The latest in our occasional series informing you about the country's worst nightmare: a 269-269 Electoral College tie...
As you may have noticed from our scenario chart, the probability of a tie has increased dramatically in recent days and now stands at 3.2 percent. This is partly because, as we draw closer to election day with the race remaining tight, the probability of any one candidate running away with the election diminishes -- meaning that all "close" electoral permutations, including ties, become more likely.
However, there is one specific scenario that is driving this outcome. That is the scenario wherein Barack Obama wins the Kerry states plus Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado, but loses New Hampshire. Of the 320 times that our simulation ended in a tie, this particular scenario was responsible 294 times. Indeed, we presently have Obama winning precisely the Kerry states plus Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado, so all that would be needed to make a tie occur is to flip New Hampshire back to McCain, and entirely reasonable possibility.
Four other 269-269 tie permutations came up with less frequency:
20 times: Obama wins Kerry States + IA + NM + NV. This once had seemed like the most plausible tie scenario, but it requires Obama to win Nevada while losing Colorado, and increasingly unlikely parlay.
3 Times: Obama wins Kerry States + IA + NM + WV. Functionally equivalent to the scenario above since West Virginia and Nevada each have 5 electoral votes.
2 Times: Obama wins Kerry States + IA + NM + CO + VA - MI. Michigan has moved slightly toward Obama in the post-convention polling while Virginia has remained stuck in place, making it less likely that the states would invert positions as this scenario requires.
1 Time: Obama Wins Kerry States + IA + NV + CO - NH. Obama winning Nevada while losing New Mexico now seems very unlikely.
By the way -- the way that the tipping point math works out, about 80 percent of the tie outcomes involve McCain winning the popular vote. This is by far the messier of the two scenarios. Since the Democrats will almost certainly control a plurality or a majority of House delegations in the incoming Congress, a tie accompanied by an Obama win in the popular vote will lead to a lot of fanfare but ultimately little drama -- Obama will become the next President. But if McCain wins the popular vote, there will be far more pressure on Democratic Representatives to vote against their party. I still tend to think that this scenario favors Obama (formally, our model splits them 50:50) but a whole number of factors come into play, including:
(i) The size of the Democratic edge in House delegations;
(ii) The magnitude of McCain's popular vote margin;
(iii) Whether any states have their outcome determined by recounts. For instance, if Obama loses a controversial recount in Virginia by a few thousand votes and this produces a 269-269 tie, Representatives will have a far easier time finding it "fair" to vote for him than if the reverse were to occur.
(iv) The overall tenor of the campaign from here forward.
9.19.2008
12th Amendment Update: Tie Probability Continues to Increase
@ 3:56 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
428 comments
I would suspect that the probability of a tie is a function of the number of times the trend line crosses the x-axis.
Nate, you are a smart guy, and I have a great deal of respect for your opinions, but you are just wrong here.
Anyone who breaks ranks on the floor of Congress over the Presidency will be blacklisted for ever. Nothing they ever try to do will go anywhere and they might as well switch parties.
269 to 269 is an Obama win, barring the GOP somehow gaining a bunch of seats.
Just a quick question - wouldn't "Kerry States + IA + NV + CO" be Obama winning 273-265. I'm guessing that that is supposed to be Kerry + IA + NV + CO - NH?
Why would the Democrats have to feel pressure to heed the popular vote after they lost the 2000 election despite winning the popular vote?
After Florida 2000 how can you doubt that the tie breaker will split on partisan lines?
Why would Dems give a damb if the popular vote was against them? The Reps never did. There is such a thing as Poetic Justice.
269-269 Kerry+IA+NM+CO-NH is Gore+CO. Having that decided by a Democratic Congress for Obama would be perfect.
Nate, do your models have any consideration for something along the lines of the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact"? Though I personally think the Electoral College is a fantastically well-conceived system, not everyone agrees obviously.
Nate, there is a 0% possibility that democrats would allow a 269 each scenario to go to McCain. I don't care if McCain somehow won the popular vote by a full 2% margin. After having endured the George W Bush presidency after the loss in the 2000 election while winning the popular vote and getting screwed in Florida, the Democrats will not even think twice about it. Obama would be the next President but in about the weakest position imaginable for a president with the congress firmly on his side.
I would honestly, hate to see this scenario play itself out. All that post-partisan talk will be flung so far out the window, no one will even remember it happened. The partisanship will be so vicious that we won't even hear politicians giving false lip service to post-partisanship for over a decade.
