Why Republicans have an Electoral College problem

[IceSpear]

You know Republicans are in bad shape when they have to resort to 1944 comparisons, back when the pollsters only contacted old rich whites.

Um... what? You realize they had a quota and had to talk to blacks, women, and different income brackets, right?

Do you know ANYTHING about public opinion polls?

You seem to have missed the point. I was obviously referring to the infamous Literary Digest "Alf Landon will win in a landslide" poll. The point is, polling was awful back then.

1. The Literary Digest poll was in 1936. Thomas Dewey was in 1948, 12 years later.
2. The polls in 1948 were the Gallup polls, the same system we use today. The Literary Digest used a completely different system that has no relation to the system we use today in Presidential Polling.
3. That poll didn't just contact "rich people", the problem was that the people who were more likely to send it back were Republicans, who obviously would care more about the election. The "rich guys" myth has been debunked by every study. Nice try.
4. Polling was not "terrible" back then in 1948. They used literally the same exact system we use today.
5. The hilarious thing is, they actually got it right in 1936, 1940, 1944, 1952 and every election after that. So I actually have no idea what you are talking about. 1948 was weird because they DIDN'T get it right.

Just admit you were wrong and move on.

1) Obviously. But back then, polling was sparse. It's not like we had dozens of organizations doing it like we do today. That was true in 1936 as well as 1948.
2) Who still thinks Gallup is the gold standard? They completely bombed the last 3 election cycles.
3) Yes, they were more likely to be Republicans, and also more likely to be wealthy. Please link to these supposed studies, because every single article I've ever read on the subject states that the sample was much wealthier than the general population. That also lines up with common sense considering the fact that they got their sample from telephone directories and magazine subscribers, which would obviously exclude many low income voters.
4) As stated in #1, polling is a lot less reliable when you have to rely on only a couple organizations to do it.
5) Mitt Romney sure wishes that Gallup got it right every time after 1948.

The only thing I got "wrong" was that I wrote 1944 instead of 1948 in my initial post.

[IceSpear]

You know Republicans are in bad shape when they have to resort to 1944 comparisons, back when the pollsters only contacted old rich whites.

Um... what? You realize they had a quota and had to talk to blacks, women, and different income brackets, right?

Do you know ANYTHING about public opinion polls?

You seem to have missed the point. I was obviously referring to the infamous Literary Digest "Alf Landon will win in a landslide" poll. The point is, polling was awful back then.

1. The Literary Digest poll was in 1936. Thomas Dewey was in 1948, 12 years later.
2. The polls in 1948 were the Gallup polls, the same system we use today. The Literary Digest used a completely different system that has no relation to the system we use today in Presidential Polling.
3. That poll didn't just contact "rich people", the problem was that the people who were more likely to send it back were Republicans, who obviously would care more about the election. The "rich guys" myth has been debunked by every study. Nice try.
4. Polling was not "terrible" back then in 1948. They used literally the same exact system we use today.
5. The hilarious thing is, they actually got it right in 1936, 1940, 1944, 1952 and every election after that. So I actually have no idea what you are talking about. 1948 was weird because they DIDN'T get it right.

Just admit you were wrong and move on.

1) Obviously. But back then, polling was sparse. It's not like we had dozens of organizations doing it like we do today. That was true in 1936 as well as 1948.
2) Who still thinks Gallup is the gold standard? They completely bombed the last 3 election cycles.
3) Yes, they were more likely to be Republicans, and also more likely to be wealthy. Please link to these supposed studies, because every single article I've ever read on the subject states that the sample was much wealthier than the general population. That also lines up with common sense considering the fact that they got their sample from telephone directories and magazine subscribers, which would obviously exclude many low income voters.
4) As stated in #1, polling is a lot less reliable when you have to rely on only a couple organizations to do it.
5) Mitt Romney sure wishes that Gallup got it right every time after 1948.

The only thing I got "wrong" was that I wrote 1944 instead of 1948 in my initial post.

1) I focused on one main poll.
2) Only taking Presidential.
3) The second problem with the Literary Digest poll was that out of the 10 million people whose names were on the original mailing list, only about 2.4 million responded to the survey. Thus, the size of the sample was about one-fourth of what was originally intended. People who respond to surveys are different from people who don't, not only in the obvious way (their attitude toward surveys) but also in more subtle and significant ways. When the response rate is low (as it was in this case, 0.24), a survey is said to suffer from nonresponse bias. This is a special type of selection bias where reluctant and nonresponsive people are excluded from the sample.

http://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case1.html

4) See #1
5) What? Gallup has Romney losing with registered voting lol. That's what I'm referring to.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158519/romney-obama-gallup-final-election-survey.aspx


Basically, people should be worried about calling Clinton "inevitable" when Dewey was also considered inevitable for a time.

