think) Philadelphia is one. There are something like 1 million people in the city, and some rural areas probably serve in the 5 figures.
bushy_brow 11th-Nov-2012 07:28 am (UTC)
It's the two electoral votes that each state gets, regardless of population, that skews the electoral college in favor of Republicans. Going by the 2012 results, for instance, a single vote in Wyoming had over TWICE the impact in the electoral college that a single vote in California had, when you divide the electoral college votes by the number of votes cast in each state.
thunderbird8 11th-Nov-2012 02:32 am (UTC)
The two states that divide their electoral votes by district allocate one per district, with the remaining two going to the statewide victor.
bestdaywelived 11th-Nov-2012 03:20 am (UTC)
I'm not a fan of that, either. My state has large rural areas with a tiny fraction of the population of Philadelphia county; I don't think that their votes should count "more" than those of us in suburbs/cities.
amyura 11th-Nov-2012 04:50 am (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, the Democrats aren't really any better on education. They just go about gutting it in different ways. Emphasis on standardized testing and shifting resources to charter schools (including religious and for-profit) are worse under Obama than they were under Bush. We teachers still went overwhelmingly for Obama, but that's because we care about other issues too.
pennylane101 10th-Nov-2012 11:43 pm (UTC)
"Republicans Are at an Electoral College Disadvantage"

ok
jwaneeta 11th-Nov-2012 12:27 am (UTC)
haha, right? Suits me just fine.
bellichka 10th-Nov-2012 11:44 pm (UTC)
"nate silver taught numbers how to fuck" tag, plz.
meimichan 10th-Nov-2012 11:54 pm (UTC)
Co-signed.
bushy_brow 11th-Nov-2012 01:27 am (UTC)
This!
celtic_thistle 11th-Nov-2012 01:53 am (UTC)
Agreed!
rex_dart 11th-Nov-2012 02:15 am (UTC)
as you wish
amyura 11th-Nov-2012 04:51 am (UTC)
YES.
jwaneeta 11th-Nov-2012 12:22 am (UTC)
I hope it's not bad luck to say it, but I think the future is here.
bib_specialist 11th-Nov-2012 02:52 am (UTC)
Awwwww, my heart just bleeds for them.
mindrtist 11th-Nov-2012 03:11 am (UTC)
Oh no, you mean their gerrymandering in The House isn't enough satisfaction?


A few days out, I'm still enjoying Karl Rove's assertion that The Dems 'suppressed the vote'. He's such a precious little pony.
hinoema 11th-Nov-2012 06:19 am (UTC)
IKR? They wouldn't have the House if ti weren't for jacking the districts around in their favor. (See: M. Bachman)
rainbow_fish 11th-Nov-2012 03:36 am (UTC)
So my Tea Party mother and I were having a conversation about the election, about the Reflopican party, and social issues the other day and she was telling me that she truly doesn't think that conservatives should have to budge AT ALL on ANYTHING, but that Obama is doing a disservice to the country by not compromising with them. And she wasn't being sarcastic, she was being deadly serious. What's so nuts about that is that (because anything she says is a regurgitation of right wing media) conservatives seem to believe they THEY make policy based on moral conviction, but that liberals make policy based on damaging the country, or just pandering to voters.

Of course, she also told me that she wants to keep the electoral college because after Obama kills the country, it will favor republicans again.

Oh and on the compromise thing she mentioned- I was talking about how the repubs need to stop being so strict on social issues so that they can stop getting whooped in elections because I honestly think that as the country becomes more liberal, the currently super religious right wing will increasingly stop resonating with people. And that's when her response was basically "You can't tell us to stop believing and supporting our fundamental ideals, u libs r soo rewd"

So... from that somewhat insider perspective, I think it's interesting to see which conservatives will try to hop on the moderate GOP bandwagon and which will just cry about persecution and go even more right.
recorded 11th-Nov-2012 05:09 am (UTC)
lolol I want you to just shout double standards to everything she says.

I encountered so many republicans who didn't like Romney and then tried say how great Gary Johnson is and how he's so moderate! As if a libertarian policies are moderate. They kept insisting that he would get so many votes. They fail to realize he doesn't appeal to liberal-leaning moderates just because he supports weed or gay marriage.
bestdaywelived 11th-Nov-2012 05:54 am (UTC)
I grew up with an evangelical mother. I feel your pain.

My mother loves to complain about Obama, but at least she's too fucking lazy to actually vote.
effervescent 11th-Nov-2012 06:05 am (UTC)
Lol Reflopican.

I honestly wonder what the Republicans will do. It seems like the vocal ones on Twitter and in the party are so dead set against compromising in any way - once again, pandering to their base. Don't they realise that part of the reason they lost was *because* of how much they dug in their heels?
randomtasks 11th-Nov-2012 04:53 am (UTC)
And yet they have control of the house because of gerrymandering.
amyura 11th-Nov-2012 05:21 am (UTC)
Seriously. Michelle Bachmann's district in Minnesota looks ridiculous.
recorded 11th-Nov-2012 05:03 am (UTC)
amyura 11th-Nov-2012 05:11 am (UTC)
As a math teacher, all this "It's the numbers, stupid" stuff warms my heart. The way I look at it, the Southern Strategy has finally hit its expiration date. While I think racism and xenophobia among individual whites have gotten worse and that racists seem less ashamed of their repellent views than they used to, they simply don't make up as high a percentage of the overall population as they used to, and they're heavily concentrated in one area.

Although I'm far to the left of the Democrats myself on both economic and social issues, I don't think the country is well served by having only one party with any realistic chance of winning. What I think would be best is if the Republicans cast off the Tea Party and religious crazies and tried to compete on the strength of their ideas. Actually having some workable ideas would help too.
hinoema 11th-Nov-2012 06:14 am (UTC)
As nation and parties change, Republicans are at an electoral College disadvantage.

That's because they're at a moral, ethical and relational disadvantage. They don't understand modern Americans, don't want to and want to force everyone to conform to their narrow views of propriety.
This page was loaded Apr 17th 2014, 12:50 am GMT.