Explaining Republican Electoral Problem (Using Purely 2012 Election)

[ElectionsGuy]

Using the 2012 election results and uniform swing, I can show you why republican have a "structural" disadvantage when it comes to winning the electoral college in some cases.

In a tied election, here's how we start out:

Democrat: 272
Republican: 253
Undecided: 13

Virginia is very close in a Florida 2000 fashion, but the democrats still have 272 electoral votes. Republicans would need to win by at least 1.5% (!) to win the electoral college, and successfully get their next state after Virginia, in this case Pennsylvania or Colorado.

Republican Win by 1:

Republican: 266
Democrat: 272

As I've said before, democrats have many more "lean" states than republicans do, and republicans have many more "safe" states than democrats do. I realize that swing states are swing states, but they all lean left to a degree (NH, IA, WI, CO, PA all lean left despite being "toss-ups"). The only swing states in the 2012 election that don't lean democratic are NC, OH, and VA.

Republican Win by 2:

Republican: 303
Democrat: 235

NH, IA, CO, and PA are all between 1-2 points more D than the country (as of 2012), so republicans see a major improvement from their 1 point win in the electoral college. So the republicans problem only exists when the election has less than a 2% margin of victory for them.

Democrats on the other hand can get their electoral votes quickly with small wins, but slows down once they get comfortable wins, for example:

Democrat Win by 1:

Democrat: 303
Republican: 235



Democrats can get over 300 while winning by 1 point, and yet republicans can win by 1 and lose the electoral college. This is the result of many swing states (NH, IA, CO, PA, NV as I've noted) being only slightly left of the popular vote, so the swing states essential for winning a presidential election are slightly more favorable towards democrats, this is the ultimate reason why republicans have a structural disadvantage.

Democrat Win by 10:

Democrat: 347
Republican: 191

Simply because Georgia, Arizona, and all the other Likely R states are so far away from North Carolina PVI wise, democrats winning by 10 only gets them 347 electoral votes. Where a republican would get 360 electoral votes and far more states.

Pat yourself on the back if you read all that. Feel free to make your own maps or explanations for this as well.

[PolitiJunkie]

The Republicans aren't at an unfair structural disadvantage though; Democrats have lost EVs in the last two census cycles, and Republicans won landslides before that. 2000/2004 highlighted a Democratic disadvantage in the electoral college. It's just that Obama magically brought Virginia and Colorado from Likely R to Lean D without them going through the pure tossup phase of Florida and Ohio, and he also brought Iowa and New Hampshire from pure toss-up to Lean D and Nevada and New Mexico from pure toss-up to Likely D. That's something the Democrats achieved, not a disadvantage the Republicans were given. It remains to be seen if Democrats will keep those states in their coalition, but if they do, you are right in that Republicans are at a major disadvantage (but not by any means an unfair one) in the electoral college. Remember that Democrats still support abolishing the electoral college by a larger margin than Republicans do.

[ElectionsGuy]

The Republicans aren't at an unfair structural disadvantage though; Democrats have lost EVs in the last two census cycles, and Republicans won landslides before that. 2000/2004 highlighted a Democratic disadvantage in the electoral college. It's just that Obama magically brought Virginia and Colorado from Likely R to Lean D without them going through the pure tossup phase of Florida and Ohio, and he also brought Iowa and New Hampshire from pure toss-up to Lean D and Nevada and New Mexico from pure toss-up to Likely D. That's something the Democrats achieved, not a disadvantage the Republicans were given. It remains to be seen if Democrats will keep those states in their coalition, but if they do, you are right in that Republicans are at a major disadvantage (but not by any means an unfair one) in the electoral college. Remember that Democrats still support abolishing the electoral college by a larger margin than Republicans do.

Yep, that's what created this, and this "structural" disadvantage has only been present since 2008. Again it seems like another one of those "special things" with Obama. It'll be interesting to see if this continues.

That's a good thing, but it's of course not going to happen.

[Person Man]

Though Obama is just a man and we will eventually find someone who can build a winning coalition again. It may be in 2016, 2020 , 2024 or 2028 but its definitely in the near future barring a worst case scenario. It must be said that it is unlikely that it will contain any more of the New Deal Coalition than Obama's, let alone Clinton's coalition.

[You kip if you want to...]

Universal swing doesn't exist in real life.

[ElectionsGuy]

Universal swing doesn't exist in real life.

Yes, I realize that, but generally do you think elections would be somewhere around/near the maps posted above?

[Mister Mets]

It's an interesting point, although it's difficult to assess since we don't know how much the individual candidates have had an impact on major states. In some cases, we're dealing with a two percent difference.

[opebo]

Using the 2012 election results and uniform swing, I can show you why republican have a "structural" disadvantage when it comes to winning the electoral college in some cases.

In a tied election, here's how we start out:

Democrat: 272
Republican: 253
Undecided: 13

Problem is 2016 will probably look like this in a tied election:

[Skill and Chance]

Universal swing doesn't exist in real life.

Yes, I realize that, but generally do you think elections would be somewhere around/near the maps posted above?

