The National Popular Vote Plan...and Other Ways of Reforming the Electoral College

We here at FHQ have certainly spent some time discussing the various ways (and likelihood) of reforming the presidential nomination process. Now that the 2008 campaign has shifted into general election mode however, it may be time to look into America's other electoral problem child, the electoral college. [When it comes to reform, often, no two things are higher on the list than the frontloading of presidential primaries and the disparity between the electoral college and the overall popular vote.]

The issue? Well, unless you've been under a rock since early November 2000, you're probably aware that a candidate for president can win the most votes nationwide, but still lose the electoral college vote and in the process fail to become president. To some folks that's a problem (...and you can bet whoever it is they have a D next to their name for the time being.). But hey, out of 55 presidential elections in US history, only 3 have had a discrepancy between popular vote winner and the electoral college outcome (That's about 5% of the time.). In other words, about once every 75 years. Is it too much to ask for a little, once-in-a-lifetime, electoral excitement? Okay, I understand that some people have the "one person, one vote" hang up, but still.

The rules do matter, though. The popular vote isn't how the president is selected just as it wasn't the method in which the Democratic nomination was decided in 2008. That doesn't mean that those rules cannot be revisited and altered though. As sure as the rules governing the ways in which nominees are chosen will be examined in detail prior to 2012, the electoral college is going and will continue to be examined as long as the institution acts as the final hurdle of the presidential election system. There are differing views on how to deal with the issue ranging from completely do away with the electoral college to simply leaving well enough alone.

Let's look at these individually:
1) Abolish the electoral college. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), leaning on the one person, one vote argument (a powerful one, mind you), is the latest to propose amending the constitution to do away the electoral college completely. Amending the constitution solves the problem, but that isn't really the issue with this option. The means of getting to that end are what stands in the way of a change. The constitution is held sacred and altering it is not something taken lightly or easily pulled off. So while it is easy enough to say that the constitution should be amended, it is an entirely different matter to actually make the change. As good as Nelson's intentions may be (He appears to be making a play for the mantle of voting rights senator and that will certainly won't hurt his future electoral pursuits in a place like Florida.), this one probably isn't going anywhere.

2) National Popular Vote Plan: Now here's a clever way around the amendment issue. Anchor the distribution of a state's electoral votes to the national popular vote. The issue I have with this plan is similar to a point brought up by FHQ reader, Scott, in the comments the other day: the action would be shifted from battleground states to the more populous states. Instead of a red-blue-purple divide, the door could be opened to a rural-urban-suburban/exurban divide. So while the plan potentially helps to spread the attention from the typical swing states to some not so typical players, the NPV ultimately just shifts candidate attention from competitive states to populous states; the very thing the Founders were attempting to insulate the system from. But hey, candidates could raise their money and campaign in a state at the same time. This one has unintended consequences written all over it.

3) The Maine-Nebraska District Plan Nationwide (or in more than those two states): Now this idea has been bandied about in several state legislatures lately (California and North Carolina, notably). Essentially, states would allocate their electoral votes based on how each individual district voted with the two Senate seat electors being determined by the statewide outcome. This is similar to how delegates were distributed in proportional primaries in 2008. In this instance the balance of power would shift from swing states to swing districts. That could bring at least part of a state some national attention from the major party candidates. Nothing gives the Democrats more nightmares than the idea of having those 55 California electoral votes split up though. And the reverse could be true in typically Republican states. No state legislature is going to opt for this plan if the party in control of said legislature would potentially negatively affect the prospects of their national party being able to win the White House. Partisanship is the likely roadblock to this plan then.

4) The Leave it alone plan: Can you tell where I'm going with this? In the end, the most pragmatic approach is to leave well enough alone and grin and bear it when the once-in-a-lifetime, electoral college at odds with the popular vote scenario pops up. The whole thing seems like such a problem now, but when Johnson and Reagan were winning in landslides you only heard the vanquished parties calling (and quietly at that) for there to be some electoral college reform.

...and even then it wouldn't have made that much of a difference.

So is that pragmatism or the partisan gridlock that so many Americans are sick of? The comments section awaits. Feel free to weigh in.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/25/08)

Vice Presidents Quiz

Presidents and Vice Presidents from the Same State: The Misconception of the 12th Amendment

The Electoral College Map (6/25/08)

And the Kiss of Death Award for the week goes to the Sunday electoral college post for claiming that the frequency of state head-to-head polling had increased. The rest of the week may be jam packed with polling but the week so far has yielded very little in the way of polling. So few in fact, that I waited until today's polling surfaced before running to the virtual presses. Yeah sure, that's why you're so tardy.

