Is this 92 all over again?

[pbrower2a]

Anything is possible after the 1992 election, but I think right now, this is probably 1984. Of course, not nearly as big a victory.

This is what "anything can happen" literally means.

Thirteen states, five elections, and all voted the same in every election (not counting the Second Congressional District of Nebraska). State votes in Presidential elections are obviously not random events.   

Let's look at the Presidential elections beginning in 1992.  Let's start with states (in midnight blue) that haven't voted for any Republican nominee beginning in 1992. 

In view of the geographic distribution of those states (most of the Intermountain West, the US 83 Corridor, and three states in the Deep South), the chance that those thirteen states would vote alike, and only for Republican nominees, is one in 2 to the 65th power, which is one chance in 36 followed by eighteen digits. These states voted for the elder Bush once, Dole once, Dubya twice, and McCain. It is certainly not random. Obama lost every one of these states by at least 8%. Ruling out an Obama landslide in 2012, the President has practically no chance of getting any electoral vote in these states (except the odd vote of Nebraska's Second Congressional District). Anyone who expects President Obama to win any one of the 102 electoral votes in this group has some explaining to do.



The other side is even more striking:

Eighteen states and DC haven't voted for any Republican nominee for President in the last two decades.  They include four of the five states bordering the Pacific Coast, four very urban states in the Midwest, and all but one of several states (and DC) to the north and east of  the Potomac. Between those seventeen states and DC, those states have had ninety chances to vote for Republican nominees for President and have voted for Clinton twice, Gore, Kerry, and Obama. President Obama won every one of those states by 10%, and the Republican nominee having a chance to pick them up will require a major shift in votes. Those states have 244 electoral votes, just more than 90% of what President Obama will need with which to win re-election. The chance that this pattern is random instead of dictated by shared culture is one in 2 to the 90th power... one in 1237 followed by 24 digits.

About 350 electoral votes look locked up -- tight -- because of the political cultures of states.  In theory a bunch of the states in ruby could go for the right Republican, as when Ronald Reagan was President. Some of those used to be reliable states for GOP nominees for President except in Democratic landslides... but it is now arguable that any electoral results from before 1980 are ancient history in electoral politics.

The rest can apparently be run by the "right" Democrats or the "right" Democrats based on politicians that we now have. 

Three states (Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico -- shown in medium red) voted once for  Dubya, but for Clinton twice and for Obama. They are very different in their demographics and political culture. These states usually vote for Democratic nominees for President over the last twenty years, but there are "wrong" Democratic nominees for these states.  Barack Obama won each of these states by at least 9%, and it will be difficult for any Republican to win either of these states "back". Unfortunately for President Obama they account for only 15 electoral votes.
 

Five states (Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia) used to reliably vote for Democratic nominees for President except in Republican landslides. But Bill Clinton was the last Democratic nominee to win any one of those states.  Maybe Southern populists can win these states -- but Al Gore was only marginally "Southern" in 2000 and no populist; neither Kerry nor Obama was either Southern or populist.  They comprise 38 electoral votes, as many as Texas -- but they may be even more out of reach to President Obama than Texas in 2012, as he lost them by bigger margins than by which he lost Texas. I color them in green:

States in deep blue and in green now comprise 140 electoral votes, and not one of them gives President a significant chance of winning.  States in ruby or medium red comprise 259 electoral votes. Basically, unless things change greatly before 2012, 399 electoral votes are off the table.



   

[pbrower2a]

Now in light blue are those states and one district (NE-02) that have gone for Obama once or Clinton once, but not both:

Except for Virginia (which Obama won decisively) and Arizona (which Obama lost by 9%, but against a Favorite Son in 2012) these states were all decided by less than 5%.

With a win of all states in any shade of red and either Georgia, North Carolina, or Virginia, President Obama wins in 2012.

Now -- in yellow are the two states of Colorado and Nevada, which with all states in red or ruby clinch for President Obama. In white are the states that decided 2000 (Florida) and 2004 (Ohio)...

All states in white or yellow states that Clinton won at least once... and Obama won in 2008.

Missouri fits into no category at all; Clinton won it twice, but Obama lost it. It won;t decide the 2012 election.   

[Nichlemn]

It's a safe bet that 2012 will end up having superficial similarities to a vast number of elections, such that plenty of two-bit political pundits will write lengthy columns espousing the apparent significance in projecting the results. Of course, almost all of these pundits will conveniently overlook the vastly more numerous differences. Every election is more unique than it is similar to any other election.