I think a win for Obama is nearly guaranteed if there is a tie, popular vote or not. Realistically, it would be more legitimate than the 2000 result, since the outcome would be entirely within the realm of what's laid out in the Constitution.
House Democrats will have no problem voting for Obama in a tie situation, whatever the pop. vote.
The problem lies in the backlash and resentment against the Democratic government.
In actuality I'm hoping for a bigger margin of state pick-ups so we can stop talking in terms of Candidate+State(+State...). It's really weird that the last two elections have been so close that the only state changes have been IA, NM, and NH.
Obama will win a tie. Dems are not going to vote in a Republican President and have their legislation vetoed for 4 years. Anyone who voted against that would effectively become a Lieberman and not expect any cooperation from the Obama majority.
As NH has high info libertarians, I don't see this happening.
Drew
Exactly how was bush weakened by by being elected by a minority? There was a shrug of sholders, and that's democracy for you.
Now that the precident has been set, why would it be any different for Obama?
The part of me that is forever bitter about 2000 would relish a 269-269 Obama victory. But this scenario would no doubt make a 1994-style GOP blowback election more likely in 2010, and with control of redistricting on the line.. ouch.
The ultimate nightmare situation for Democrats would not be the 269-269 tie as you see it here.
The ultimate nightmare situation for Democrats would be the 269-269 tie... and under closer evaluation some fine print in the constitution will show that under this circumstance it was felt the country would be just too fractured to endure such a delimma.
To protect the country from obvious turmoil, our vastly intelligent forefathers felt that the best way to solve the problem is to throw out the election, disqualify both candidates, and distance us from the entire problem.
The Presidency would be given to one far from the trouble of the times. The new President would be the Speaker of the House 10 years prior to the current election day.
Our new President would automatically become the Honorable Newt Gingrich!
The political consequences of an ambiguous tie would be enormous. Obama would not be the most powerful person in Washington. Pelosi would. He'd owe his presidency to her, and that would make him entirely indebted to her. No chance of a veto, even if Congress passes something nasty. It would be Bush in reverse, with Pelosi as Bush and Obama as the congress that does nothing.
I pray to God that doesn't happen.
I see that Obama's win percentage is back to pre-convention levels.
Spare a thought for the poor sods who bought their devaluing homes on credit, invested in the stock market & then sold their stakes in Obama because he suffered from a perfectly predictable short GOP convention bump.
to avoid this total electoral colleges should be an uneven number.
The reason our system works is because we have only 2 major parties (this also make the pollsters job much asier). When our model was applied in Latin America it was a true disaster giving way to chaos and military takeover as an end result. In those countries the winning party did not received only relative majorities due to presence of third parties.
In the longterm I believe that the major threat to stability would be the emerging of relatively strong (above 5%) permanent third, fourth, fifth parties.
I know it's a bit out of topic but still I would appreciate your comments.
Nate, maybe road travel has gotten to you, not sure. Do you really think a tie would then go to McCain because Dems would acquiesce to pressure? Whose pressure? Their constituents, who voted them in (and a majority of whom are Dems themselves)? Really. What are you basing that on? I can tell you right now with a high confidence level and very little margin of error - to speak your language - that under current parameters an electoral tie with a popular vote favoring McCain will go to Obama. Dem pols risk unraveling their base, relegating the country to further dark ages, if they abandon their constituents in this struggle. Great stats, insanely good website, questionable conclusion.
To clarify the 12th Amendment:
Each state's congressional delegation gets one vote. So California and Montana have equal say in the process. A simple majority (26 states) is needed, with a quorum of 2/3rds (33 states). This means that many states can deadlock, and the result will still go through.
So, in a state like California, Massachusetts or even Washington, a few democratic reps might cross over to support McCain, but would enough of them? It seems very unlikely.
Also, according to the 12th Amendment, the Vice-President is chosen by the Senate, by a simple majority of senators.
What has happened over the past 3 weeks should come as no surprise to any seasoned political observer. The Dems had their bounce, the Reps had their bounce and now we have settled back to where we were before the conventions with Obama holding a 3 point lead nationally.
The one real difference in the data is that the choice of Palin has solidifed both party's bases and some of the undecideds have come off the fence.
Going forward there has been one substantive change in the course of the campaign. The debate is now focused solely on the economy and the McCain camp's distraction tactics (pigs, Paris and mindless froth) are no longer front and centre. I think Obama would have recovered his lead anyway but the economic crisis has accelerated the process.