New Polls (June 22-25)
State	Poll	Margin
Arizona	Cronkite	+10
California	Rasmussen	+28
Indiana	Survey USA	+1
Michigan	PPP	+9
Missouri	Survey USA	+7
Nebraska	Rasmussen	+16
New Mexico	Rasmussen	+8
New Mexico	Survey USA	+3
Oregon	Survey USA	+3
Pennsylvania	Rasmussen	+4
Utah	Deseret News	+28
Utah	Rasmussen	+19

From Sunday through today, there were twelve new polls from ten states. Both New Mexico and Utah were polled twice, but the new numbers did little to change the landscape in either state. Utah was never a place where Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) was going to do well, so it isn't terribly surprising to see the presumptive Democratic nominee trailing by more than twenty points in the Beehive state. New Mexico is and will continue to be a battleground heading into the fall because of its even distribution of Democratic and Republican partisans. And even though the Land of Enchantment is as susceptible to the same indicators that are dragging Republicans nationwide down, the state does neighbor John McCain's home of Arizona. That being said, the 8 point margin in Obama's favor in the Rasmussen poll does push New Mexico on to the Watch List (below). Another similar result out of the state could bump the New Mexico into Obama lean territory.

Of the other polls, California remains firmly in the Democratic column while states like Arizona and Nebraska continue to be solidly Republican. If California and Nebraska are running to the extremes, both Indiana and Oregon are trending away from their traditional red and blue electoral roots, respectively, to the middle. Oregon had always been considered a toss up in some quarters, but in the midst of an active primary campaign had given Obama watchers what may eventually prove to be an inflated sense of security. The Beaver state was closing in on being solidly blue, but has reversed course in recent polling and looks to potentially be competitive. And while Obama got something of a bounce (that has since receded) in Oregon after its primary, the competitive primary in Indiana appears to be a bit more influential. The polling in the Hoosier continues to show a close race in a typically red state.

Finally, the new polling out of Michigan and Missouri provided each campaign with a bit of a cushion this week. Both states will undoubtedly be competitive in the fall, but both the Wolverine state and the Show-Me state inched in the direction of where they have been in recent electoral cycles. Missouri moved to the right while Michigan headed toward the left.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

And what does all this mean for the electoral college map? Nothing really. On the whole, this collection of polls did little to rewrite the current narrative of the general election campaign. Obama's 38 electoral vote victory persists through this iteration of the analysis with Ohio (no new polls) and its 20 electoral votes still tied. Where there are some shifts though, is on the Watch List.

The Watch List*
State	Switch
Georgia	from McCain lean	to Strong McCain
Massachusetts	from Obama lean	to Strong Obama
Mississippi	from Strong McCain	to McCain lean
Missouri	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
Nevada	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up McCain
New Mexico	from Toss Up Obama	to Obama lean
North Carolina	from McCain lean	to Toss Up McCain
Ohio	from Tied	to Toss Up Dem. or GOP
Texas	from Strong McCain	to McCain lean
Wisconsin	from Toss Up Obama	to Obama lean
*Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

The Michigan poll didn't have enough oomph to push the Wolverine state into the Obama lean category, but it did move the state out of the "it could switch to McCain very easily" area. The same thing could almost be said in Missouri as well. That seven point edge for McCain pushed Missouri to the brink of moving to the more comfortable McCain lean distinction. New Mexico is also a new addition to the list. The two new polls there (averaging a 5.5 point margin) brought the weighted average for the Land of Enchantment to the line between toss up favoring Obama to an Obama lean state.

Moving forward, these are ten states to keep your eye on. But other states could jump into the mix as more polls emerge.


Oh, and for those who took the NYT Vice President's quiz (whether you shared your answers or not), look no further than the first comment from Jack for the correct answers. Congrats to Jack. A lowly graduate student has little to offer (This ain't The Fix, with their fancy t-shirts.), but he's won the coveted first annual FHQ memorial, "...classic, deluxe, custom, designer, luxury, prestige, high-quality, premium, select, gourmet pocket pencil sharpener. It's our way of saying thank you...*" for participating. A doff of the hat to George Carlin on that one. I'll miss the guy.