I could easily see CO and VA switching places next time around, but the basic premise would still hold true.  VA is going to be one tough nut to crack for an anti-fed gov party going forward and the events of this week are probably hurting the GOP worse there than in any other swing state.  Whereas in CO, Bush will be an increasingly distant memory by 2016 for the libertarian indies there.

[barfbag]

With all things being equal Republicans would probably lose 272-266 right now. This is closer than most points in history. We'll be talking about the Democrats having a problem again in 2021 just like we were in 2005.

[hopper]

I think the R's have to rethink the map like another poster said on this forum. I would go heavy for the Rust Belt if I were an R strategist. Those states aren't solid D like a California is.

States like CT, and IL grew with the White Population growing with the rest of the state on the last census so maybe try to make inroads there maybe even a Maine. I would have said maybe a Massachusetts but the GOP is too out of touch as a national party in terms of social issues vs a Massachusetts.

States like MD, VA, and NJ would be hard to make inroads because in the last census the White Population didn't grow with the rest of those states and the Black Population grew with those states average in terms of growth. I also notice in states in the Deep South(MS, AL, and TN) the white population lagged behind the states average growth as the Black Population kept up with the state averages in the 2010 Census so maybe the Dems make inroads in the Deep South again sometime soon.

[5280]

With all things being equal Republicans would probably lose 272-266 right now. This is closer than most points in history. We'll be talking about the Democrats having a problem again in 2021 just like we were in 2005.

Are you suggesting that the 2016-2020 elections are inverse of the 2000-2004 elections, with the Democrats barely winning?

[opebo]

I think the R's have to rethink the map like another poster said on this forum. I would go heavy for the Rust Belt if I were an R strategist. Those states aren't solid D like a California is.

States like CT, and IL grew with the White Population growing with the rest of the state on the last census so maybe try to make inroads there maybe even a Maine. I would have said maybe a Massachusetts but the GOP is too out of touch as a national party in terms of social issues vs a Massachusetts.

States like MD, VA, and NJ would be hard to make inroads because in the last census the White Population didn't grow with the rest of those states and the Black Population grew with those states average in terms of growth. I also notice in states in the Deep South(MS, AL, and TN) the white population lagged behind the states average growth as the Black Population kept up with the state averages in the 2010 Census so maybe the Dems make inroads in the Deep South again sometime soon.

One can assume that nearly all blacks, and a large majority of other minorities will continue to vote D, but its really stretching things to think that this automatically means the converse is true - that the GOP can start to win solid majorities of whites in the North.  The reason Romney won 60% of whites nationally was mostly because he narrowly lost or tied whites in the north and got huge margins with them in the South and a few other states.

[Skill and Chance]

This is a map of where white voters were more liberal or more conservative than their national average in 2012:

Remarkably, this correctly predicts 47 states and DC.  And in VA Romney and McCain got the same % of white voters despite the national swing, so the white vote there could easily be left of the nation next time around.

[PolitiJunkie]

This is a map of where white voters were more liberal or more conservative than their national average in 2012:

Remarkably, this correctly predicts 47 states and DC.  And in VA Romney and McCain got the same % of white voters despite the national swing, so the white vote there could easily be left of the nation next time around.

So what's going on in Montana? Florida makes a lot of sense though.

[hopper]

This is a map of where white voters were more liberal or more conservative than their national average in 2012:

Remarkably, this correctly predicts 47 states and DC.  And in VA Romney and McCain got the same % of white voters despite the national swing, so the white vote there could easily be left of the nation next time around.

So what's going on in Montana? Florida makes a lot of sense though.

Montana has voted for D's mostly for US Senate in recent memory with Baucus, Tester, and Melcher except for Conrad Burns(R) who served in the US Senate from 1989-2006. Montana has voted R's for their At Large US House for the last 16 years. The state can be a bit swingy with having an R Governor in the 90's and first half of the 00's and than switching to a D Governor from 2005-present I believe.

[PolitiJunkie]

This is a map of where white voters were more liberal or more conservative than their national average in 2012:

Remarkably, this correctly predicts 47 states and DC.  And in VA Romney and McCain got the same % of white voters despite the national swing, so the white vote there could easily be left of the nation next time around.

So what's going on in Montana? Florida makes a lot of sense though.

Montana has voted for D's mostly for US Senate in recent memory with Baucus, Tester, and Melcher except for Conrad Burns(R) who served in the US Senate from 1989-2006. Montana has voted R's for their At Large US House for the last 16 years. The state can be a bit swingy with having an R Governor in the 90's and first half of the 00's and than switching to a D Governor from 2005-present I believe.

I am aware of all that. It had nothing to do with my question. But I guess it makes sense, if Montana's voters are almost entirely white, and Montana's vote went 55% to Romney, their white vote would be a couple points to the left of the nation's 60% Republican white vote.

[barfbag]

With all things being equal Republicans would probably lose 272-266 right now. This is closer than most points in history. We'll be talking about the Democrats having a problem again in 2021 just like we were in 2005.

