I created a very simplistic and somewhat unrealistic model to see what would happen if just slightly over one out of every 20 voters who voted for McCain winds up voting for Obama this November. I decided to see what would happen if Obama improved his take of the vote from 53% to 59%.
Update [2012-2-17 10:19:59 by BooMan]: To clear up the math here, this would actually be an electorate where 6% of the vote was made up of voters who switch from R in 2008 to D in 2012. Or any other permutation adding up to 6%.
In an effort to supply some realism, I acknowledged the law of diminishing returns and assumed that it would easier for Obama to pick up votes in red states than in blue states, where he had already come close to maxing out his support. So, I simply gave Obama an added 5% of the vote in the blue states and then gave him a 7% boost in the red states. Obviously, this model is too simplistic to take account of McCain and Palin’s advantages in Arizona and Alaska or to take account of Romney’s advantage (should he be the nominee) in states like Utah and Wyoming. But it should come close to averaging out. Now, here’s what I discovered:
Obama would win 10 states that he lost in 2008. Here they are:
Arizona 52/47
Georgia 54/45
Mississippi 50/49
Missouri 56/42
Montana 54/43
North Dakota 54/44
South Carolina 52/47
South Dakota 52/46
Texas 51/49
West Virginia 50/49
This translates to a 462-76 win in the Electoral College. Here are the only Electoral College results in the modern era that were more lopsided: FDR 1932 (472 EV), FDR 1936 (523 EV), LBJ 1964 (486 EV), Nixon 1972 (520 EV), Reagan 1980 (489 EV), Reagan 1984 (525 EV).
Here are the contests Obama would win with more than 70% of the vote: Washington DC, Hawaii, and Vermont.
Here are the states that Obama would win with more than 60% of the vote: California (66%), Connecticut (66%), Delaware (67%), Illinois (67%), Maine 63%, Maryland (67%), Massachusetts (69%), Michigan (62%), Nevada (60%), New Jersey (62%), New Mexico (62%), New York (68%), Oregon (62%), Pennsylvania (60%), Rhode Island (68%), Washington (63%), Wisconsin (61%).
Obama would barely lose (by less than 3%) Kansas, Nebraska, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee.
In this scenario, Obama would pull roughly 59% of the popular vote. That’s what Ronald Reagan accomplished in 1984. Reagan won 49 states that year. In my scenario, Obama would still only win 38 states.
Here are the states Obama would still lose under my model: Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming.
I’ll welcome critiques of the model, as well as opinions about how the map will differ between Romney and Santorum. Can Obama do better than 59%? I think he can. But it’s only been done a couple of times in American history. Do you know who accomplished it?
What would this mean for the House and the Senate, and for the GOP? I mean, I have them losing Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina. If that happens, and it could, it would do something to the GOP.
yes, it would do something.
however, whatever that something is, the current incarnation of the gop allows itself only one response mode, and that is not one of introspection. they will double-down on whatever crazy they feel wasn’t crazy enough and lash out at anyone they can blame for their tribulations — which of course means everyone else.
Boo, your maths are wrong!
McCain won 47% of the vote, this means that if one of twenty if his vote switched the Rep share would go to down 2-3%, to (say) 44%. Obama would rise from 53% to 56%. Still result in a blowout.
What would your model say with these corrected figures?
No. I am saying if a little over one out of twenty voters is a voter who switched his party vote from R to D.
It’s very simplified. There will be some trivial number of people who switch D to R, for example. I am not trying to predict exactly how Obama will gain 6% of the vote, only what it would look if he did.
And it is a very rough look.
Many states have experienced some rapid demographic change in the last four years. Some states could be less receptive to Obama this time around (e.g., North Carolina and Indiana).
I did not attempt to account for any of that.
I simply added 5% to blue states and 7% to red ones. If I were trying to truly predict the popular vote, I’d add less to Utah and maybe even subtract. I’d add more to Arizona and Alaska.
But that’s what the comments are for.
I think a more realistic approach would be to ask what would happen if those voters simply stayed home and didn’t vote. But of course, you need to also account for all the states with those newfangled voter suppression laws as well.
And while we’re currently enjoying watching the citizen’s united decision play out in unexpected ways, I’m not sure how that will work out in November. Are you ready to knock doors?
Your model’s too unrealistic, as you stated. I think right now, in a realistic scenario, the states Obama would compete in, plus his map:
Arizona (and his campaign has already said they’re going to invest in this state)
Georgia (not sure what Obama’s team thinks)
Missouri (my model had them winning in ’08)
Montana (my model had them losing this in ’08, but by a smaller margin)
I think that’s about it. I don’t know how you can think we’ll be competitive in Texas. They might have a high Latino population, but like Texas’ uninsured, a lot of them aren’t registered. And by numbers alone I doubt we’d be able to get enough boots on the ground to bridge the gap.