*from Carlin's book, Napalm and Silly Putty.


Recent Posts:
Vice Presidents Quiz

Presidents and Vice Presidents from the Same State: The Misconception of the 12th Amendment

New Zealand Schoolgirls, Simpleminded Voters and Presidential Elections

Vice Presidents Quiz

Alright FHQ readers. The Week in Review in the Sunday Times had a quiz testing your ability to match vice presidents with the presidents they served.

Via The New York Times (The online edition is gated, so I'll reproduce it here so our readers can test their knowledge.):

The office of vice president has been a springboard for some of the most important leaders in American history, including John Adams, Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson and Harry S. Truman.

But many of those who have filled the position have found themselves on the fast, or slow, track to obscurity — or worse. Franklin D. Roosevelt went through three vice presidents. Richard M. Nixon’s vice president was forced to resign (10 months before M. Nixon himself did). Thomas Jefferson’s was indicted for murder. Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson, who both made the leap from the vice presidency to the top slot, left their former jobs vacant. Below are 10 vice presidents and 10 presidents. Who goes with whom?

1. Garret A. Hobart
2. Adlai E. Stevenson
3. Henry A. Wallace
4. Hannibal Hamlin
5. Calvin Coolidge
6. Charles G. Dawes
7. William R. King
8. James S. Sherman
9. Alben W. Barkley
10. Elbridge Gerry

A. William H. Taft
B. Calvin Coolidge
C. Grover Cleveland
D. Abraham Lincoln
E. Harry S. Truman
F. Franklin D. Roosevelt
G. William McKinley
H. James Madison
I. Warren G. Harding
J. Franklin Pierce

Take the test and share your results...if you dare. I'll post the answers tomorrow afternoon.



Recent Posts:
Presidents and Vice Presidents from the Same State: The Misconception of the 12th Amendment

New Zealand Schoolgirls, Simpleminded Voters and Presidential Elections

The Electoral College Map (6/22/08)

Presidents and Vice Presidents from the Same State: The Misconception of the 12th Amendment

Ballot Access News has a great post up today examining in detail the 12th amendment and especially the one section of it that is often misinterpreted.

The question: Can presidential and vice presidential nominees be from the same state?

Myth: No, they can't (...with the reasoning being that representatives of one state shouldn't hold that much power.).

Fact: Well, as the good folks at BAN point out, that's not the case. Both nominees can be from the same state, but the electoral college electors from that state would be unable to cast a vote for that ticket. George W. Bush, a Texan, in 2000 chose another Texan (via Wyoming), Dick Cheney. Such a ticket would not have been a problem under the 12th amendment until it came time for the electors from the Lone Star state to vote in the electoral college. But those delegates wouldn't have mattered anyway, right Al Gore supporters? Hey wait. You mean to tell me, Al Gore could have raised this issue, had those 32 electors from Texas excluded and become president? Well, several Texas voters sued to challenge Cheney's residency during the election aftermath in 2000 thinking the same thing. So, Al Gore should have been president and we could have been spared all those claims that he was elected, just not in the electoral college? Yeah, well no. The person, be they presidential or vice presidential candidate, only technically has to be a resident of another state at the time that the electors of the electoral college meet in December to vote. So as evil as Dick Cheney seems to Democrats, at least he didn't switch his residency back to Texas the day after the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore and really rub it in. So you have that going for you Gore fans.

[Insert sound of nearly 51 million Gore voters' hands smacking their foreheads in unison.]


Recent Posts:
New Zealand Schoolgirls, Simpleminded Voters and Presidential Elections

The Electoral College Map (6/22/08)

2008 Primary and Caucus Final Grade Sheet

New Zealand Schoolgirls, Simpleminded Voters and Presidential Elections

What took voters in the US two months to figure out, New Zealand schoolgirls determined just by looking at pictures. It took over half the country's primary electorate to narrow the field of prospective presidential nominees from both major parties down to three. But that process had already been done between May and August of 2007 by college students in Australia and New Zealand and high school girls from New Zealand. And that was all based on pictures of the potential candidates that would be vying for the two major party slots in the general election. So we, here in the new world, opted to have debates and campaign in the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire and fuss over Florida and Michigan delegates for nothing? Well no, but that's the beauty of an electoral system. Those rules that were the crux of the Florida/Michigan question are the rules that govern how these nominations are decided.