[Nichlemn]

Anything is possible after the 1992 election, but I think right now, this is probably 1984. Of course, not nearly as big a victory.

Let's look at the Presidential elections beginning in 1992.

It's also a safe bet that we'll see more cherrypicking of dates in the future. Democrats like to pick 1992 as a starting point because since then, we've seen three fairly strong Democratic victories and two small Republican victories. This supposedly indicates that Democrats have an advantage in Presidential elections. But you could cherrypick in favour of Republicans by either going back further (to 1968 or 1980 for the biggest effects) or going forward further (since 2000).

Or suppose we were attempting this exercise in the past (looking back at the previous five elections). Leading up to 1992, we would conclude that Republicans had a "lock" on ~230 EVs (Ford states - Iowa and Washington, which Dukasis won in 1988) and had a large advantage in many other states. Leading up to 1952 we would conclude that Democrats had a similar advantage. We know how those elections turned out.

Those examples are obviously themselves cherrypicked to show how the "model" can fail spectacularly. But scanning all elections, it doesn't look like the results of the past five elections have a great deal of predictive power. How well did the previous five elections predict 2008? 2004? 2000? Before? My guess is that while state results predicted future voting in that state fairly strongly (they're certainly not random), states weren't "locked tight" to the extent you claimed. (For instance, Bush lost twelve states in 1992 that were "locks" by your logic. Even if you think that race was "realigning" or something - even in the EC landslide of 1988, Bush lost Oregon and Iowa, two "lock" states). And there's quite possibly a negative correlation between overall results for a party and the next election, due to desire for change.

This article by Nate Silver shows how even apparently technically advanced models can be highly flawed. The example he has is of a model that predicts House results in Presidential election years using data from 1952 onward... but if it was extended to 1948, that election would be an enormous outlier.

[Nichlemn]

Quick analysis - since 1876 (the first election in which the Democratic and Republican parties had each existed for the previous five Presidential elections), the correlation between the number of Democratic wins in the past five elections and whether a Democrat wins the next election is -0.06 - effectively nothing. No, it's not counting popular vote or the Electoral College, but I can't imagine they're going to swing it into a large positive number.

[pbrower2a]

Anything is possible after the 1992 election, but I think right now, this is probably 1984. Of course, not nearly as big a victory.

Let's look at the Presidential elections beginning in 1992.

It's also a safe bet that we'll see more cherrypicking of dates in the future. Democrats like to pick 1992 as a starting point because since then, we've seen three fairly strong Democratic victories and two small Republican victories. This supposedly indicates that Democrats have an advantage in Presidential elections. But you could cherrypick in favour of Republicans by either going back further (to 1968 or 1980 for the biggest effects) or going forward further (since 2000).

Anyone who can't see a huge difference between 1976 and 1992 can't see the trend that had taken place during three Republican Presidential landslides. Democrats used to need the South, beginning in 2000 they needed to find a way of winning without the South. (Florida  politics are so different from the politics of its neighbors and near-neighbors that it belongs in a region of its own).

Facts should create no problems; interpretations create them. I can't be certain that a Democrat can win  even as a moderate populist (Carter, Clinton)  in enough Southern states to have a chance, and it is hardly certain that southern populists have remained Democrats.  It could be that the states that I show in green are steadily drifting out of the reach of Democrats as Democrats gain elsewhere.  Does the South have a chance to churn out the populists that it used to, or has it become the ultimate preserve of corporate-friendly politicians who have cozy relationships with economic elites who wield the real power?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Political shifts seem to occur under the cover of blow-out losses. The two-party system tends to force losing parties to attempt to form new coalitions with which victory becomes possible. I figure that Bill Clinton wasn't far from Jimmy Carter in ideology -- although Clinton was a far more adept politician. Clinton won a bunch of states that Democratic nominees for President just did not win except in electoral blowouts like 1964 and in the FDR era.  That Clinton could win states like California, Michigan, Maine, and Vermont suggested that something had changed since 1976.