The key going forward is how both camps react to the crisis. Thus far McCain has shot from the hip and has been forced to retract successive statements as his guesses prove wrong. The net result is that McCain looks like an economic novice who is floundering. Obama has wisely not committed to any firm position (save for the now global call for deregulation) but the danger for Obama is that he can only bash McCain for so long before people start asking him what he is going to do about the situation. Obama has had a good 4 days in the news cycle but the Reps will soon try and push to portray him as an opportunist so he needs to forcefully present real answers (tax cuts for 95% to stimulate growth and greater regulation) while at the same time continue to hammer McCain (tax cuts only for the rich and a champion of deregulation).
If I were Obama I would also employ a Rovian device. He should point out that no Republican has yet stood up and apologised to the American people for fucking up the economy. He should start a clock running. Bush's economic policy (sic) has failed for the past 8 years and McCain is indelibly wed to it. Obama needs to hold them to account and make sure that every American remembers this.
Blame, what did Bush accomplish before 9/11 happened?
It makes me wonder what Pelosi's doing about this.
I would hope that she and Hoyer would be extracting pledges from Dem Congresscritters in red states with majority-Dem delegations (ND, SD, NC, TN, MS, AR, WV) thatt in case of EC tie, they'll support the party nominee.
I would hope that she'd be backing that up with "if you don't, you can kiss any plum committee assignments goodbye for the next decade or so."
Guys, but you need to remember that in case of 269-269 scenario it's not the House voting as a whole, but it's the representations of each state having one vote. And even though the Democrats will certainly have a plausible margin in the House, they might not "have" more states.
At least we can be sure who the VP is in such case, since it's the senate choosing him by a simple majority and the Democrats will surely have a majority there.
So... McCain / Biden is (theoretically) possible :). That would actually be amazing for America's foreign policy.
"What did Bush accomplish before 9/11 happened?"
A 9/11 on the Constitution, that's what.
What is the current split of state delegations in the House? How many of these are tied or have one party ahead by a single seat? More to the point, what is the likely split after Election Day?
What happens when a state's delegation is evenly split? What happens if there's a recount going on for a House seat after Jan. 1, and control of this seat could tip the selection of the president?
What were the drafters of Amendment XII smoking?
As an Obama supporter, I hope he wins decisively. As an opponent of the Electoral College, however, I think that if McCain wins the popular vote but loses the presidency, that will greatly increase the possibility that the Electoral College will be scrapped. Both parties will have been a victim of it in a relatively short span of time, thus leading to a bipartisan consensus on the issue. An amendment to the Constitution would still be pretty difficult. Perhaps the states could be coaxed into choosing their electors in a proportionate way. It still seems like a long shot, but at least there would be a call for electoral reform of some kind, and I believe that would be a good thing.
Klyopod is right. I hope for a big win for Obama. But a 12th Amendment win would be poetic justice after our suffering of the last 8 years, and perhaps spur reform.
Just wanted to build on my last comment. I made a small research.
It seems that if the House delegation was exactly what it was in 2006 McCain would win in case of a tie in the Electoral College. Republicans would have 26 votes, Democrats would have 23 and one state had the same number of R's and D's.
I'll try to make a projection later on for 2008, but since there's about 30 or 40 seats shifting this year to the Democrats (projections) and in 2006 as much as 15 states had an advantage of ONLY 1 or 2 Republicans in a state delegation then I don't think McCain would win this year in case of an Electoral College tie.
Therefore... In case of a tie, it's still Obama/Biden.
Followup to Matthew's comment re: Amendment XII, and to rebut Tom Zacharski:
Currently, 27 states are majority D in their Congressional delegations; 21 states are majority R; and Arizona and Kansas are currently deadlocked (4-4 and 2-2, respectively).
The most likely changes in delegations that could affect the current 27-21-2 balance:
- If Young (R) in Alaska loses to Berkowitz, Alaska goes to the D column. Currently considered a toss-up.
- Kirkpatrick is favored in Arizona CD-1 - if she wins, Arizona goes to the D column.
- No clear favorite in New Mexico CD-1 - If Heinrich wins, NM goes to the D column, if White wins, NM stays in the R column.
- No clear favorite in Kansas CD-2 - If Boyda wins, KS stays in the tie column, if Jenkins wins, KS goes to the R column.