I'll avoid the "is the system necessary question," but the one question that lingers is, do campaigns matter? If "snap judgments" of schoolgirls thousands of miles away can accurately predict the nominees six months in advance, are all these efforts to get out the vote and advertise all that necessary? We've had this discussion in this space before, but this frames the matter in a slightly different light. If people are going to fall back on those first impression/snap judgments, then is it all much ado about nothing?

It depends on who you ask. Campaigns matter in that they are efforts to change or maintain certain perceptions about the candidates they represent. It is not unlike the web page ranking that Google undertakes. If you have a web page (and are at all entreprenurial about it--ahem) the goal is undoubtedly to get as many people to look at it and read as possible. The window into that is often a search engine. But people aren't going to find a site if it is off the first couple of pages of search results. If a voter's mind is a search engine, a campaign is an effort to make that first page of results as beneficial to their candidate (or as negative for their opponent) as they can. Campaigns, then, are ways of altering those search results. If you typed in "Obama" in Google and got a first page of results ranging from the Obama campaign's web site to news accounts about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright to rumors of his being Muslim, the Obama campaign would have its work cut out. [In fact, that's very much what the Obama campaign is doing with its Fight the Smears web site, turning those perceptions on their head.] And it is like that in the minds of voters as well. If you were to ask the man on the street to name ten things about John McCain or Barack Obama, you could likely get a glimpse into what those internal search engine results are. And those are the ten things that any campaign is seeking to maintain or change.

Of course, those percptions (first impressions or otherwise) are influenced by partisanship, a person's level of political sophistication, and/or other information shortcuts that help make the vote choice decision an easier one to make. Those heuristics or shortcuts are the root of Samuel Popkin's The Reasoning Voter thesis and more recently have found their way into the work of Lau and Redlawsk. As the latter work shows, however, the efficient utilization of shortcuts depends in large part on how much political knowledge someone already possesses. The more politically sophisticated a person, the better able that person will be to use the shortcuts to arrive at a vote decision in line with their views. For the uninformed, the result of using those heuristics is not as representative.

Even that success/failure of shortcuts is dependent upon the choices provided. If the choice is a clear one between liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, then the utilization of shortcuts has a greater chance of being fruitful. If you have a more moderate candidate, as John McCain is considered in some circles, the wires get crossed and the useful use of heursitics breaks down. Strategically speaking then, the Obama campaign would likely want to push McCain over to right. McCain has done some of this for the Illinois senator by being on the same side of several issues with the Bush administration. The clearer that choice, the better able folks will be to effectively use shortcuts. McCain, on the other hand, would value occupying the center-right in an effort to muddy the distinction between the two candidates. That, in turn, would affect how effectively those information shortcut would be employed.

...or we could just rely on New Zealand schoolgirls to cut out the middleman and let us know who the next president will be.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/22/08)

2008 Primary and Caucus Final Grade Sheet

Insult to Injury: Obama and His Money

The Electoral College Map (6/22/08)

Polling frequency has certainly shot up since Obama claimed enough delegates to secure the Democratic nomination. Things had gotten slow toward the end of the Democratic battle with the uncertainty of Clinton continuing her candidacy increasing, but they have risen again to a level of about 30 polls a week. Following Wednesday morning's release of the Quinnipiac swing state polls in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, there have been 15 new polls in 13 states:

New Polls (June 18-21)
State	Poll	Margin
Alaska	Rasmussen	+4
California	Survey USA	+12
Colorado	Rasmussen	+2
Florida	ARG	+5
Florida	Rasmussen	+8
Georgia	Poll Position	+1
Iowa	Survey USA	+4
Maine	Rasmussen	+22
Nevada	Rasmussen	+2
New Hampshire	ARG	+12
New Hampshire	Rasmussen	+11
Ohio	Rasmussen	+1
Virginia	Public Policy	+2
Washington	Survey USA	+15
Wisconsin	Survey USA	+9

Alaska surprisingly (or not) remains within Obama's reach following a new Rasmussen poll there. The two new polls out of New Hampshire also paint the race in the Granite state as less competitive than it has appeared recently. Two double digit poll margins will typically help. Both have pulled New Hampshire off the Watch List (below) and though the state is still rated as a toss up favoring Obama, it is trending toward a stronger Obama lean. Among the other states polled, not much is different than before: Virginia is still close, but trending toward Obama, California is still favoring the Democrat and well, not many McCain strongholds were polled this week. In the previous electoral college breakdown, new polling had moved Ohio into the Toss Up Obama category, but evidence of how tenuous that lead was came when the new Rasmussen poll favoring McCain brought the weighted average down to zero. But that shift was the only one other than the shocking poll out of Georgia that showed McCain with only a one point lead in the Peach state. That poll is an outlier, given that most of the polling there had hovered around 10 points. However, with Bob Barr's inclusion in the poll, the margin between McCain and Obama was lower and brought the average just under the 10% line dividing strong McCain states from McCain lean states.