1) Yes, but considering this entire discussion was because of a reference to Hillary's "inevitability", the fact that Hillary has led in dozens of polls by many different pollsters in the past 2 years makes it much more reliable data than if just a single organization was saying it.
2) Still, Gallup's reputation has taken quite a hit in the past few years.
3) You're correct that was also a flaw on their poll. But per that very article, selection bias was also a problem due to the lack of low income respondents.
5) Gallup had Obama ahead with RVs, but almost everybody looks at LVs near the end of the election cycle. Just look at the RCP database, where every single poll listed towards the end was among LVs: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

As for Hillary being "inevitable", I've never said she was in the general election, only in the primary. But she's beatable because of very different reasons, most obviously and blatantly being that polls, events, political climate, etc. can all change in two years, not because of some historical example of a single organization having a polling error back in 1948. In fact, the only way the "Dewey was inevitable too" thing would have any relevance would be if we were in November 2016 right now, and Republicans were trying to build up hope that the "polls are skewed". As it stands in January 2015, the comparison is completely irrelevant and meaningless. A much better example would be: "Dukakis led Bush in 1988!"

[Lincoln Republican]

http://manythingsconsidered.com/?p=5797

Read this article. 

It is absolutely hilarious.

All about

I N E V I T A B I L I T Y

[IceSpear]

http://manythingsconsidered.com/?p=5797

Read this article. 

It is absolutely hilarious.

All about

I N E V I T A B I L I T Y

This basically re-iterates exactly what I just said. Of course Hillary's not inevitable in the general election. But again, for reasons I already stated, the comparison isn't very good. I highly suggest "Dukakis led Bush in the summer of 1988", "Carter was crushing Reagan in early 1980", and "Bush led Gore by double digits in the summer of 2000" as replacements. Of course, the intense polarization that has occured in the past 6 years probably makes it much less likely that we're going to see these kind of wild poll swings as often, but that's a discussion for another day.

[hopper]

Yup.

It's the hispanic western states (Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada) + Virginia that are really killing the GOP.  If those states weren't all lean dem now the map would be almost even.  Then on top of that Democrats are now competitive in Florida and North Carolina.  All this while holding their own in the blue states.  The only blue states I see as potential losses in 2016 are Iowa and maybe Wisconsin (longshot).

If Republicans didn't cede over huge electoral regions like the Northeast and West Coast this would also be less striking.

New Mexico-Romney didn't campaign there so it cost him vote  % wise in the state.

Colorado is still a 50/50 purple so its not lean dem state. However the state having a Dem PVI and its Dem trend in the Obama years is troubling for the GOP.

The West Coast-Bush W. didn't even do that had in Oregon and Washington in 2000 and 2004 but since the Obama years those states have pulled toward the Dens more. Bush W. did do better in OR than WA. He even came close to winning OR in 2000 but that was because of Nader pulling votes from Gore.

CA-Like I said before Prop 187 was like Political Suicide. If not for Prop 187 in 1994 the state would look more like CO in Presidential Elections in terms in terms of D-R vote %. The state GOP has done some good things in the last year like getting Falcouner elected(spelling) to be San Diego Mayor and showing some diversity in getting a Korean Woman elected to the State Senate.

[bobloblaw]

The GOP doesnt have a Electoral Vote problem. They have a popular vote problem. Since 1988, they have broken the 50% mark only once. Thus when a state is D+2 or D+3 like PA, WI, MI, NH, IA it just looks like they have an EV problem. The real problem is a popular vote problem.

[bobloblaw]

CA-Like I said before Prop 187 was like Political Suicide. If not for Prop 187 in 1994 the state would look more like CO in Presidential Elections in terms in terms of D-R vote %. The state GOP has done some good things in the last year like getting Falcouner elected(spelling) to be San Diego Mayor and showing some diversity in getting a Korean Woman elected to the State Senate.