Winning coalitions can also lose parts of their coalitions. The so-called "Rockefeller Republicans" who might have been uncomfortable with a Democratic Party that held many anti-intellectual populists, drifted D.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We wouldn't have such results had there been a Republican blowout after 1988. The quality of politicians matters, and who runs matters greatly. Had the Republicans had a President more effective in getting his point across than Dubya, then numerous states would be in different colors. A shift of 3% of the vote toward the Republicans in 2004 would have knocked New Hampshire out of the pink category while shifting Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania into the pink category.  Who runs matters greatly, of course. I can't imagine any Democrat in the last seventy-five years winning Indiana in an election as close as 2008  except Barack Obama.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, any technical model that fails to account for the style and quality of a campaign, the ability of outside groups to funnel money into the contest, choice of running mate, and the personality and campaign style of a candidate will show weaknesses. It is possible that John Kerry would have delivered New Hampshire in 2000 to Al Gore and altered the course of American history greatly.  It is also possible that John Edwards, a southern populist similar in many ways to Carter and Clinton, was a perfect choice for winning over a constituency of the Democratic Party that no longer existed. Political cultures in states can change with demographic change. It could be that Indiana has been a relatively-safe state for Republicans because a strong  Democratic nominee almost never campaigns there -- but President Obama did.  Virginia used to be a reliable R state -- but not any more.  Of course either Party can run a failure against a President who cultivates significant popularity, in which case the election isn't close. Incumbents  (Hoover, Carter) can be catastrophic failures as President with predictable results.

....

So far, about every non-partisan projection shows President Obama getting re-elected with much the same states as in 2008. Five states shifted between 1992 and 1996, and three states shifted between 2000 and 2004. The states most likely to shift between 2008 and 2012 should President Obama win roughly a 53-46 split of the popular vote  are those closest  in 2008 or entail the Favorite Son effect (for example, Jeb Bush would win Florida but probably at the expense of Arizona). But should the Republicans nominate an incompetent campaigner or someone easily depicted as crazy or absurd, then how what would the 2012  election say about the political trends of the states?

Absolutely nothing. If the Republican nominee is so unattractive as to lose Texas, Kentucky, and the Dakotas, then such says nothing of long-term shifts. The 1964 Presidential election hardly foretold what 1968 would be like.

[Nichlemn]

Anything is possible after the 1992 election, but I think right now, this is probably 1984. Of course, not nearly as big a victory.

Let's look at the Presidential elections beginning in 1992.

It's also a safe bet that we'll see more cherrypicking of dates in the future. Democrats like to pick 1992 as a starting point because since then, we've seen three fairly strong Democratic victories and two small Republican victories. This supposedly indicates that Democrats have an advantage in Presidential elections. But you could cherrypick in favour of Republicans by either going back further (to 1968 or 1980 for the biggest effects) or going forward further (since 2000).

Anyone who can't see a huge difference between 1976 and 1992 can't see the trend that had taken place during three Republican Presidential landslides. Democrats used to need the South, beginning in 2000 they needed to find a way of winning without the South. (Florida  politics are so different from the politics of its neighbors and near-neighbors that it belongs in a region of its own).

Facts should create no problems; interpretations create them. I can't be certain that a Democrat can win  even as a moderate populist (Carter, Clinton)  in enough Southern states to have a chance, and it is hardly certain that southern populists have remained Democrats.  It could be that the states that I show in green are steadily drifting out of the reach of Democrats as Democrats gain elsewhere.  Does the South have a chance to churn out the populists that it used to, or has it become the ultimate preserve of corporate-friendly politicians who have cozy relationships with economic elites who wield the real power?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Political shifts seem to occur under the cover of blow-out losses. The two-party system tends to force losing parties to attempt to form new coalitions with which victory becomes possible. I figure that Bill Clinton wasn't far from Jimmy Carter in ideology -- although Clinton was a far more adept politician. Clinton won a bunch of states that Democratic nominees for President just did not win except in electoral blowouts like 1964 and in the FDR era.  That Clinton could win states like California, Michigan, Maine, and Vermont suggested that something had changed since 1976.