Changes (June 18-21)
State	Before	After
Georgia	Strong McCain	Lean McCain
Ohio	Toss Up Obama	Tied

With those changes the map shifts very little, but Ohio's 20 electoral votes are now withheld from either candidate due to the tie in the Buckeye state. Even then, Obama holds a 38 electoral vote advantage and could withstand the loss of Ohio and still take an electoral college victory.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

On the whole, the momentum remains behind the senator from Illinois. Last week, Michigan and New Hampshire switched from toss ups favoring McCain to toss ups trending toward Obama. And with Ohio's shift earlier this week, Obama took a commanding lead in the electoral college projection. McCain maintains a hold on 202 electoral votes combined in the strong and leaning categories, but with Georgia's switch, that leaning category is growing. Meanwhile, the states on the Obama side are becoming more secure. The strong category grew with the addition of Washington and the toss up category has been augmented by the addition of states that had formerly been toss ups toward McCain.

The Watch List*
State	Switch
Georgia	from McCain lean	to Strong McCain
Massachusetts	from Obama lean	to Strong Obama
Michigan	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up McCain
Mississippi	from Strong McCain	to McCain lean
Nevada	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up McCain
North Carolina	from McCain lean	to Toss Up McCain
Ohio	from Tied	to Toss Up Dem. or GOP
Texas	from Strong McCain	to McCain lean
Wisconsin	from Toss Up Obama	to Obama lean
*Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

That trend is echoed by the potential movement of states on the lines between categories (The Watch List). Of those nine states, five of them are close to moving into categories closer to Obama. Three others (Michigan, Nevada and Ohio) are so close to the tipping point between candidates that patterns are difficult to determine, though they likely hinge on any new polling that emerges from those states. Georgia is the only state that is on a line that could favor McCain with a move.

The one piece of the puzzle that we don't have a sufficient answer to at this point (following Obama's crossing the Democratic delegate barrier) is how things look in some of the strongly partisan states. It is a more interesting question when posed in relation to those solid McCain states. Is the supposed "Obama bounce" being felt in those states as well? Increased polling will help to answer that question.

FHQ has obviously rolled out a new look for this post in an effort to deliver a clearer picture of what we project to be happening in the chase for electoral college votes. Love it? Hate it? The comments section awaits.


Recent Posts:
2008 Primary and Caucus Final Grade Sheet

Insult to Injury: Obama and His Money

The Electoral College Map (6/18/08)

2008 Primary and Caucus Final Grade Sheet

I meant to put this up last week when I completed the grades for each state's primary and/or caucus in 2008. But alas, other things intervened. So let's look at those grades in the aggregate:

2008 Primary & Caucus Grade Sheet
State	Grade
Indiana	A
Iowa	A
New Hampshire	A
South Carolina	A
California	A-
North Carolina	A-
Ohio	A-
Pennsylvania	A-
Texas	A-
Washington	A-
Colorado	B+
Illinois	B+
Kansas	B+
Louisiana	B+
Maryland	B+
Minnesota	B+
New York	B+
Virginia	B+
West Virginia	B+
Alaska	B
Montana	B
Nevada	B
Wisconsin	B
Idaho	B-
Kentucky	B-
Massachusetts	B-
Alabama	C+
Missouri	C+
Nebraska	C+
North Dakota	C+
Oregon	C+
DC	C
Florida	C
Georgia	C
Maine	C
Oklahoma	C
Rhode Island	C
South Dakota	C
Wyoming	C
Connecticut	C-
Hawaii	C-
Mississippi	C-
New Mexico	C-
Tennessee	C-
Utah	C-
Vermont	D+
Arizona	D
Arkansas	D-
Delaware	D-
Michigan	F
New Jersey	F

Which states do well and which states do poorly? Earlier is better, but either having a lot of delegates or holding a stand-alone contest are also beneficial. Louisiana is an interesting case. It may simply be that the state government in the Pelican state wanted to avoid a primary election on Fat Tuesday (...Super Tuesday to the rest of nation), but they broke new ground by holding their primary on a weekend. Tuesdays are typically the domain of primaries, but the Louisiana example may prove a viable alternative for states in 2012. The legislature in Kansas has already considered such a weekend contest for 2012, though the plan was vetoed because a photo ID provision was included in the bill. It will be interesting to see other state legislative action on this as we move into the down time between cycles next year.