Prop 187 didnt hurt the GOP in CA. What ahs hurt the GOP in CA is whites moving out and third worlders moving in

[Mehmentum]

The GOP doesnt have a Electoral Vote problem. They have a popular vote problem. Since 1988, they ahve broken the 50% mark only once. Thus when a state is D+2 or D+3 like PA, WI, MI, NH, IA it just looks like they have an EV problem. The real problem is a popular vote problem

Statistically, 1/6 isn't significantly different than 50/50 and by the way Democrats have only broken 50% of the PV in 2 of the last 6 elections.

The Republicans do have an electoral college problem.  In an election where Republicans tie the Democrats in the PV, or even win by a small margin, the Democrats will win the electoral college (basically a reverse 2000 scenario, except the Republican electoral position is worse now than the Democratic position was in 2000).

This is because in the past decade or so, Republicans have been gaining huge numbers of votes in solidly Republican states (particularly the 10% or greater shifts in WV, AR, TN, OK, MO, KY, AL.)  Meanwhile, Democrats have been gaining significant numbers of votes in formerly Republicans states (particularly the 5 - 10% shifts in VA, NC, NV, and CO). 

Contrary to the opinions of many on the board, the midwest isn't trending GOP.  The trends of most midwestern states is small enough to be white noise, but if anything Democrats are gaining in the region.  Sure, you could argue that Pennsylvania's 2 point Republican trend is significant, but then you'd have to admit that Ohio's, New Hampshire's, Iowa's, and Wisconsin's 2 to 3 point Democratic trends are significant as well (needless to say, this is a bad trade for the Republicans overall).

[bobloblaw]

The GOP doesnt have a Electoral Vote problem. They have a popular vote problem. Since 1988, they ahve broken the 50% mark only once. Thus when a state is D+2 or D+3 like PA, WI, MI, NH, IA it just looks like they have an EV problem. The real problem is a popular vote problem

Statistically, 1/6 isn't significantly different than 50/50 and by the way Democrats have only broken 50% of the PV in 2 of the last 6 elections.

The Republicans do have an electoral college problem.  In an election where Republicans tie the Democrats in the PV, or even win by a small margin, the Democrats will win the electoral college (basically a reverse 2000 scenario, except the Republican electoral position is worse now than the Democratic position was in 2000).

This is because in the past decade or so, Republicans have been gaining huge numbers of votes in solidly Republican states (particularly the 10% or greater shifts in WV, AR, TN, OK, MO, KY, AL.)  Meanwhile, Democrats have been gaining significant numbers of votes in formerly Republicans states (particularly the 5 - 10% shifts in VA, NC, NV, and CO). 

Contrary to the opinions of many on the board, the midwest isn't trending GOP.  The trends of most midwestern states is small enough to be white noise, but if anything Democrats are gaining in the region.  Sure, you could argue that Pennsylvania's 2 point Republican trend is significant, but then you'd have to admit that Ohio's, New Hampshire's, Iowa's, and Wisconsin's 2 to 3 point Democratic trends are significant as well (needless to say, this is a bad trade for the Republicans overall).

Read Nate Silver on the subject. There is little to no Dem advantage in the EC. And historically advantages dont last long.

Sean Trende covered this as well. Fact is the GOP has not had a good year to run a presidential election since 1988. A good year would be a Dem incumbent in a recession like 1980 or a booming economy like 1972, 1984 or 1988 for the GOP incumbent. 2004 was mediocre economically. If Kerry had won in 2004 and been president during the recession and meltdown in 2008, I promise you that the GOP would have carried so called "Blue Wall States" like PA, MI, WI and NH. Likewise 5-7% growth in 2004, would have produced a Bush 52-55% popular vote win with 350 EVs.

[DS0816]

The GOP doesnt have a Electoral Vote problem. They have a popular vote problem. Since 1988, they ahve broken the 50% mark only once. Thus when a state is D+2 or D+3 like PA, WI, MI, NH, IA it just looks like they have an EV problem. The real problem is a popular vote problem

Statistically, 1/6 isn't significantly different than 50/50 and by the way Democrats have only broken 50% of the PV in 2 of the last 6 elections.

The Republicans do have an electoral college problem.  In an election where Republicans tie the Democrats in the PV, or even win by a small margin, the Democrats will win the electoral college (basically a reverse 2000 scenario, except the Republican electoral position is worse now than the Democratic position was in 2000).

