Using Nate Silver's "Swing Voter" Analysis to Determine Target States

[tpfkaw]

So Nate Silver just released this analysis of how "swingy" each state's voters are, that is to say whether a national swing of 1 point causes a swing in that state of more or less than 1 point.  I find this a very legitimate concept and have been sort of searching for a way to measure it myself, but of course ninja'd.  I did, however, calculate how difficult it would be for each party to swing each state from it's 2008 result, using the formula (margin/Silver-swinginess) to determine the national swing that would swing that state.  I would say that, looking at the list, it appears to be quite accurate by my own estimation.  Each state is listed with the national swing required from the 2008 result and the 2008 result if adjusted to be a 50-50 election.

Republican target priority:

North Carolina: 0.36/-6.90
Indiana: 1.04/-6.22
Florida: 2.68/-4.58
Ohio: 4.28/-2.98
Virginia: 6.63/-0.63
New Hampshire: 7.51/0.25 (wins election)
Colorado: 7.72/0.46
Iowa: 8.15/0.89
Minnesota: 10.14/2.88
Pennsylvania: 11.09/3.83
Nevada: 11.56/4.30
Wisconsin: 12.64/5.38
New Mexico: 13.16/5.90
Maine: 13.64/6.38
Oregon: 14.09/6.83
New Jersey: 14.65/7.39
Washington: 15.12/7.86
Michigan: 15.96/8.70
Connecticut: 21.10/13.84
Rhode Island: 21.56/14.30
Massachusetts: 21.69/14.43
California: 23.56/16.30
Illinois: 25.11/17.85
Delaware: 25.49/18.23
Maryland: 28.27/21.01
New York: 29.84/22.58
Vermont: 30.34/23.08
Hawaii: 36.50/29.24
DC: 190.93/183.67 (i.e. impossible)

Democratic target priority:

Missouri: 0.13/7.39
Montana: 2.13/9.39
Georgia: 6.12/13.38
North Dakota: 7.39/14.65
Arizona: 7.50/14.76
South Dakota: 7.65/14.91
West Virginia: 11.38/18.64
Texas: 11.76/19.02
South Carolina: 12.47/19.73
Kansas: 13.94/21.20
Nebraska: 14.64/22.70
Tennessee: 14.91/22.97
Kentucky: 16.06/23.32
Alaska: 18.10/25.36
Arkansas: 19.65/26.91
Mississippi: 20.90/28.16
Louisiana: 23.58/30.84
Idaho: 23.87/31.13
Utah: 27.74/35.00
Wyoming: 31.30/38.56
Alabama: 32.21/39.47
Oklahoma: 33.65/40.91

[tpfkaw]

It's the number in that chart.

[tpfkaw]

I imagine the relationship starts to break down once you get into mega landslide territory. Obviously a Republican winning 100% of the vote is winning DC.

Well yeah but that's pretty much impossible by definition ... I'd say it probably works well up to about a 35-point victory, which is probably about the theoretical max anyway.

A 29.02% Democratic swing relative to 2008 (or a 36.28 point victory) would have the Republican getting less than 0% in DC.  I'd say 35 points it is.

[tpfkaw]

This is kind of cheating,  but the only way to really do this is to just have pollsters ask the questions "Are you a committed D voter?" and "Are you a committed R voter?", sum it up and subtract from 100.

The problem with that is that people lie and say they're "independent," "moderate," and/or "undecided" when they are in fact strong partisans.

Interesting, though the idea that Indiana is an "inelastic" state seems a bit dubious considering that it actually had the largest swing from 2004 to 2008 of any state other than Hawaii.

Silver said he made a distinction between voters actually changing their minds (which is what this measures) vs. simply increasing turnout for one's own side.  I'm guessing the latter was the case with Indiana.