Winning coalitions can also lose parts of their coalitions. The so-called "Rockefeller Republicans" who might have been uncomfortable with a Democratic Party that held many anti-intellectual populists, drifted D.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We wouldn't have such results had there been a Republican blowout after 1988. The quality of politicians matters, and who runs matters greatly. Had the Republicans had a President more effective in getting his point across than Dubya, then numerous states would be in different colors. A shift of 3% of the vote toward the Republicans in 2004 would have knocked New Hampshire out of the pink category while shifting Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania into the pink category.  Who runs matters greatly, of course. I can't imagine any Democrat in the last seventy-five years winning Indiana in an election as close as 2008  except Barack Obama.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, any technical model that fails to account for the style and quality of a campaign, the ability of outside groups to funnel money into the contest, choice of running mate, and the personality and campaign style of a candidate will show weaknesses. It is possible that John Kerry would have delivered New Hampshire in 2000 to Al Gore and altered the course of American history greatly.  It is also possible that John Edwards, a southern populist similar in many ways to Carter and Clinton, was a perfect choice for winning over a constituency of the Democratic Party that no longer existed. Political cultures in states can change with demographic change. It could be that Indiana has been a relatively-safe state for Republicans because a strong  Democratic nominee almost never campaigns there -- but President Obama did.  Virginia used to be a reliable R state -- but not any more.  Of course either Party can run a failure against a President who cultivates significant popularity, in which case the election isn't close. Incumbents  (Hoover, Carter) can be catastrophic failures as President with predictable results.

....

So far, about every non-partisan projection shows President Obama getting re-elected with much the same states as in 2008. Five states shifted between 1992 and 1996, and three states shifted between 2000 and 2004. The states most likely to shift between 2008 and 2012 should President Obama win roughly a 53-46 split of the popular vote  are those closest  in 2008 or entail the Favorite Son effect (for example, Jeb Bush would win Florida but probably at the expense of Arizona). But should the Republicans nominate an incompetent campaigner or someone easily depicted as crazy or absurd, then how what would the 2012  election say about the political trends of the states?

Absolutely nothing. If the Republican nominee is so unattractive as to lose Texas, Kentucky, and the Dakotas, then such says nothing of long-term shifts. The 1964 Presidential election hardly foretold what 1968 would be like.

I'm not criticising the idea that there have been signficant trends - clearly there have been. The only objection I have is your apparent claim that Democrats have an advantage in having more states "locked up" by virtue of having won them each time in the past five elections. This is similar to claiming that Democrats have an advantage for having averaged a higher share of the popular vote in the past five elections.  If that wasn't your implication, then I have no significant disagreements with you.

[pbrower2a]

I'm not criticising the idea that there have been signficant trends - clearly there have been. The only objection I have is your apparent claim that Democrats have an advantage in having more states "locked up" by virtue of having won them each time in the past five elections. This is similar to claiming that Democrats have an advantage for having averaged a higher share of the popular vote in the past five elections.  If that wasn't your implication, then I have no significant disagreements with you.

Underscoring your point, we are far from the pre-Reagan era of politics, contrast 1976 to 2008 (really, electoral votes don't matter here as they are for 2012:

Carter (1976) and Obama (2008) red
Ford    (1976) and Obama (2008) orange*
Carter (1976) and McCain (2008) green
Ford    (1976) and McCain (2008) blue

*Both congressional districts of Maine and the Second Congressional District of Nebraska (mostly Omaha) should register orange, but Forum software does not so work, but I can make them yellow instead.

1976 was probably the last hurrah of the New Deal coalition that formed 46 years earlier (1930) in the wake of the economic meltdown of 1929. That was the last year in which Democrats would win Texas in a close Presidential election and the last year in which they would lose California or Illinois in a close election. Tellingly, the only former Confederate state that Carter lost (Virginia) would be a clear win for Obama in 2008!

The only states in green that President Obama has a reasonably good chance of winning in an election split about as in 2008 in the popular vote are Georgia and Missouri, and I see President Obama having about as much chance of winning Arizona as either Georgia or Missouri.

.....

It is true that the record beginning in 1992 has its predictive flaws for 2012. First, the Republicans won two elections with an average of 278.5 electoral votes, and the Democrats won their three Presidential elections with an average of roughly 371 electoral votes. That is about a 100 EV difference, which is huge. But just look at the Republican constituencies as the result of the Southern Strategy of Richard Nixon in attempting to pick off poorly-informed Southern white voters especially of Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestantism. Such a strategy effectively weakened the old New Deal Coalition faster than it might otherwise have and led to the landslide elections of Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (Reagan didn't need that help) and the elder Bush (probably didn't need it).  Dubya did in both 2000 and 2004, and Republicans might come to regret those wins, as those wins practically gave President Obama a big chunk of the once-reliably Republican vote of suburban white people who had little in common with southern Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.