This is because in the past decade or so, Republicans have been gaining huge numbers of votes in solidly Republican states (particularly the 10% or greater shifts in WV, AR, TN, OK, MO, KY, AL.)  Meanwhile, Democrats have been gaining significant numbers of votes in formerly Republicans states (particularly the 5 - 10% shifts in VA, NC, NV, and CO). 

Contrary to the opinions of many on the board, the midwest isn't trending GOP.  The trends of most midwestern states is small enough to be white noise, but if anything Democrats are gaining in the region.  Sure, you could argue that Pennsylvania's 2 point Republican trend is significant, but then you'd have to admit that Ohio's, New Hampshire's, Iowa's, and Wisconsin's 2 to 3 point Democratic trends are significant as well (needless to say, this is a bad trade for the Republicans overall).

Read Nate Silver on the subject. There is little to no Dem advantage in the EC. And historically advantages dont last long.

Sean Trende covered this as well. Fact is the GOP has not had a good year to run a presidential election since 1988. A good year would be a Dem incumbent in a recession like 1980 or a booming economy like 1972, 1984 or 1988 for the GOP incumbent. 2004 was mediocre economically. If Kerry had won in 2004 and been president during the recession and meltdown in 2008, I promise you that the GOP would have carried so called "Blue Wall States" like PA, MI, WI and NH. Likewise 5-7% growth in 2004, would have produced a Bush 52-55% popular vote win with 350 EVs.

^ You actually believe this? ^

[bobloblaw]

The GOP doesnt have a Electoral Vote problem. They have a popular vote problem. Since 1988, they ahve broken the 50% mark only once. Thus when a state is D+2 or D+3 like PA, WI, MI, NH, IA it just looks like they have an EV problem. The real problem is a popular vote problem

Statistically, 1/6 isn't significantly different than 50/50 and by the way Democrats have only broken 50% of the PV in 2 of the last 6 elections.

The Republicans do have an electoral college problem.  In an election where Republicans tie the Democrats in the PV, or even win by a small margin, the Democrats will win the electoral college (basically a reverse 2000 scenario, except the Republican electoral position is worse now than the Democratic position was in 2000).

This is because in the past decade or so, Republicans have been gaining huge numbers of votes in solidly Republican states (particularly the 10% or greater shifts in WV, AR, TN, OK, MO, KY, AL.)  Meanwhile, Democrats have been gaining significant numbers of votes in formerly Republicans states (particularly the 5 - 10% shifts in VA, NC, NV, and CO). 

Contrary to the opinions of many on the board, the midwest isn't trending GOP.  The trends of most midwestern states is small enough to be white noise, but if anything Democrats are gaining in the region.  Sure, you could argue that Pennsylvania's 2 point Republican trend is significant, but then you'd have to admit that Ohio's, New Hampshire's, Iowa's, and Wisconsin's 2 to 3 point Democratic trends are significant as well (needless to say, this is a bad trade for the Republicans overall).

Read Nate Silver on the subject. There is little to no Dem advantage in the EC. And historically advantages dont last long.

Sean Trende covered this as well. Fact is the GOP has not had a good year to run a presidential election since 1988. A good year would be a Dem incumbent in a recession like 1980 or a booming economy like 1972, 1984 or 1988 for the GOP incumbent. 2004 was mediocre economically. If Kerry had won in 2004 and been president during the recession and meltdown in 2008, I promise you that the GOP would have carried so called "Blue Wall States" like PA, MI, WI and NH. Likewise 5-7% growth in 2004, would have produced a Bush 52-55% popular vote win with 350 EVs.

^ You actually believe this? ^

If you think the GOP candidate could get 52% of the popular vote and not tear down the "BLUE WALL" youre sadly mistaken. There is nothing solid about the Dem advantage in PA, MI, WI and NH. Their results move exactly with the national popualr vote.

[DS0816]

If you think the GOP candidate could get 52% of the popular vote and not tear down the "BLUE WALL" youre sadly mistaken.

I never mentioned that.

If you don't think there's a solid Democratic advantage in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—each of which haven't carried at the presidential level for a Republican since after the 1980s—then you're kidding yourself.

And 52 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote—which is winning nationally by about six percentage points—is what the Republicans would have to get in order to feasibly flip Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. They haven't won the U.S. Popular Vote by more than 2.46 percentage points even with the two terms of George W. Bush since after the 1980s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So does the majority of states.

