Summary of Mitt Romney's big problem in the Electoral College

[sg0508]

Amazing how things have changed over the last quarter century.  From the 70s to 1988, the GOP basically had a lock on almost all regions in the electoral college, particularly in an age where America wasn't as polarized.  Only Carter was able to temporarily break that for the democrats in that time period.  Go on youtube sometime and watch some of the broadcast for Election Night '88 when CBS talked about Dukakis' 18 state strategy and how there was almost nowhere to go outside of it given the GOP lock on the map.

Fast forward to 2004.  George Bush barely squeaked by John Kerry to win a 2nd term with 286 electoral votes.  To do that, he won a 5 pt victory in FL (27), a 2 pt victory in OH (20), a 4 pt victory in CO (9), a 2 pt victory in NV (5) and won a few bonuses in IA (7) and NM (5),places that aren't likely to vote with the GOP this time. Ironically, Bush actually broke 270 in 2000 by taking WV, a state that was normally democratic.

Basically, the democrats have a much stronger grip on that map now and most of Obama's states are already out of play.  The new census somewhat favors the GOP as they gain more EVs in their safe states (i.e UT, GA, TX).  That being said, there is no reason to believe that any state on the west coast, in the northeast and the Dukakis trio (MN, IA and WI), along with IL, MI and HI are in play for Romney.  If that's true, Romney MUST sweep the south, the Plains, the western rockies, AK and sweep the following: FL, OH, and CO to break 270.  Any losses there and that's it, it's over.

In addition, the democrats stole one enormous victory in 2008 and it looks prime in 2012 for a repeat, the Old Dominion/VA. Obama's numbers there have looked good.

CO has almost become a solid blue state now and NM is solidly blue.  In addition, while it's unlikely to see a switch, Obama will put pressure on the GOP in AZ and MO this year and may put some money in states like GA where high turnout in Atlanta and urbanized areas could keep the state competitive. In addition, don't for a second think NH is that much in play. 

Romney is likely to win back IN for the GOP, but NC's polls remain neck and neck, which is unbelievable in my opinion.  PA is not likely to switch and please, nobody should look at the midterms, the WI recall or the VP choice as having influence.  The presidential races are far more predictable and more partisan.

Thus, Romney is in a very tough spot.   The democrats seem to have a stranglehold on their states in the map and Romney is going to have to win the key tossups and break a few of the potential weaker spots (CO for example) to have a shot at getting to 270.

[useful idiot]

Considering the relative closeness of the election, I think there's actually as good of a chance that Romney wins the PV and loses the EC as there is that he wins the thing.

The Republicans take the blame for their failure to maintain a large support base in all regions of the country. It's not as if the Democrats, or their policies, are particularly appealing, they're just less pathetic in their presentation. Of course in the late 60s and 70s the Dems and Reps picked different constituencies to go after, and the former's constituencies are on the rise while the latter's have only lost influence. Identity politics is the most important factor in American governance, and fewer kinds of people identify with Mitt Romney. The EC is going to be a pain for the GOP for the foreseeable future...

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

The Republicans take the blame for their failure to maintain a large support base in all regions of the country.

Christ. Take a look at the county map shows the reality. Dim support is confined to the large counties and metro areas. The rest of the country is solidly against them.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Thus, Romney is in a very tough spot.

Eh, bro, you don't know the least of it. I warned people before Romney was chosen that he couldn't beat Obama, simply because he didn't give the GOP anything to advance on what Bush owned. Everyone else swore up and down that he could command support in blue states, etc.

Now that we're running out of time, the answer becomes obvious. No, no he can't. Name one blue state that Romney is winning vs Obama? North Carolina? That's it, and he's a tossup (within the MOE there).

Romney is an abject failure so far and has 3 more months to get his **** together.

[Torie]

In other news, the electoral college has tracked the popular vote quite well over time in the sense that nobody wins the electoral college who runs more than a point behind the other guy. That will very likely to be the case this year as well.

[Vosem]

You're being rather pessimistic -- you can't write off Iowa and Colorado and New Hampshire, Romney under almost any circumstance needs at least one of them to win. Polls in North Carolina show a narrow Romney victory; Florida is neck and neck.

There's no Republican problem or Democratic problem in the Electoral College. There's simply the fact that Obama is winning and Romney is losing.

In other news, the electoral college has tracked the popular vote quite well over time in the sense that nobody wins the electoral college who runs more than a point behind the other guy. That will very likely to be the case this year as well.

Samuel Tilden would like a word with you.