Barring some catastrophic meltdown of the Obama Presidency, I just can't see President Obama losing in 2012 as he won in 2008. The best that I can imagine for the Republican nominee is for almost all of the swing votes that made a difference between the Presidential elections of 2000 or 2004 and 2008 going back to the GOP nominee, which would imply an election much like 2000 or 2004. Also possible is a narrow win for President Obama after most of the swing voters between 2000 and 2004 swing back to the GOP nominee, but not enough to prevent President Obama from barely winning re-election. In such a scenario, President Obama would likely win every state that either Gore or Kerry won and either

1) the pair of Colorado and Nevada
2) Virginia
3) Florida, or
4) Ohio

The pair of Colorado and Nevada looks easiest for now for a Dubya-style win for the President. He's not going to win Indiana without also winning Ohio, North Carolina without winning Virginia, Montana or Arizona without also winning Colorado and Nevada, Missouri without also winning Ohio and Virginia,  Georgia without winning Florida and North Carolina...

If the President should pick up all of the states that make an Obama win certain, then he is probably on his way to winning 355 to 390 electoral votes, which would be indistinguishable from the pattern of elections of Democratic Presidents beginning in 1992.

I am not predicting an Obama landslide (in which the President would pick off a raft of states in green and blue on the above map, especially Texas), but if such did happen then the model that I used for Presidential elections between 1992 and 2008 would suddenly become obsolete much as the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan ensured that the political realities that lingered into the 1970s were beyond recovery of any Democrat.         

 

[RI]

If this were 1992 (which 2012 won't be), wouldn't we need a Ross Perot?

[foodgellas]

This is unlikely to be a repeat of 1992.

In 1992:

1. The incumbent president faced a primary challenge because he lost the support of his base.
2. The incumbent party had held power for almost 12 years.
3. The incumbent president presided over an economy that was healthy in '89 and bad by '92
4. The incumbent president ran against a Democrat and a third party candidate
5. The incumbent president lacked charisma and the common touch

In 2012:

1. The incumbent president is not going to face a primary challenge
2. The incumbent party has held power for only 2.5 years
3. The incumbent president has presided over a gradually improving economy
4. The incumbent president is unlikely to be hurt by a third party candidate
5. The incumbent president is the most charismatic leader the country has had in three decades

This is not going to be a repeat of 1984, either. Just watch one of Reagan's "morning in America" TV spots and you'll see that the economy is never going to improve enough to allow Obama to run on that message.

A hybrid of 1996 and 2004 seems to be the most accurate comparison. Obama will prevail by a larger margin than Bush II but by a smaller margin than Clinton.

[Nichlemn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure whether you're implying that recent electoral history implies Obama is a solid favourite for re-election or not. I mean, I agree that he is, but it's because of a whole lot of factors solely related to this election. If Clinton had won more narrowly or Bush more strong, resulting in some ruby red states becoming light blue on your map, this should have very little impact in how we predict 2012. Do you think your map would have less predictive value if you used the statewide results in hypothetical tied elections?

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure whether you're implying that recent electoral history implies Obama is a solid favourite for re-election or not. I mean, I agree that he is, but it's because of a whole lot of factors solely related to this election. If Clinton had won more narrowly or Bush more strong, resulting in some ruby red states becoming light blue on your map, this should have very little impact in how we predict 2012. Do you think your map would have less predictive value if you used the statewide results in hypothetical tied elections?

Since 1992 we have essentially two sorts of Presidential elections -- one sort  in which the Republican (Dubya both times) wins by a narrow margin in electoral votes, and one in which the Democrat (Clinton twice, Obama once) wins by about 100 more electoral votes than is necessary. A relevant alternative is that the Democrat barely wins -- if Al Gore had gotten a few more votes in Florida.  Maybe I could use that model if someone can prove that some state officials cheated in Florida in 2000.  The last electoral blowout was 1988 with the meltdown of the Dukakis campaign. This model doesn't explain electoral blowouts well, but electoral blowouts need little explaining anyway.

These look like the possibilities for 2012:

1.  Bare victory by the Republican nominee  -- if the American public votes as it did in 2010. It would look something like 2000 or 2004. The Republican wins 270-310 electoral votes.

2.  Bare win by President Obama with 270-310 electoral votes. This implies the President losing most of the states that he won but neither Gore nor Kerry won (those in pink) and either Colorado and Nevada, Virginia, Ohio, or Florida and perhaps another.  

3. A win by a margin of 100 or so electoral votes (355-385) which fits the pattern of Clinton twice and Obama once. This would likely be a near-duplicate of 2008, perhaps with President Obama losing Indiana but picking up two of Arizona, Georgia, and Missouri.