Texas and Georgia—two Republican base states—also move with the popular vote. (See Elections 2004 and 2008 for their margins their shifts and, of course, with Mitt Romney's failure to unseat Barack Obama in 2012 with demonstrating just how much he managed to move those Republican base states.)

What you may not be understanding is that Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are base states for the Democratic Party. For a Republican to win them over…there is no option in order to achieve that but to win the U.S. Popular Vote by a substantial percentage margin (like, perhaps, six percentage points) and a raw-vote margin of 7.8 million—which is recognizing that, with approximately 130 million presidential votes cast on average of the last two election cycles of 2008 and 2012, increments of 1.3 million rep carrying the U.S. Popular Vote by a full percentage point.

(Note on New Hampshire: Every winning Republican carried the state prior to a 2004 George W. Bush. With realignments and counter-realignments, now it's going to be every winning Democrat will carry New Hampshire.)

These states, in general, don't tend to vote same-party outcomes as the likes of Alabama and Mississippi (and Texas and Georgia) when winning candidates—from either party—are nowadays carrying, apparently at best, an average of only 3 out of every 5 states (from the last six cycles of 1992 to 2012, the average has been 29 states).

In a presidential realigning period favoring the Democratic Party—and with Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin among the base of the Democratic Party (as they were the base of the Republican Party when the Democrats were the base of the "South" and the Republicans were, well, not with their base in the "South")—this is all not as easily doable as you may want to insist. So, yes, today's Republican Party does have an Electoral College problem.

[hopper]

The GOP doesnt have a Electoral Vote problem. They have a popular vote problem. Since 1988, they ahve broken the 50% mark only once. Thus when a state is D+2 or D+3 like PA, WI, MI, NH, IA it just looks like they have an EV problem. The real problem is a popular vote problem

Statistically, 1/6 isn't significantly different than 50/50 and by the way Democrats have only broken 50% of the PV in 2 of the last 6 elections.

The Republicans do have an electoral college problem.  In an election where Republicans tie the Democrats in the PV, or even win by a small margin, the Democrats will win the electoral college (basically a reverse 2000 scenario, except the Republican electoral position is worse now than the Democratic position was in 2000).

This is because in the past decade or so, Republicans have been gaining huge numbers of votes in solidly Republican states (particularly the 10% or greater shifts in WV, AR, TN, OK, MO, KY, AL.)  Meanwhile, Democrats have been gaining significant numbers of votes in formerly Republicans states (particularly the 5 - 10% shifts in VA, NC, NV, and CO). 

Contrary to the opinions of many on the board, the midwest isn't trending GOP.  The trends of most midwestern states is small enough to be white noise, but if anything Democrats are gaining in the region.  Sure, you could argue that Pennsylvania's 2 point Republican trend is significant, but then you'd have to admit that Ohio's, New Hampshire's, Iowa's, and Wisconsin's 2 to 3 point Democratic trends are significant as well (needless to say, this is a bad trade for the Republicans overall).

Read Nate Silver on the subject. There is little to no Dem advantage in the EC. And historically advantages dont last long.

Sean Trende covered this as well. Fact is the GOP has not had a good year to run a presidential election since 1988. A good year would be a Dem incumbent in a recession like 1980 or a booming economy like 1972, 1984 or 1988 for the GOP incumbent. 2004 was mediocre economically. If Kerry had won in 2004 and been president during the recession and meltdown in 2008, I promise you that the GOP would have carried so called "Blue Wall States" like PA, MI, WI and NH. Likewise 5-7% growth in 2004, would have produced a Bush 52-55% popular vote win with 350 EVs.

Well you may have a point since Obama was only able to break away in terms of the popular vote from McCain after the stock market crash in September of 2008.

[bobloblaw]

If you think the GOP candidate could get 52% of the popular vote and not tear down the "BLUE WALL" youre sadly mistaken.

I never mentioned that.

If you don't think there's a solid Democratic advantage in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—each of which haven't carried at the presidential level for a Republican since after the 1980s—then you're kidding yourself.

And 52 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote—which is winning nationally by about six percentage points—is what the Republicans would have to get in order to feasibly flip Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. They haven't won the U.S. Popular Vote by more than 2.46 percentage points even with the two terms of George W. Bush since after the 1980s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So does the majority of states.

Texas and Georgia—two Republican base states—also move with the popular vote. (See Elections 2004 and 2008 for their margins their shifts and, of course, with Mitt Romney's failure to unseat Barack Obama in 2012 with demonstrating just how much he managed to move those Republican base states.)