And what are the ties that bind those states that had the least influential contests in 2008? Well, there was some bad luck involved. That's fine to say in hindsight, but it is the reality of the situation. For most states that moved to Super Tuesday, the decision was a poor one. Most got lost in the shuffle, but essentially got what they were after: some influence over the nomination decisions. That was easy on the Democratic side, as the battle lasted through each state's contest. On the Republican side, any state that held a contest prior to March 4 technically had a say in the nomination, but got varying returns on their investments. Those states with contests following March 4 were out of the nomination equation (as most post-Super Tuesday states have been since 1988 with few exceptions). Small states on Super Tuesday and those states following March 4 were less successful in influencing the nomination, but the candidates' home states also fared poorly. And this is contrary to some of the stated thought processes of state governments. Such a move helps win a native son or daughter delegates, but that comes at the expense of having the contest matter in the grand scheme of things. If a contest is ceded to one candidate or another because of the home state factor, then the media stays away and the contest proves less than influential. Illinois is the exception here. The Land of Lincoln was delegate-rich enough to be buffered against the downside of the state being ceded to Obama. Arkansas and Arizona, though, were lost in the shuffle on Super Tuesday.

What did the calendar of 2008 teach us? Well, earlier is better, but early and alone is ideal. Most states don't and won't have access to such a combination without the party-sanctioned exemptions that New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada receive. Without reform then, the impetus remains behind holding a contest on Super Tuesday. And ultimately, that will lead to a national primary system with four states having an influence over the others. Is that an ideal system? Maybe, maybe not. But given how difficult it is going to be to significantly reform the system, that is probably what the system will end up looking like.


Recent Posts:
Insult to Injury: Obama and His Money

The Electoral College Map (6/18/08)

Idaho Final Tally: 79.5% of Vote, 83.3% of Delegates

Insult to Injury: Obama and His Money

Raise your hand if you didn't see this coming. Is there really a sizable group of people (who have been paying attention) that are surprised by Obama opting out of the public financing system for the general election? I'd imagine there aren't that many folks out there with raised hands. Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a minute. If the roles were reversed and McCain was the candidate who had made the choice to skip out on the public financing system, would the uproar be as big? Well, that's hard to say, but McCain likely could be counted on to have been a bit more disciplined than to make such a promise in the first place. That may be the difference. Sports blogger, Dan Shanoff, is fond of stating in instances of sports meets crime that it is the cover up that gets someone in trouble and not the crime itself. In politics, the game is slightly different. It isn't the decision that gets you in trouble, but the flip-flop instead. That is the case here. The uproar isn't over the decision to fund the campaign outside of the public financing system itself, but rather the promise and subsequent change.

Even then, is it really about the flip-flop? Or could it be that the GOP and its supporters are genuinely concerned about their chances in the fall? That's understandable. On the one hand, all the leading indicators signal a down year for the party of Lincoln. The economy has seen better days, support for the Iraq war remains low, and President Bush is fighting a weekly battle against setting records for new approval rating lows. So there's that, and now the Democratic nominee is going to have a money advantage too! What does that extra cash mean to Obama? Well, for once, a Democratic nominee will be the one with a cash advantage. It doesn't happen often. But that money advantage won't necessarily translate into more votes for the junior senator from Illinois. What it likely means is that McCain, who is already playing defense in a difficult environment for anyone with an R by their name, will be even more on the defensive.

Ads will surely be a part of the Obama camp's strategy (they already are), but grassroots efforts in seemingly unlikely states could be a part of the equation as well. Extra cash means Obama can make McCain play defense (eg: spend time and money) in states he probably wouldn't want to. Take Alaska, for instance. The polling that was out there yesterday continued to show a close race (at least for Alaska!) between McCain and Obama. If Obama can force McCain to defend Alaska, then keeping Kerry swing state wins like Pennsylvania or New Hampshire safe gets much easier. The good folks over at fivethirtyeight.com are already discussing the pros and cons of an Obama trip to the Last Frontier.