4. An Obama landslide in which the President faces a weak, extreme, or incompetent opponent and starts picking off states in green

or manages to win Texas while holding onto Indiana, picking up Missouri, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, maybe the Dakotas and South Carolina. Such depends upon the inappropriateness of the GOP nominee more than anything else, and it is not good for analysis of statewide behavior.  After all, what can one learn about the behavior of some states like Kansas and Utah in 1964 or Hawaii and Rhode Island in 1972 or 1984?

5. You will notice a gap for President Obama winning anything between 310 and 355 electoral votes, and I point that out for a good reason: since 1908 no Presidential winner has carried a percentage of electoral votes that would give such a result. An opponent who sees himself losing is obligated to take chances that either make the election closer or ensure a bigger loss. Take a look at 2008; many people projected Barack Obama to win 320 or 330 electoral votes, but John McCain made the quixotic and ultimately futile effort to win in Pennsylvania -- at the cost of throwing away his chance to win a bunch of states that he couldn't afford to lose. Such happens.  

I'm not going to rate the chances of alternatives 1 through 5 except to say that the order of the chances are in the order, from highest to lowest, of #3, #2, #4, #1, and #5. Anything else has a lesser chance of happening than  #6 -- an unwelcome visit by the Grim Reaper to the Obama household for someone other than Bo.

#5 is most likely if the Republican nominee is fairly competent but is using the 2012 Presidential election as a dress rehearsal for 2016.  Jon Huntsman could be in that category.  

 



 

 

[J. J.]

I would see parallels with 1980 and 1932.

[Paul Kemp]

I would see parallels with 1980 and 1932.

Of course you would. I'm sure Obama supporters can find comfort in your prognostications of doom for their candidate.

[courts]

I would could see parallels with 1980 and 1932.

It's a bit premature honestly. I mean the economy is as we both know, unstable but he's currently riding high on the polls relative to everyone else.

[Nichlemn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure whether you're implying that recent electoral history implies Obama is a solid favourite for re-election or not. I mean, I agree that he is, but it's because of a whole lot of factors solely related to this election. If Clinton had won more narrowly or Bush more strong, resulting in some ruby red states becoming light blue on your map, this should have very little impact in how we predict 2012. Do you think your map would have less predictive value if you used the statewide results in hypothetical tied elections?

Since 1992 we have essentially two sorts of Presidential elections -- one sort  in which the Republican (Dubya both times) wins by a narrow margin in electoral votes, and one in which the Democrat (Clinton twice, Obama once) wins by about 100 more electoral votes than is necessary. A relevant alternative is that the Democrat barely wins -- if Al Gore had gotten a few more votes in Florida.  Maybe I could use that model if someone can prove that some state officials cheated in Florida in 2000.  The last electoral blowout was 1988 with the meltdown of the Dukakis campaign. This model doesn't explain electoral blowouts well, but electoral blowouts need little explaining anyway.

These look like the possibilities for 2012:

1.  Bare victory by the Republican nominee  -- if the American public votes as it did in 2010. It would look something like 2000 or 2004. The Republican wins 270-310 electoral votes.

2.  Bare win by President Obama with 270-310 electoral votes. This implies the President losing most of the states that he won but neither Gore nor Kerry won (those in pink) and either Colorado and Nevada, Virginia, Ohio, or Florida and perhaps another.  

3. A win by a margin of 100 or so electoral votes (355-385) which fits the pattern of Clinton twice and Obama once. This would likely be a near-duplicate of 2008, perhaps with President Obama losing Indiana but picking up two of Arizona, Georgia, and Missouri.

4. An Obama landslide in which the President faces a weak, extreme, or incompetent opponent and starts picking off states in green

So the only basis you have for a strong Republican victory not being a "possibility" is that it would require them to win states that haven't been for five elections? As history has shown us, no such pattern has existed before. You could say "this time it's different", but that's getting into bare assertion territory.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I don't think there's any statistical significance to this relationship, especially as you got to pick the goalposts.  Although the reasoning at least makes sense theoretically, what other examples other than 2008 exist with an underdog employing a very risky strategy? Even if there are quite a few, there's so much uncertainty in the final results that it's going to be impossible to engineer a strategy that only wins narrowly or loses heavily. It wouldn't taken a lot for say, Texas to go to Nixon in 1968 and ruin this apparent pattern. Maybe it reduces the chances of Obama winning with about 330EVs, but not by a lot.