What you may not be understanding is that Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are base states for the Democratic Party. For a Republican to win them over…there is no option in order to achieve that but to win the U.S. Popular Vote by a substantial percentage margin (like, perhaps, six percentage points) and a raw-vote margin of 7.8 million—which is recognizing that, with approximately 130 million presidential votes cast on average of the last two election cycles of 2008 and 2012, increments of 1.3 million rep carrying the U.S. Popular Vote by a full percentage point.

(Note on New Hampshire: Every winning Republican carried the state prior to a 2004 George W. Bush. With realignments and counter-realignments, now it's going to be every winning Democrat will carry New Hampshire.)

These states, in general, don't tend to vote same-party outcomes as the likes of Alabama and Mississippi (and Texas and Georgia) when winning candidates—from either party—are nowadays carrying, apparently at best, an average of only 3 out of every 5 states (from the last six cycles of 1992 to 2012, the average has been 29 states).

In a presidential realigning period favoring the Democratic Party—and with Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin among the base of the Democratic Party (as they were the base of the Republican Party when the Democrats were the base of the "South" and the Republicans were, well, not with their base in the "South")—this is all not as easily doable as you may want to insist. So, yes, today's Republican Party does have an Electoral College problem.

WI is has less of a Dem PVI today than in 1988. If WI's PVI was the same in 1988 as today, GHW Bush would have won the state. He lost WI by 4 in a year he got 54% of the vote. GHW Bush lost WI by less than 1 in a year he won 50% of the vote. WI has actually moved towards the GOP by 3-4 points. Most likely caused by the relative decline of the MKE city turout.

MI and PA HAVENT CHANGED since 1988 one bit. What has changed is the inability of the GOP to get the national popular vote they got from 1968-88, 76 excluded.

In 1988, both PA and MI were D+ states, not R states. GHW Bush underperformed in both states relative to the national popular vote. But sinvce he got 54% nationally, he carried MI and PA.

NH has changed its PVI owards the Dems. IA has actually gotten more GOP as has MN. IA today is R+0 and has been since 1992. In 1988, IA was D+7 or 8.

THE REASON THE GOP HASNT CARRIED PA AND MI SINCE 1988, IS BECAUSE THEY CANT BREAK  D+1 will go Dem until the GOP breaks 51%.

If the 1988 election was rerun with today/s PVIs, GHW Bush would win IA, MN, WV, WI and possibly OR and maybe WA. He'd lose IL, MD, CA, VT, CT, DE, probably NJ and ME. NH would be too close to call. MI and PA would be EXACTLY the same. He'd win VA and CO comfortably.

States do not hold out against the national popular vote result. That is the big lesson learned in 2012 versus 2004. Bush/Rove focused on certain EVs. Obama focused more on the national popular vote, knowing that the swing states would move with the popular vote.

[DS0816]

WI is has less of a Dem PVI today than in 1988. If WI's PVI was the same in 1988 as today, GHW Bush would have won the state. He lost WI by 4 in a year he got 54% of the vote. GHW Bush lost WI by less than 1 in a year he won 50% of the vote. WI has actually moved towards the GOP by 3-4 points. Most likely caused by the relative decline of the MKE city turnout.

George Bush Sr. won the U.S. Popular Vote by 7.73 percentage points in 1988. The Republicans haven't won the U.S. Popular Vote by more than 2.46 at any point after the 1980s. Every state in losing Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis's 1988 column had a Democratic tilt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, they have. They are no longer are base states for the Republican Party. They carried for every winner of the Republican Party from that party's first victorious election in 1860 right through to 1956. Then they did it again in 1972 and the 1980s but, with realignment of the two parties and their base states, they carry every time the Democrats win. Plus, the fact that Pennsylvania has boasted a Democratic tilt in every election following the 1940s.... And that Michigan voted like a bellwether (percentage margins wise) in 1984, 1988, and 1992 but is nearing six points more Democratic than the nation....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

States are not isolated because of shifting; that's from one election cycle to the next. That...we are on the same page. But, and this is apparently getting ignored, it cannot negate the fact that, since after the 1980s, U.S. presidential elections have been seeing around 3 of every 5 states carry while 2 of every 5 states on average does not. (This is in contrast to 11 elections, during the 20th century, in which presidential winners carried at least 80 percent of available states.) This is with the 32 (1992), 31 (1996), 30 (2000), 31 (2004), 28 (2008), and 26 (2012) states carried over the six individual cycles for an average of 29 states. So, I'm telling you that, if a Republican wins the presidency with this latest trend of about 3 of every 5, he is not going to succeed in flipping Michigan and/or Pennsylvania. The narrow margin in the popular vote, likely under a pickup year (with White House flipped from Democratic to Republican), will determine New Hampshire. And Wisconsin would come before the Michigan/Pennsylvania duo.