Are you suggesting that the 2016-2020 elections are inverse of the 2000-2004 elections, with the Democrats barely winning?

No what I'm suggesting is that things are close right now. It goes back and forth typically with eight years of one party and then eight years of the other party. If this were 1988 or even 2004 we'd be talking about the Democrats' electoral problem. Obama ran very well in traditional battleground states. In fact, he did so well that he could've hardly done any better either time. Exceptions could be Montana in 2008 and North Carolina in 2012.

[SPQR]

Sorry but...Dems winning nationally by 10% -> Georgia,Arizona,Missouri,Indiana not swinging,at the VERY least?

[Skill and Chance]

Sorry but...Dems winning nationally by 10% -> Georgia,Arizona,Missouri,Indiana not swinging,at the VERY least?

Well, if you give Obama 55% in 2012 with uniform swing, GA would be on a knife's edge with Obama leading by 0.2% and all of those other states would still be narrowly won by Romney.  And there is a strong argument that GA would swing less than the nation (although it will probably trend another point or 2 left).  So if a generic D won with 55% in 2016, they would only pick up NC and maybe GA over Obama 2012.  The Democrat needs to get about 56% for the likely R tier of states to fall.

If Hillary wins with an Ike style margin in 2016, this is what I would expect:

Clinton/Democrat 363 (55.1%)
Republican/Republican 175 (43.3%)

[barfbag]

You don't think these fantasies of Clinton and Obama landslides are a little unrealistic and wishful liberal thinking? What would you Democrats say if Republicans made maps of Christie and Rubio landslides. Both are just as unlikely.

[Skill and Chance]

You don't think these fantasies of Clinton and Obama landslides are a little unrealistic and wishful liberal thinking? What would you Democrats say if Republicans made maps of Christie and Rubio landslides. Both are just as unlikely.

I think the baselines are as follows for 2016:

Generic D vs. Generic R = 50/50 race, probably decided by 1 state

Hillary vs. Generic R = Reverse Ike 1952, Clinton gets about 55%

Christie vs. Generic D = Bush 2004 level win for Christie

Christie vs. Clinton = Obama 2012 level win for Clinton

So yes, I do think Clinton starts out as a heavy favorite.  But if Obama has fallen to Bush 2007-08 approvals, she just won't run in the first place.  I don't see anything particularly unreasonable about this and I've gone to great pains to be fair to both sides.

[barfbag]

You don't think these fantasies of Clinton and Obama landslides are a little unrealistic and wishful liberal thinking? What would you Democrats say if Republicans made maps of Christie and Rubio landslides. Both are just as unlikely.

I think the baselines are as follows for 2016:

Generic D vs. Generic R = 50/50 race, probably decided by 1 state

Hillary vs. Generic R = Reverse Ike 1952, Clinton gets about 55%

Christie vs. Generic D = Bush 2004 level win for Christie

Christie vs. Clinton = Obama 2012 level win for Clinton

So yes, I do think Clinton starts out as a heavy favorite.  But if Obama has fallen to Bush 2007-08 approvals, she just won't run in the first place.  I don't see anything particularly unreasonable about this and I've gone to great pains to be fair to both sides.

Oh I think she'll still run because it's her last chance despite approval ratings. If his numbers are above 37% or so she'll start out as slight favorite. If he's above 43% she'll be a moderate favorite. To think of him being above the mid 40's by then isn't really possible.

[Non Swing Voter]

You guys are missing it, things always swing back and forth every 8 years or so.  Remember the 90's when Bill Clinton won the popular vote twice.  Then remember just 8 years later when Gore won the popular vote.  Then just 8 years after that it swung back to Obama winning the popular vote again.  Current polling shows that Hillary could very well win in 2016, which shows a swing back to Hillary who was Obama's opponent in 2008.  This shows that things are extremely close and have been for decades. 

Besides, the democratic party is just based in big cities and their near in suburbs.  It's not like the Philly, DC, Denver, or Orlando suburbs are located in swing states. 

Plus as the 2012 elections proved to us, things swing back and forth... see, e.g., the massive swing in North Carolina and Indiana from Obama to Romney.  Indeed, Democrats have only won the same states that constitute only about 250 electoral votes 6 elections in a row now... You need a whole 20 more to win the White House in case you were wondering (I did the math myself on a TI-83 no less).

Nor are demographics on democrats side.  Minorities don't vote and any gains seen by democrats in minority votes will automatically and inherently be counteracted by an increase in white votes for Republicans... this is a scientifically proven fact. 

So stop whigging out, it's not like a major political party has every gone extinct, things happen in cycles... always, that's the definition of a cycle.

Yours truly,

Barfbag

[DS0816]

You don't think these fantasies of Clinton and Obama landslides are a little unrealistic and wishful liberal thinking? What would you Democrats say if Republicans made maps of Christie and Rubio landslides. Both are just as unlikely.

Every realigning presidential period has had at least one landslide for the favored party.


I'm referring to the ones cited in 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1968. That we are in one which started in 2008.

It's not so much "fantasy" but anticipation.