[pbrower2a]

I would see parallels with 1980 and 1932.

Telling the police officer who stops you on the way home from the sports bar, "Osshifer, I shwerved to hit avoiding the pink effeluntsh*!" makes about the same sense.

1932 required the severest economic meltdown in thirty previous years and eighty years hence.  The severest economic meltdowns in a century are those of 1929-1933 and 2007-2009, and both meltdowns resulted from the implosion of speculative bubbles. There is no bubble to burst this time. The economic recovery may be slower than most people want, but it is not the sort that needs only a little bad news to turn into a Crash.

1980 resulted from a President having achieved little while the economy floundered... and Americans being taken hostage in the Iranian embassy. Carter should have lost even without the Iranian hostage crisis.  As an event early this month shows, messing with America is not good for one's life expectancy.

This, in contrast, makes more sense:

This is unlikely to be a repeat of 1992.

In 1992:

1. The incumbent president faced a primary challenge because he lost the support of his base.
2. The incumbent party had held power for almost 12 years.
3. The incumbent president presided over an economy that was healthy in '89 and bad by '92
4. The incumbent president ran against a Democrat and a third party candidate
5. The incumbent president lacked charisma and the common touch

In 2012:

1. The incumbent president is not going to face a primary challenge
2. The incumbent party has held power for only 2.5 years
3. The incumbent president has presided over a gradually improving economy
4. The incumbent president is unlikely to be hurt by a third party candidate
5. The incumbent president is the most charismatic leader the country has had in three decades

This is not going to be a repeat of 1984, either. Just watch one of Reagan's "morning in America" TV spots and you'll see that the economy is never going to improve enough to allow Obama to run on that message.

A hybrid of 1996 and 2004 seems to be the most accurate comparison. Obama will prevail by a larger margin than Bush II but by a smaller margin than Clinton.

I figure on something analogous to Clinton 1996 as the low end and Eisenhower 1956 as the high end with an Eisenhower-like result depending upon President Obama winning either Texas or a the five states that Clinton won twice but Obama got clobbered in -- both unlikely. I see a collection of weak candidates except for Romney, much more division within the GOP than among Democrats, and a House leadership that has proposed some changes sure to be as wildly unpopular in November 2012 as now. 

*Translated into standard English from Drunkspeak, "Officer, I swerved to avoid hitting the pink elephants", although a sober person would never see pink elephants.

[Liberalrocks]

Its going to be 1964 all over again...If Palin is nominated.

[pbrower2a]

Its going to be 1964 all over again...If Palin is nominated.

Who is nominated matters greatly. Goldwater may have simply been too frank for his own good -- much as McGovern would be in 1972. LBJ and Nixon both won by large margins by showing their opponents to be extremists. Goldwater and McGovern believed what they said that they believed, and they have been at least partially vindicated.

Sarah Palin is simply a nut when she isn't a liar.

[Nichlemn]

PB2, what do you think it translates to, probability-wise? Sounds like you're very confident in an Obama win, in which case you could make good money on Intrade/wagering with people.

[pbrower2a]

Again, I don't think there's any statistical significance to this relationship, especially as you got to pick the goalposts.  Although the reasoning at least makes sense theoretically, what other examples other than 2008 exist with an underdog employing a very risky strategy? Even if there are quite a few, there's so much uncertainty in the final results that it's going to be impossible to engineer a strategy that only wins narrowly or loses heavily. It wouldn't taken a lot for say, Texas to go to Nixon in 1968 and ruin this apparent pattern. Maybe it reduces the chances of Obama winning with about 330EVs, but not by a lot.

It's my seat-of-the-pants application of game theory. For the nominee who is decidedly but not hopelessly behind -- like McCain in 2008, these are the apparent prospects


Strategy                                                             Electoral votes

Gamble and win (one chance in 50):                        275... and win
Gamble and lose but make things close                   250
Play it straight                                                          220
Gamble, but things go wrong                                   170

The consequences for 120, 220, and 250 electoral votes are much the same: a loss. Playing it straight would have meant that McCain would have shored up his strengths and abandoned any quixotic efforts to win 'back' a state that most people thought that he was losing decisively.

"Play it straight" would be a reasonable strategy for someone who thought himself a likely nominee for President four years later. In a slightly-different universe, this is what Barack Obama might have been in. But it just wasn't so.