[Torie]

You're being rather pessimistic -- you can't write off Iowa and Colorado and New Hampshire, Romney under almost any circumstance needs at least one of them to win. Polls in North Carolina show a narrow Romney victory; Florida is neck and neck.

There's no Republican problem or Democratic problem in the Electoral College. There's simply the fact that Obama is winning and Romney is losing.

In other news, the electoral college has tracked the popular vote quite well over time in the sense that nobody wins the electoral college who runs more than a point behind the other guy. That will very likely to be the case this year as well.

Samuel Tilden would like a word with you.

Indeed he would I see. Well, the exception proves the rule.

[useful idiot]

The Republicans take the blame for their failure to maintain a large support base in all regions of the country.

Christ. Take a look at the county map shows the reality. Dim support is confined to the large counties and metro areas. The rest of the country is solidly against them.

America isn't made up of rural areas and small towns anymore. Most people live in those "large counties and metro areas." Hence "the rest of the country" is a relatively small number of people. The Republicans have lost most of the suburbs of the major cities in the North, which is where they'd need to do well to be as competitive as they once were in national elections. This isn't rocket science...

[Mr. Morden]

The premise here is a fallacy that a large swatch of the political media falls for:

"Obama is narrowly leading in Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Virginia.  Oh no, things look bad for Romney!  He has all those states that he needs to catch up in."

That's not how it works.  If Romney gains a national lead of a few %, then he's suddenly in the lead in all (or nearly all) those states.  Like Torie said, the EC will track whatever the popular vote is, give or take a few tenths of a %.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

True, right now Obama is favored in the electoral college. He's got 290 electoral votes of states that are at least a lean for him. I think this is the most likely map right now.

[Whacker77]

I'm not about to predict a Romney win, but I think the talk Romney is constrained by the map is overstated right now.  I realize the polls still generally favor Obama in the battleground states, but he's still below 50% in most state polls.  That puts him in a weak position against a rather weak opponent.

Obama would have to defy electoral history to win in this political and economic environment.  Most feel the economy never escaped recession, unemployment remains above 8%, the right/wrong track is 30-65, and Obama's remains stuck at 47% or so.  None of that argues for a re-election win.

Most on this site, including me, have been very dour about Romney's abilities as a candidate and his chances to win, but here he is basically tied nationally.  Even after $100 in negative campaigning, Romney's still right there and edging up if anything.  That shows just how tough the environment is for Obama.

Although I've only posted once or twice since March, I've felt for two months or so this race would end one of two ways.  First, Obama would win a narrow victory thanks to unease about Romney and Romney's own ineptness.  Second, Romney would win a rather convincing victory as undecided voters broke towards him late thanks to the terrible economy.  I still feel that way.

People may want to poo poo unemployment, right/wrong track, and other factors, but they were the undoing of Carter as well.  At this point in the 1980 race, Reagan trailed.  I know the composite of the electorate is far different today, but the state polls can change rather easily (for good or bad) as people come to know Romney better.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

The premise here is a fallacy that a large swatch of the political media falls for:

"Obama is narrowly leading in Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Virginia.  Oh no, things look bad for Romney!  He has all those states that he needs to catch up in."

That's not how it works.  If Romney gains a national lead of a few %, then he's suddenly in the lead in all (or nearly all) those states.  Like Torie said, the EC will track whatever the popular vote is, give or take a few tenths of a %.

A slight Romney lead would only make many of those tossups.

[Mr. Morden]

The premise here is a fallacy that a large swatch of the political media falls for:

"Obama is narrowly leading in Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Virginia.  Oh no, things look bad for Romney!  He has all those states that he needs to catch up in."

That's not how it works.  If Romney gains a national lead of a few %, then he's suddenly in the lead in all (or nearly all) those states.  Like Torie said, the EC will track whatever the popular vote is, give or take a few tenths of a %.

A slight Romney lead would only make many of those tossups.

Well, it depends on which state in particular you're talking about, and how much of a lead.  I'm just looking at Nate Silver's projected national popular vote margin of Obama +2.6%, and imagining that you shift everything 5.2% in Romney's direction, so that it's Romney +2.6%.  Then all those tossup/slight Obama lead states become tossup/slight Romney lead states.

EDIT: Nate Silver also gives a 2.6% chance of Obama winning the EC while Romney wins the PV, and a 2.4% chance of the reverse, barely distinguishable odds.  Obviously, we don't really know the chances of such a thing with such precision, but would you really say the chances of Obama winning the EC while losing the PV are significantly greater than the reverse?

[pepper11]

If it's a dead even popular vote, Obama will win the electoral college. If Romney wins by 1 or more he will win it. A 0 to 1 point Romney win is the only grey area.