And that is the origin of the excitement on the left end of the blogosphere (some may argue there is only a left end) and the backlash on the right. This decision to opt out isn't the real issue. The fear of having to defend or delight in potentially being competitive in typically red states is the issue. Democrats should enjoy being the monied party for once because it won't last. What was it Bush said? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...well, you won't fool me again. The GOP will certainly heed that advice and store this memory away to be used in a less hostile environment.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/18/08)

Idaho Final Tally: 79.5% of Vote, 83.3% of Delegates

The Electoral College Map (6/15/08)

The Electoral College Map (6/18/08)

Obama Bounce or Evidence the the leading indicators of presidential electoral success are kicking in?

Teasing out that difference is going to be the focus of the map analysis for the rest of the election. However, if these numbers (in the map below) persist over the next month or so, then Obama may be getting more than just a bounce. A bounce by definition means that a candidate's numbers will increase before regressing to the mean. In other words, what goes up must come down. We typically see this every four years after the two major parties hold their convention. A candidate from the party holding the convention will usually get a boost that will decay as the general election enters the home stretch after Labor Day.

If the numbers stay where they have been since Obama reached the delegate barrier necessary to claim the Democratic nomination, we may be witnessing more than just a simple bounce. If, a month from now, Obama is still in the same shape he is in on the map today, then that may be more a reflection of those indicators I mentioned above. Democratic nominee X would be in good shape against the Republican nominee (or even if you identified said nominee as John McCain, for that matter) if the current president's approval ratings were low, the economy was poor, and an overwhelming majority of Americans thought the country was on the "wrong track" (a measure I take to encompass the war issue for the most part). While what the map shows isn't the landslide that the political science forecasts (based in whole or in part on the above measures) would potentially predict*, if such a map persists and extends further toward Obama over the next few weeks, the phenomenon can't really be called a bounce. It could more accurately be described as a the "Clinton drag," perhaps. Clinton's candidacy was so competitive and her presence in the race so formidable, that it placed enough uncertainty on the nomination outcome to effectively prevent Obama from assuming the lead in the polls that any Democratic nominee would have held in such an electoral environment.

The question can't be answered today, but if these numbers stay where they are for a while, then we'll have a better idea of what the answer is.

Well FHQ, you seem to be hinting at something by referring to Obama's position on the map today. With 13 new polls in 11 states (2 each in New York and Ohio) since Saturday, the electoral college projection has shifted slightly more towards Obama.

AR: McCain +9
FL: Obama +4
KS: McCain +10
KY: McCain +12
MN: Obama +1
NV: McCain +2
NY: Obama +19
NY: Obama +18
NC: McCain +4
OH: Obama +6
OH: Obama +11
PA: Obama +12
VA: Obama +1

The two polls in Ohio are enough for Obama to be able to wrest control of the Buckeye state from McCain for the time being. Those twenty electoral votes move from a McCain toss up to an Obama toss up and provide the Illinois senator with a more comfortable 58 electoral vote lead in this projection. The real surprise is the Florida result. Of the twelve polls conducted in the state since Super Tuesday, the most recent is the only one to have shown an Obama lead over the senator from Arizona. If that holds, John McCain will be facing an extremely steep climb to the White House. His path to electoral college victory without the "big three" would be difficult to say the least. I should caution that while the numbers are trending toward Obama in Florida, the Sunshine state is still a McCain lean, but only barely so. Another poll or two in Obama's favor would likely pull Florida into the toss up category. And a state that looked only a month or two ago to be a tough row to hoe for Obama could turn from red to pink on the map.

[Click Map to Enlarge]**

It isn't all bad for McCain. Obama's gain isn't as clear in Minnesota, where last week's 13 point advantage is down to one. Averaging just those two polls is almost in line with where FHQ's weighted average is; coming in just under two points shy.

McCain and Obama are roughly even in the number of strong and lean state electoral votes, with the toss ups now leaning more heavily toward the Illinois senator. Of the 129 electoral votes rated as toss up, Obama now controls over 70% of them. That sort of a coalition of toss up electoral votes typically translates into success. But is this a bounce or something more? That is the question.

