Why Tuesday may kill the Electoral College
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Why Tuesday may kill the Electoral College
This election reminds me a little of the 1997 World Series between Cleveland and Florida, which produced six really boring games and then a nail-biting Game 7. (Also like this...the 2000 presidential election,) If you think about it, I tend to agree with "the wizard," Nate Silver, Intrade, and the others who are predicting -- but not guaranteeing -- an Obama victory. It could come at the end of a very long night, though.
Here's 2 random thoughts:
1) Romney is doing well -- i.e., tied or slightly ahead -- in the national polls, while Obama seems to be strengthening his advantage in the battleground states that actually decide who becomes (or stays) president, as not-43rd-president Al Gore could remind all of you. The significance of that is clear: for the second time in the last four presidential election, a candidate might lose the popular vote yet win the Electoral College.
Why is this happening? I have two ideas, which are somewhat distinct but could compliment each other. First of all, everyone said going into this that the odds were against Obama because of the economy -- no president since FDR in the Great Depression has been re-elected with unemployment so high, and in the national polls large numbers have said the nation is on the wrong track.
But the Obama campaign is very skillful, and without a primary they could marshall all their resources in the only nine or 10 states that matter. In those states, they've been able to run mucho ads defining Romney as a clueless multi-millionaire (seems fair) and made the election not a referendum on Obama and the economy but a choice between Obama and Romney. In other words, in 10 states where Obama's made it a choice , he's overperforming, while in the 40 states where there's no campaign he's underperforming. So, in other words, Romney might win a huge landslide in Texas and lose by less than McCain did in New York and California -- but that means nothing.
The other thing is that (here's where you can cue up your old Neil Young LP) the "Southern Man" is going to vote against Obama in over-the-top numbers. Now you might respond by saying, so what: Obama's going to get 95 percent of the black vote. True, but that's little changed from the last half-century or so of elections, while Romney's epic lead against southern whites is fairly without precedent (well, 2008, but more so this time.). If you looked at the times that the 2012 polls have been broken out by region, Obama leads narrowly in the East, West, and Midwest, but has a massive deficit in the South. What's interesting is that this has always been the argument for the Electoral College, right?...to prevent a candidate who's incredibly strong in a few states from beating a rival with coast-to-coast appeal.
Still, if this split decision is what happens after Tuesday (and let's not even talk about a tie), then you can expect conservatives will freak out -- just as liberals freaked out in 2000. But here's one final twist: Obama is on the record -- from his 2004 Senate campaign, to be exact -- as saying he would scrap the Electoral College. If this scenario plays out, it could create a Nixon-goes-to-China kind of moment where everyone is on the record as against the Electoral College. And so maybe they'll actually get rid of it.
Is that a good idea?
2) The pundit class has been generally freaking out these days -- the freakout of the day was a New York Times/CBS poll that showed Obama beating Romney (albeit by 1 point, within the margin of error) even though Romney was leading independent voters by 14 points. Mark Halperin in particular was going off on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" about how this could not be possible.
It's very possible. Start with the fact that there are more Democrats than Republicans (although not by as much as 2008) Also, who are these independents, anyway? My experience is that white suburban voters (where Ross Perot was strong, remember?) are the most likely to have no party ID, and it's no secret that Romney has an edge in those areas, but arguably not enough to overcome where Obama is strong. So those "independent" numbers may be overrated.
That's all. On everything else...whatever Nate Silver says.
If Obama didn't sleepwalk through the first debate, this thing would be over already. It's gotten interesting but Romney's gonna come up short. Other than Romney losing and the Tea Party being repudiated, the hope here is that Rasmussen is exposed for the right wing farce that it is. They got Hawaii wrong by 43 points last time. 43 POINTS! (in favor of the GOP candidate, of course).— wokmaster- Obama's lead is widening in the swing states. He just might take Florida too. Obama will also win the popular vote. So many of these polls are completely unreliable. I don't know who answers 1-800 numbers anymore when they call, bit certainly not anybody I know. OK, except for my grandma. So who are these people polling?
If some pollster called me, I wouldn't give then the time of day let alone who I was voting for. Will, you can take your Nate Silver and all of his fancy nancy statistics and have your own Halloween party.
I'm guessing that you'll show up as decimal point.— RufusG- Not only what Nate Silver says, but also what Sam Wang says,
http://election.princeton.edu/
you should read his discussion of the discrepancy between national and swing state polls (and state polls in general).
and even what prediction expert Scott Armstrong (a staunch libertarian) says:
http://election.princeton.edu/
And they all have Obama (slightly) ahead in the popular vote (not sure where you get that Romney is tied or ahead).
-----------------
Party ID is a red herring; it is very volatile, and those who try to claim bias in polls based on party ID are mostly doing so to confirm their biases.— Talking point sleuth - BTW - Sam Wang nailed the Electoral College vote precisely in 2004 and was off by all of one EV in 2008 (or maybe got 2008 exactly right and was off by one EV in 2004 - I forget and his site is down at the moment and only showing a Google cache version).— Talking point sleuth
- Heh! "Fancy Nancy statistics." Yeah - like all those "Fancy Nancy statistics" that say that the economic damage from Sandy will amount to between $20-$50 billion. Rufus knows better because he was able to go to the WaWa.
Hilarious.— Talking point sleuth - If I were Nancy Pelosi I would have proclaimed that Hurricane Sandy was an economic stimulus. "Oh just think about all of the shovel ready jobs that she(Sandy) created". That's how these left wing loons think.... including TPS.— RufusG
- BTW - via Nate Silver on Twitter -
--snip--
7 polls released in Ohio in past 48 hours: Obama +2, Obama +3, Obama +3, Obama +3, Obama +5, Obama +5, Obama +5
--snip--
Pretty long odds that 7 polls would all be wrong, and pretty long odds that Romney will turn that around in less than a week. Maybe lying about the auto industry wasn't such a smart idea after all?
— Talking point sleuth - too bad most oversample dems. but hey whatever helps you sleep tps — rysagr
- Why wouldn't they sample more democrats when more voters are registered democratic? — wokmaster
- the polls are being compared to 08 numbers. nobody can point to anything that says this will compare to 08. bill clinton's guy dick morris weighs 04,06,08,10 numbers and finds an average. he says it will be a romney landslide. — rysagr
- Bill Clinton's guy? Give me a break. I saw the Dick Morris spin today. He's a total GOP hack. You're gonna trot DICK MORRIS out as your evidence? Lol. Clown. Make sure you're on here next Wednesday, rsygar - and don't change your handle. — wokmaster
- The left wing loons (of the Democratic party) groomed Obama to become president since 2004 (if not earlier). He fit all of their social and political profiles........ a Black guy who (Joe Biden called clean cut and articulate) could speak to the masses and a man who graduated Harvard (an attraction to those quasi and hopeful intellectuals that were wasting their lives writing blogs).— RufusG
- The idiocy of Rufus never ceases to amaze me. In his world, a guy like Tom Smith - who is a know-nothing Tea Party hack, without the slightest grasp of any issue - other than 'lower taxes', is a better candidate than an intelligent, well spoken Harvard grad. And as always, Rufus can't resist inserting the race card into every political discussion. — wokmaster
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