I also think Obama will lose Indiana.
I dunno what to predict from Indiana at this point. Judging from phone banking responses since last summer, I remain positive. Hoosier voters, however, can really be stark raving bonkers much of the time.
The local wingers are currently trying to excommunicate Lugar from Indiana residency to make room for another nut-job on the US Senate ballot. Despite this Mourdock guy having served as state treasurer (tried to stop the Chrysler bailout), his entire Google presence seems to be one lonely paid ad. I find that rather interesting.
Hah! I had Mourdock spelled incorrectly. There’s lots of crap on Google.
There are three words that are changing Indiana politics and it’s not clear how it will shake out. The three words: Right. To. Work. (for less)
How many black people have held elective office in Indiana? Just sayin.
Well, we’ve got Andre… Indiana’s only representative on the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Otherwise, its pretty damn white around here.
Obama’s approval ratings are hovering around 50%. I don’t see how he projects to 59% in November.
Truman and GW Bush were similarly vulnerable presidents who were re-elected because the opposition candidate was fairly weak. Romney is reminiscent of both Tom Dewey (blandm doesn’t inspire enthusiasm) and John Kerry (so wealthy that middle class voters can’t relate to him). Think of 1948 or 2004 margins, not 1984.
I also think that blowout elections of that magnitude can’t happen anymore. Every candidate puts major resources into the states that determine the outcome of the election — Florida, Ohio, etc. Fighting for Texas would require a massive and unnecessary effort. If a Democrat has a chance at Texas, the election is already won, so why bother? I could see running some ads in October in the Dakota, where it’s cheap, in order to run up the score, but that’s about it.
Things can change by November though. For example, if there is a third party (America Elects) candidate who is, essentially, a second Republican in the race, then the splitting of the Republican vote could give Obama the kind of electoral college margin you predict here. But not with 60% of the popular vote.
What it would do to the House and Senate would have to do with (1) whether there was a Democratic challenger on the ballot who could benefit and (2) the extent of the coattail effect.
There are too many Republicans running unopposed in places like Texas that would swing in your model. And so far, Obama has not had strong coattails primarily because Democratic candidates have run away from him, reinforcing the idea that he’s too liberal/radical…
And there has not been the leadership in the DNC, DSCC, or DCCC to prevent either one of these effects.
I agree, and I think an acknowledgement of what you’re saying is the next step. The key is to relentlessly win the skirmishes that, collectively, are beginning to create a political climate in which the vast majority of Democratic candidates (and a handful of Republicans) realize that their survival may depend on running towards, not away from, Obama.
What appeared to be a tall order in the wake of the 2010 debacle has been the focus of a steady and relentless campaign by Obama’s team to move Republicans to the right. The key to this was to delay the argument over allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire until this year, when the choices would be stark enough to clearly explain the options to a majority of voters. It depended on the economy slowly getting better, which it has, despite the right’s best efforts to eff things up.
As Republicans have gotten pushed further and further towards the insane positions of the Tea Party, the fringe benefits of this strategy come to the fore. There will now be lots of low-hanging fruit to pick: birth control, payroll tax cut extension, revelations about the truth of taxes and the 1%, etc. The Obama team is poised to take full advantage of incumbency, not just by using the bully pulpit, but by manipulating the discourse of the Republican primary season.
With enough help from Democrats across the country, an epic beat down could be in store.
That requires downticket Democrats to stop running away from President Obama.
My guess right now is that even if BooMan’s blowout scenario occurred, it would not deliver a Congress that could move dramatically in a progressive direction. And thus another 4 years of gridlock.
Living, as I do in Ireland, I find it interesting to observe how this debate has evolved from a fear that the Dems would lose the Presidency and both houses – just a few months ago – to how we are now speculating about a blow-out for Obama and with the Dems winning both houses.
There are some obvious cautionary notes to strike:
… just saying… although things could also surprise on the up side
PS – on this voter suppression thing – what is to prevent the Federal Government mandating that ALL eligible voters be registered and making it a serious offence for local and state level official to fail to register everyone entitled to? What is to prevent citizens taking legal action against state level authorities who seek to deny them their vote. Can the Federal government not control the process for Federal elections?
It’s really not that important whether Obama wins with 300 or 500 electoral college votes. What matters is whether the DEMS win substantial majorities in both houses and whether or not they are then afraid to use them to implement some real structural reforms:
e.g.
etc.
The differences in how age cohorts voted in the 2008 elections is well-understood: young voters supported Obama strongly, and old voters supported McCain strongly.
Something I would like to see, because I’m both a partisan and a ghoul, is an analysis, based on actuarial figures, of how many McCain voters will have died by election day 2012 vs. how many Obama voters.