What does a 5% uniform swing from Obama to Romney look like?

[ajb]

You boys seem to be torturing yourselves a bit. Obama got 53.7% of the two party vote last time. For Romney to win, the uniform swing needs to be about 4.55%, with Romney getting 50.85% of the two party point, at which time he carries Colorado and goes over 269 electoral votes.

But wouldn't a 4.55% swing give Obama about 51.4% of the two-party vote?

He didn't mean the actual percentage (as in, "4.55% of 53.7 = 2.41%, 53.7-2.4=51.3%), but rather the Republican amount of the two-party vote (46.3%) with an increase of 4.55 points (46.3 + 4.55 = 50.85%).

Fair enough, but it's important only to use one definition of "swing" at a time. The thread began by looking at the PPP Nevada poll, which suggested that the gap between D and R this time is 4.5 points narrower than in 2008, and that got misinterpreted as being about the Democratic vote going down by 5, and the Republican vote up by 5, which is of course a very, very different thing, and would lead to radically different results nationwide. Calling both things a "5 point swing" causes a lot of confusion.

[opebo]

The good news for Mittens is that the next state after Colorado is New Hampshire, which falls to Mittens when the two party swing is 4.86%, with Mittens getting 51.56% of the two party vote.

Can NH trend more than 1.56% Mittens' way, giving him 270 electoral votes even if he loses Colorado?  Yes, I think that is in the cards. NH is just made for Mittens ($$$ is more important up there than the currency used in the celestial kingdom, be it the traditional one, or the new age/secular humanist one), and he has one of his homes there, and Hispanics don't live there. The Pubs are very fortunate in that way - very fortunate. NH in short is the place that causes Mittens not to be hold "hostage" to Hispanics, to be blunt about it (assuming he can carry AZ, which I think still has a 1%-2% Pub bias, even after adjusting for the McCain home-state factor and Hispanic Dem trends).

Well done, good analysis.  Its a one shot deal, assuming (as I think is correct) the Hispanic lock-out you mention.

Of course if we start to get into this 'which state can trend than the uniform swing', this brings up other problems - Virginia is also trending Democrat, of course much more moderately so than Colorado - and Romney is a terrible fit for Ohio.  So.. its definitely trying to thread the needle for your favorite aristocrat.

[Torie]

The good news for Mittens is that the next state after Colorado is New Hampshire, which falls to Mittens when the two party swing is 4.86%, with Mittens getting 51.56% of the two party vote.

Can NH trend more than 1.56% Mittens' way, giving him 270 electoral votes even if he loses Colorado?  Yes, I think that is in the cards. NH is just made for Mittens ($$$ is more important up there than the currency used in the celestial kingdom, be it the traditional one, or the new age/secular humanist one), and he has one of his homes there, and Hispanics don't live there. The Pubs are very fortunate in that way - very fortunate. NH in short is the place that causes Mittens not to be hold "hostage" to Hispanics, to be blunt about it (assuming he can carry AZ, which I think still has a 1%-2% Pub bias, even after adjusting for the McCain home-state factor and Hispanic Dem trends).

Well done, good analysis.  Its a one shot deal, assuming (as I think is correct) the Hispanic lock-out you mention.

Of course if we start to get into this 'which state can trend than the uniform swing', this brings up other problems - Virginia is also trending Democrat, of course much more moderately so than Colorado - and Romney is a terrible fit for Ohio.  So.. its definitely trying to thread the needle for your favorite aristocrat.

Thank you.

Just to complete the story, Virginia is Mittens' toughest state before facing Colorado and NH. But in a 50-50 two party vote election, Virginia would have to trend .518% to the Dems (52 basis points), for Obama to win it. So in an even swing, it goes to Mittens. For Mittens to win NH, and lose VA, the trend difference between them would need to be a bit over 2%. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

CO and NV and a shot at either OH or NH.

[Politico]

I could see Romney swing at least 15% of the vote from Obama to him, he'll have to do the math correctly.

Do you really see Romney doing better than George H.W. Bush in 1988?

Fixed and yes.

[King]

I could see Romney swing at least 15% of the vote from Obama to him, he'll have to do the math correctly.

Do you really see Romney doing better than George H.W. Bush in 1988?

Fixed and yes.

Well, at least Obama picked up West Virginia.

[Politico]

I could see Romney swing at least 15% of the vote from Obama to him, he'll have to do the math correctly.

Do you really see Romney doing better than George H.W. Bush in 1988?

Fixed and yes.

Well, at least Obama picked up West Virginia Illinois.

Fixed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I could see Romney swing at least 15% of the vote from Obama to him, he'll have to do the math correctly.

Do you really see Romney doing better than George H.W. Bush in 1988?

Fixed and yes.

Politico, you really are a hack or else you believe we will have entered the Second Great Depression between now and November.

Romney has a fair chance of matching Dubya's 2000 performance, not that doing so will do him any good without a Nader to take some fraction of votes away from Obama.  He has a slim hope of getting a majority of the PV, but the way the state contests are shaping up right now, a slender Romney PV win still sees Obama winning the EV.  Absent a major crisis that reflects badly on the administration, Romney has no hope of matching Dubya in 2004, led alone his dad in 1988.