Now what does it look like for the other side:

Strategy                                                               Electoral votes

Gamble and lose (1 chance in 50)                               265... and loss
Nickel defense                                                             290
Both play it straight                                                     330
Successful defense against a wild gamble                  370

The Nickel Defense is a method of defensive play in American football, and it worked reliably for decades.  It basically trades time that the team then behind can't afford to give up for yardage that the losing team can't use well enough. The team behind can make steady gains on running plays that devour fast-disappearing time that becomes the ally of the team in the lead. If the team behind makes a daring pass for a big gain, then the five defensive backs make an interception very likely -- and create the possibility of easy points scored on the runback of the interception or some solid offensive play from a good position in the field, making the score even more lopsided.

But both teams playing it straight means that either both teams score similar numbers of points, which is a wash -- but the team already ahead wins.  

Barack Obama may not have been a football coach, but game theory works for politics as it does for football.

.....

Now if the GOP nominee is behind in September 2012 and plays it straight, then maybe that candidate is looking to 2016 with 2012 as a dress rehearsal, perhaps making appearances on behalf of beleaguered candidates on his side.  The likelihood of that seems small... but it is still far too early to rule it out. Will someone take a not-too-bad loss to make possible a win in 2016? Good question.

      
        
          

[pbrower2a]

PB2, what do you think it translates to, probability-wise? Sounds like you're very confident in an Obama win, in which case you could make good money on Intrade/wagering with people.

I'm invested... in oil. I might not like the politics of the energy industry, but at least I am not investing in alcohol, tobacco, or gambling.

[Nichlemn]

Again, I don't think there's any statistical significance to this relationship, especially as you got to pick the goalposts.  Although the reasoning at least makes sense theoretically, what other examples other than 2008 exist with an underdog employing a very risky strategy? Even if there are quite a few, there's so much uncertainty in the final results that it's going to be impossible to engineer a strategy that only wins narrowly or loses heavily. It wouldn't taken a lot for say, Texas to go to Nixon in 1968 and ruin this apparent pattern. Maybe it reduces the chances of Obama winning with about 330EVs, but not by a lot.

It's my seat-of-the-pants application of game theory. For the nominee who is decidedly but not hopelessly behind -- like McCain in 2008, these are the apparent prospects


Strategy                                                             Electoral votes

Gamble and win (one chance in 50):                        275... and win
Gamble and lose but make things close                   250
Play it straight                                                          220
Gamble, but things go wrong                                   170

The consequences for 120, 220, and 250 electoral votes are much the same: a loss. Playing it straight would have meant that McCain would have shored up his strengths and abandoned any quixotic efforts to win 'back' a state that most people thought that he was losing decisively.

"Play it straight" would be a reasonable strategy for someone who thought himself a likely nominee for President four years later. In a slightly-different universe, this is what Barack Obama might have been in. But it just wasn't so.

Now what does it look like for the other side:

Strategy                                                               Electoral votes

Gamble and lose (1 chance in 50)                               265... and loss
Nickel defense                                                             290
Both play it straight                                                     330
Successful defense against a wild gamble                  370

The Nickel Defense is a method of defensive play in American football, and it worked reliably for decades.  It basically trades time that the team then behind can't afford to give up for yardage that the losing team can't use well enough. The team behind can make steady gains on running plays that devour fast-disappearing time that becomes the ally of the team in the lead. If the team behind makes a daring pass for a big gain, then the five defensive backs make an interception very likely -- and create the possibility of easy points scored on the runback of the interception or some solid offensive play from a good position in the field, making the score even more lopsided.

But both teams playing it straight means that either both teams score similar numbers of points, which is a wash -- but the team already ahead wins.  

Barack Obama may not have been a football coach, but game theory works for politics as it does for football.

.....

Now if the GOP nominee is behind in September 2012 and plays it straight, then maybe that candidate is looking to 2016 with 2012 as a dress rehearsal, perhaps making appearances on behalf of beleaguered candidates on his side.  The likelihood of that seems small... but it is still far too early to rule it out. Will someone take a not-too-bad loss to make possible a win in 2016? Good question.

      
        
          

I agree that underdogs should attempt risky plays. However, since candidates have only noisy signals of voter preferences and limited means by which to influence them, the range of possible electoral votes are going to be more diverse than you suggest. A modest win may be somewhat less likely than either a small win or big win, but not significantly.