[bobloblaw]

""Yes, they have. They are no longer are base states for the Republican Party""

Winning a state doesnt make it part of your base. In every election from 1968-88 except 1976, MI had a Dem PVI (Humphrey carried MI in 1968).

Do you understand PVI?

Only 2/6 elections from 1968 to 1988 were close. In 1984 even MA, that Reagan carried still had a Dem PVI of nearly D+10. But in a 60-40 national GOP win, a D+10 state will still go GOP by a hair.

If the next election is 50/50 in the national popular vote and that D+10 state goes from say 51-49 GOP win in the last election to 40-60 GOP loss in the next election, NOTHING HAS CHANGED in that state's PVI relative to the national popualr vote.

That state hasnt become MORE Dem. What has become more Dem is the national popular vote. The state simply moves with the national popualr vote.

WI has become more GOP even if the GOP hasnt won it since 1984. WI in 1988 was D+7. In 2012 it was D+1.5, the same as in 2004. If the GOP candidate gets 51.5% nationally, they will carry WI by a hair. Same is likely with MN.

PA 1988 D+3, 2012 D+1
MN 1988 D+7, 2012 D+1

The reason the GOP hasnt won these three states despite the move towards the GOP is, the national popular vote total for the GOP may have a 50.8% ceiling. When it is D+1, 50.8% isnt enough.

[DS0816]

""Yes, they have. They are no longer are base states for the Republican Party""

Winning a state doesnt make it part of your base. In every election from 1968-88 except 1976, MI had a Dem PVI (Humphrey carried MI in 1968).

Incorrect.

Carrying a state regularly for your party, and doing so above the national margin of the U.S. Popular Vote, and doing so even when your party doesn't win a presidential election and/or the U.S. Popular vote, does make it part of your base.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pointless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pointless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pointless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pointless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe. But still.....

I already mentioned to you that, after the 1980s, the amount of states getting carried are approximately 3 of every 5 on average. If we were getting 4 of every 5, we could all have our fun with the 10 states that end up not carrying for a winning Republican or a winning Democrat.

You want to concentrate strictly on Partisan Voting Index. But, it's clear you are either not recognizing or are not generally understanding what is a base state for either of the two major political parties. (Remember my earlier mention that the likes of Pennsylvania and Michigan do not vote same-party outcomes as Alabama and Mississippi when, especially, we're getting 3 of every 5 [that's about 60 percent] of states carry while 2 of every 5 [that's about 40 percent] of states do not?)

[Mehmentum]

Yes, states do follow national trends to a large extent, however each state reacts differently to the same campaign.  Perhaps Obama's '08 and '12 campaigns did focus on winning the popular vote, thus carrying over a large number of states, however, its not like every state shifted equally, some even shifted away.

So yeah, considering the national environment is important, which is why I use the margins with respect to the popular vote to calculate the trends, but each state is its own environment and they often react differently, sometimes radically so.

It just so happens that the current coalitions the parties consist of pack a huge number of Republican voters into their base states, more so than the Democrats.  This has the effect of an electoral college gerrymander.

Perhaps the situation is as impermanent as you suggest, but I don't buy it.  Appalachia is dead for the Democrats.

[bobloblaw]

""Carrying a state regularly for your party, and doing so above the national margin of the U.S. Popular Vote, and doing so even when your party doesn't win a presidential election and/or the U.S. Popular vote, does make it part of your base.""



The GOP never carried those states above the national popular vote from 1968-88. In 1984, Reagan got 53% in PA versus 59% nationally. MI, WI and PA were never the base of the GOP vote even using your definition. Youve refuted yourself.

So youre wrong on your very first point.

The rest of your argument "irrelevant" or "pointless" simply shows you cant debate or refute any of my points. Or more likely youre simply too stupid to reecognize trends.

[DS0816]

""Carrying a state regularly for your party, and doing so above the national margin of the U.S. Popular Vote, and doing so even when your party doesn't win a presidential election and/or the U.S. Popular vote, does make it part of your base.""