[cope1989]

Amazing how things have changed over the last quarter century.  From the 70s to 1988, the GOP basically had a lock on almost all regions in the electoral college, particularly in an age where America wasn't as polarized.  Only Carter was able to temporarily break that for the democrats in that time period.  Go on youtube sometime and watch some of the broadcast for Election Night '88 when CBS talked about Dukakis' 18 state strategy and how there was almost nowhere to go outside of it given the GOP lock on the map.

Fast forward to 2004.  George Bush barely squeaked by John Kerry to win a 2nd term with 286 electoral votes.  To do that, he won a 5 pt victory in FL (27), a 2 pt victory in OH (20), a 4 pt victory in CO (9), a 2 pt victory in NV (5) and won a few bonuses in IA (7) and NM (5),places that aren't likely to vote with the GOP this time. Ironically, Bush actually broke 270 in 2000 by taking WV, a state that was normally democratic.

Basically, the democrats have a much stronger grip on that map now and most of Obama's states are already out of play.  The new census somewhat favors the GOP as they gain more EVs in their safe states (i.e UT, GA, TX).  That being said, there is no reason to believe that any state on the west coast, in the northeast and the Dukakis trio (MN, IA and WI), along with IL, MI and HI are in play for Romney.  If that's true, Romney MUST sweep the south, the Plains, the western rockies, AK and sweep the following: FL, OH, and CO to break 270.  Any losses there and that's it, it's over.

In addition, the democrats stole one enormous victory in 2008 and it looks prime in 2012 for a repeat, the Old Dominion/VA. Obama's numbers there have looked good.

CO has almost become a solid blue state now and NM is solidly blue.  In addition, while it's unlikely to see a switch, Obama will put pressure on the GOP in AZ and MO this year and may put some money in states like GA where high turnout in Atlanta and urbanized areas could keep the state competitive. In addition, don't for a second think NH is that much in play. 

Romney is likely to win back IN for the GOP, but NC's polls remain neck and neck, which is unbelievable in my opinion.  PA is not likely to switch and please, nobody should look at the midterms, the WI recall or the VP choice as having influence.  The presidential races are far more predictable and more partisan.

Thus, Romney is in a very tough spot.   The democrats seem to have a stranglehold on their states in the map and Romney is going to have to win the key tossups and break a few of the potential weaker spots (CO for example) to have a shot at getting to 270.

We've entered a new realignment that moderately favors the Democrats. They basically have this firewall that ensures close to 270 votes and a number of swing states that are looking more friendly to them as well. The Republicans now have to work harder to win more than a narrow victory.

The next Republican who wins big will likely redefine the map. Maybe he or she will dominate in the midwest for instance

[Mr. Morden]

We've entered a new realignment that moderately favors the Democrats. They basically have this firewall that ensures close to 270 votes and a number of swing states that are looking more friendly to them as well. The Republicans now have to work harder to win more than a narrow victory.

The next Republican who wins big will likely redefine the map. Maybe he or she will dominate in the midwest for instance

Another way of saying that is that we've just had a string of elections (1992-2008) in which the Democratic candidate won most of the time, and when the Republican candidate won, he only won narrowly.  Is this really because of any structural reasons, or is it just because the Democrats had better luck with external factors like the economy and/or better candidates?

I mean, couldn't you have said the same things in reverse after 1988?  "Oh, the Republicans have done fantastically well in elections from 1968-1988, winning 5 of 6 and never losing big, but sometimes winning big.  The electoral college is stacked in favor of the GOP, as there are so many states that the Dems can't win anymore, and the GOP is always assured of at least getting close to 270.  The Democrats won't win the White House for decades."  (In fact, there were people saying things like that.)  Then of course, the supposed "firewall" gets burned down in 1992.

If, as you yourself concede, the firewall can get burned down the very next time the opposing party wins, it isn't really much of a firewall, is it?

[True Federalist]

You're being rather pessimistic -- you can't write off Iowa and Colorado and New Hampshire, Romney under almost any circumstance needs at least one of them to win. Polls in North Carolina show a narrow Romney victory; Florida is neck and neck.

There's no Republican problem or Democratic problem in the Electoral College. There's simply the fact that Obama is winning and Romney is losing.

In other news, the electoral college has tracked the popular vote quite well over time in the sense that nobody wins the electoral college who runs more than a point behind the other guy. That will very likely to be the case this year as well.

Samuel Tilden would like a word with you.

Indeed he would I see. Well, the exception proves the rule.

To be fair, the electoral college was stolen for Hayes.  Tilden should have won if the electoral votes had been counted honestly.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

America isn't made up of rural areas and small towns anymore.