Heading forward, though, what states are close to shifting from one category to another?

Overall, there was no other movement between categories other than Ohio. But, of the states added to the watch list (below) over the weekend, there now has been new polling in Pennsylvania and Ohio to go with the polls from Michigan and Nevada. Only New Hampshire remains as a toss up state close to switching sides yet to have any post-nomination polling. Michigan and Nevada remain close to the line, but Ohio and Pennsylvania have moved toward Obama and away from that breaking point between candidates (so they are off the list). Florida can also be added to the list. The Sunshine state is on the line between a McCain lean and a toss up favoring the Arizona senator. Any other new polling to come out of Florida favoring Obama would likely move that average into the toss up area.

The Watch List

The switches (toss up to toss up):
Michigan
Nevada
New Hampshire
Ohio
Pennsylvania

Strong to Lean:
Connecticut (Obama -)
Texas (McCain -)
Mississippi? (directly on the line between Strong and Lean)

Lean to Strong:
Minnesota (Obama +)

Toss Up to Lean:
Wisconsin (Obama +)

Lean to Toss Up:
Florida (McCain -)


*Once the second quarter economic statistics are in, most of those forecasts will begin coming out. Those typically appear in PS: Political Science and Politics (Well, they were in 2004 anyway.), but probably won't hit the presses until September. Those numbers will more than likely be made public prior to that though.

**Map template courtesy of Paul Gurian.


Recent Posts:
Idaho Final Tally: 79.5% of Vote, 83.3% of Delegates

The Electoral College Map (6/15/08)

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Five

Idaho Final Tally: 79.5% of Vote, 83.3% of Delegates

The Gem state wrapped up its Democratic delegate selection this past weekend at its state convention, and despite the discrepancy in the total (in the post heading), this was a given for the most part. [Obama won the Super Tuesday caucuses in Idaho by as big a margin as he won in any other state.] Obama's vote totals provided the Illinois senator with enough to round up his totals in both congressional districts while ever so slightly rounding down in the statewide calculations for pledged elected officials (PLEOs). In other words, the gains that we see from the precinct level caucuses in February to now (post-state convention) are not a function of Obama gaining support, but are simply statistical artifacts. Again, if this were a purely proportional system, Obama would have won 14 delegates to Clinton's 4 (among the pledged delegates). By breaking the calculation down to the district level, as it is done in the other states, the ultimate delegate distribution is altered.

Obama ended up with 15 of the state's 18 pledged delegates. Overall, the Illinois senator will have (at least) 19 Idahoans representing him at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Clinton will have 3 delegates out of the remaining four with the final one representing the add-on delegate, Richard Stallings, who was elected over the weekend. Unlike add-ons selected at other state conventions, Stallings, remains uncommitted at this time. That may change between now and the convention, but according to the Idaho Democratic Party's web site, he has not made an endorsement.

And how does Idaho fit into the categories as defined by the caucus question? Well, the categories as the stand now aren't really defined by the question itself so much as what has emerged as the caucus processes have completed with state conventions. There have been states that moved toward Obama, states that moved toward Clinton and states that have not moved much at all.

Obama Moves:
Alaska
Nevada

Clinton Moves:
Colorado
Kansas

No Moves:
Hawaii*
Maine
North Dakota
Wyoming
...
Texas**

*The delegate decisions in the Hawaii process were determined by the first step. The decisions made at the Hawaii state convention were bound by the precinct caucus decisions. The Aloha state was prevented from exhibiting any movement.
**Texas defies any of these characterizations. Initially the movement from the first to second step was toward Obama. From that point to the state convention, though, some support drifted back toward Clinton.

Of those categories, Idaho best fits the final one. The estimates following the caucuses in February mirrored the final tally in the Gem state. One interesting note to make is a distinction made when FHQ was initially sounding out the finer points of the caucus question: How many steps are in the process? Of the states that had a two step caucus, only Alaska showed any movement one way or the other from the first step to the second. All the other two step states maintain steady distributions of support through the process. Of the states that had more than two steps, only Kansas had anything more than a move based on anything other than the statistical calculation of the process.

The only states undecided now are Nebraska and Iowa. Iowa was to have been decided this past weekend as well, but due to flooding across the state, the state convention was postponed for two weeks. Iowa will now have begun and ended the delegate selection on the Democratic side of the ledger.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/15/08)

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Five

The Dry Erase Board Wiped Clean