The GOP never carried those states above the national popular vote from 1968-88. In 1984, Reagan got 53% in PA versus 59% nationally. MI, WI and PA were never the base of the GOP vote even using your definition. Youve refuted yourself.

Yes, they were.

When the Democrats' base was in the states of the Old Confederacy, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were among the base of the Republican Party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Incorrect.

[Ashbringer]

Clinton will underperform in Colorado.

[pbrower2a]

Here are the PVI (statewide vote compared to national vote) trends from 2000 to 2012. Negative numbers represent Republican trends.  The color shows how states voted in 2000.

West Virginia: -23.82
Arkansas: -21.63
Tennessee: -19.92 (Gore home state)
Oklahoma: -15.04
Louisiana: -12.9
Missouri: -10.95
Kentucky: -10.95
Utah: -10.93 (Romney home state)
Alabama: -10.69
Massachusetts: -7.54 (Romney home state)
Arizona: -6.16
Rhode Island: -5.0
Kansas: -4.3
Wyoming: -4.14
Connecticut: -3.52 (Lieberman home state)
Florida: -2.49
Pennsylvania: -2.17
New Jersey: -1.42
New York: -0.18

The vast majority of Republican trending states since 2000 already voted Republican in 2000.  If you discount MA and CT due to home state bounces, then all you're really left with is Rhode Island (which is too strongly Democratic to be in play in the near future) and Pennsylvania.  As small a trend it is, Pennsylvania is the only Democratic state with really any promise.

Its actually even worse than that.  You'll notice that there are fewer Republican trending states than Democratic trending states.  This is because Republicans have 9 states trending 10 points or more toward them.  Democrats have 4 states trending that strongly to them.  ALL of those nine states were already solidly Republican in 2000, so gaining 10 to 20 points in those states are wasted votes as far as the electoral college is concerned.

Now look at the Democratic trending states:

Georgia: 0.49
Michigan: 0.99
South Dakota: 1.33
Illinois: 1.48 (Obama home state)
Minnesota: 1.91
Mississippi: 2.03
Indiana: 2.05
South Carolina: 2.08
Iowa: 2.12
Deleware: 2.19 (Biden home state)
Ohio: 3.11
Wisconsin: 3.34 (Ryan home state)
New Hampshire: 3.47
Nebraska: 3.84
D.C.: 4.05
Idaho: 4.24
North Dakota: 4.59
Texas: 5.15 (Bush home state)
Washington: 5.91
Maryland: 6.3
New Mexico: 6.71
Maine: 6.8
Nevada: 6.85
North Carolina: 7.41
California: 7.94
Montana: 8.04
Oregon: 8.27
Virginia: 8.54
Colorado: 10.34
Alaska: 13.58
Hawaii: 21.0 (Obama home state)
Vermont: 22.28


Notice the strong trends in Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and Nevada.  Not to mention weak trends in Ohio, New Hampshire, and Iowa.  All but one of the 2012 battleground states have had Democratic trends since 2000.  

So basically, Republicans have gained a lot in states they were already strong in.  While Democrats have gained in both lean Republican states and tossup states.  

Very few lean Democratic states are trending R.  Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin are either stationary or have weak Democratic trends (Wisconsin, despite Ryan's presence on the ticket).  The only apparent openings Republicans have are Florida and Pennsylvania, which both have weak trends that may just be noise.

West Virginia used to be one of the more reliable D states due to the strength of the United Mine Workers Union. With the exhaustion of coal seams in Appalachia and the movement of coal mining to the West, the Republican Party has found low-hanging fruit. On the other side is Vermont, once a stalwart R state in which the GOP has practically died. 

This chart has its problems, mostly in failing to recognize some of the character of the states. Thus Minnesota is likely to go 50-50 in an R blowout (it was the best state for Mondale and the second-best for McGovern) and 55-45 in a D blowout. So if in 2016 Hillary Clinton should get 58% of the popular vote she might get 56% of the vote in Minnesota and -- Minnesota becomes R+2. In such a scenario the Republicans are doing uncharacteristically well in Minnesota; it's that other states have swung hard toward Hillary Clinton. Florida seems to exaggerate the strength of any Republican nominee and mute the strength of a Democrat, which is an arguable opposite of Minnesota.

Except at the extreme ends I can see little predictive value. 



 

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

So, about that electoral college problem...