When was the last time a Democrat won anything between California and Iowa?

Democrats get whitewashed out of most of the country and are confined to a narrow belt between the ocean and I-5, Cook County, and then another belt from MD up to ME.

That's it.

Most people

Most democrats live there. Most republicans do not. You can find a republican in every single county and region in America. The same is not true for democrats.

The Republicans have lost most of the suburbs of the major cities in the North

So the 'North' begins at New York and ends in Cook county? Bullsh**t.

This isn't rocket science...

The Democrats are far more narrowly confined than the Republicans. But most people perceive America as being a trip from Chicago to LA in an hour.

[ajc0918]

America isn't made up of rural areas and small towns anymore.

When was the last time a Democrat won anything between California and Iowa?

In 2008 when Obama won Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nebraska's Second Congressional District.

[cope1989]

America isn't made up of rural areas and small towns anymore.

When was the last time a Democrat won anything between California and Iowa?

In 2008 when Obama won Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nebraska's Second Congressional District.

BOOM

[sg0508]

Clinton also reshaped the map in 92.  With the help of Perot, he took a much different CO than we know today, easily took NM (Bush's weakest mountain state in '88) and got MT too along with NV.

[cope1989]

We've entered a new realignment that moderately favors the Democrats. They basically have this firewall that ensures close to 270 votes and a number of swing states that are looking more friendly to them as well. The Republicans now have to work harder to win more than a narrow victory.

The next Republican who wins big will likely redefine the map. Maybe he or she will dominate in the midwest for instance

Another way of saying that is that we've just had a string of elections (1992-2008) in which the Democratic candidate won most of the time, and when the Republican candidate won, he only won narrowly.  Is this really because of any structural reasons, or is it just because the Democrats had better luck with external factors like the economy and/or better candidates?

I mean, couldn't you have said the same things in reverse after 1988?  "Oh, the Republicans have done fantastically well in elections from 1968-1988, winning 5 of 6 and never losing big, but sometimes winning big.  The electoral college is stacked in favor of the GOP, as there are so many states that the Dems can't win anymore, and the GOP is always assured of at least getting close to 270.  The Democrats won't win the White House for decades."  (In fact, there were people saying things like that.)  Then of course, the supposed "firewall" gets burned down in 1992.

If, as you yourself concede, the firewall can get burned down the very next time the opposing party wins, it isn't really much of a firewall, is it?

Ironically, if someone had precicted what I highlighted in your quote in 1968, it would have been incredibly accurate. Between 68 and 88 this actually happened, and the GOP really did shut out the Democrats from the White House, with the exception of the Carter years. The problem is that by the time people finally realize a realignment has occurred, it won't last much longer because the other side is now wise to it and will change their playbook.

And the big difference is that the D firewall has yet to burn down, even when the other party wins. Bush won in 2000, but was unable to break through practically all of the states that Clinton helped to establish as D strongholds (basically Gore and Kerry states) , with the exception of New Hampshire. If the firewall was supposedly an illusion then Bush would have been able to break it down.

It's not impenetrable, but the GOP will have to significantly alter their strategy and message to do it. Clinton did this in 1992 and that's why it produced a realignment of sorts.

I think Mitt is the best proof of my theory. A northerner, governor of Massachusetts, governed pretty moderately. So why is he still incredibly unpopular in the blue states, especially Massachusetts?? Realignment. If it doesn't exist then he should be doing much better up there.

[Mr. Morden]

I think Mitt is the best proof of my theory. A northerner, governor of Massachusetts, governed pretty moderately. So why is he still incredibly unpopular in the blue states, especially Massachusetts?? Realignment. If it doesn't exist then he should be doing much better up there.

Romney's image isn't defined by being a moderate northeastern governor.  (How many voters even know anything about his term as governor anyway?)  It's defined more by being a rich uncharismatic flip-flopper who doesn't care about regular people.

Basically, I don't buy any of this business about "blue firewalls" or "realigning elections".  I'm more with Nichlemn and phk, in thinking that it's just a matter of seeing patterns in random noise:

No such thing as a realigning election. Any realignment theory is numerology.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is no such thing as a "firewall". There is only an increasingly polarized map that never gets dramatically altered because no one has gotten more then 52% of the vote in the last 20 years.


Lateral communication between the primary disciples of pessimism on both the moderate and conservative wings of the GOP. Scary prospect!

[milhouse24]

Clinton also reshaped the map in 92.  With the help of Perot, he took a much different CO than we know today, easily took NM (Bush's weakest mountain state in '88) and got MT too along with NV.

Do you think the NRA would pour money into Colorado to fight any assault weapon legislation?