Other races that are considered close enough to pay attention to should not change any state's current ratio of Ds vs Rs.
That means Arizona is a likely add to the D column
Alaska toss-up on change.
If the R wins in New Mexico, the state stays R, if the D wins, the state delegation changes to D.
If the R wins in Kansas, the state goes R, if the D wins in KS, the state delegation stays tied.
The currently predicted House delegations (by state) next January look a lot better for Obama than for McCain.
I get a different result for the House state delegations with party majority:
Democrats: 27 (CA, OR, WA, HI, ND, SD, CO, MN, IA, AR, WI, IL, MS, TN, IN, PA, WV, NY, NC, ME, VT, NH, RI, MA, CT, NJ, MD)
GOP: 21 (MT, AK, WY, NV, UT, ID, TX, NM, OK, NE, MO, LA, KY, MI, OH, AL, VA, GA, SC, FL, DE)
TIE: 2 (AZ, KS)
Electoral College Tie = PRESIDENT OBABA!
Source: http://www.emailthecongress.com/state-delegations.html
Let's not forget some reports on RealClearPolitics that not only show the Republicans within 4 points on the Congressional Ballot, down from 15 earlier this year, but also polling that shows once thought to be dead races are now dead heats.
Senate Races are closer in NJ-NM-CO and House Races, due to the rise in the GOP Brand as of late, have it very close.
The GOP could very well take back a few seats in the house in some states. Don't be too sure that a 269-269 gets an Obama victory.
Looks like Mike in Maryland beat me to the punch.
While a tie would be a fitting end to this endless election cycle, it would be a terrible experience. All hell will break loose. There will be lots of pressure on the southern Democrats (but for some reason never on northern Republicans...). This will be a return of the superdelegates, but this time in House-form. And once again, Nancy Pelosi will be in control of the procedure. That goes to show how much power she has accumulated.
In this tie scenario, McCain wins 29 states. For Obama to win, 5 states have to vote against the will of their constituents.
I don't think anyone should take that as a given - that's a serious challenge for the whip and the speaker to pull off.
In the actual case of a 269-269 tie, popular vote and 29 states for McCain situation, it might be best for them to compromise. All electors from both sides that are not bound by state law vote for McCain on their VP ballot, and the House delegations then vote in President Obama and Vice President McCain.
Just thought I'd point out that Parnell has conceded the AK GOP primary to Young, which means that AK is extremely likely to go D.
I just read the text of the 12th amendment and find the quaint, 18th Century language hard to understand. I think our current House would vote by state delegations to decide the election, not the newly elected one.
Being no fan of the electoral college, a tie might be its death knell.
Good post, good site!
I'm very surprised to see a statistician and analyst of Nate's caliber giving any credence at all to the supposed legitimacy of "winning the popular vote".
He should know better. The "winning the popular vote" myth needs to be dispelled.
I have to say a part of me would LOOOOOOOOVE to see a tie with McCain winning the popular vote. Just let the GOPers whine about that one - BRING....IT...ON!!! I have a couple of middle digits just itchin' to deploy.
That being said, never underestimate the ability of Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid & Company to fold up like cheap card tables should David Broder crank out another column decrying "partisanship" in this situation.
If there was a tie the dems may let some red state democrats vote the way their state did for cover as long as it doesn`t affect the outcome. A tie goes ro Obama.
I still believe the winner will exceed 300 electoral votes because all these close states will break one way or the other in the end towards one candidate, my guess Obama.
McCains behavior is troubling and if he does poorly in a debate I believe that will nail it down for Obama.
Based on the current congress, we have
(congress/president):
18 blue/blue states
18 red/red states
2 tied/red states
9 red/blue states
AR (3-1)
IN (5-4)
MS (3-1)
NC (7-6)
ND (1-0)
NH (2-0)
SD (1-0)
TN (5-4)
WV (2-1)
3 blue/red states
DE (1-0)
MI (9-6)
NM (2-1)
So I think it's safe to say that Obama will get delaware to flip to him, leaving him with 19 votes, 7 to go.
Of the 9 red/blue states, it seems really unlikely that the Arizona reps will not vote for McCain - that leaves 8. For argument's sake we'll give Obama NH and MS (even though the MS popular vote will go to McCain by 15 points). That gives him 21 votes, 5 to go.
IN, NC, ND, SD, TN, and WV are all one vote from flipping red. NM is one vote from flipping blue. If he gets NM, he can afford to lose 2 of those blue states. If he doesn't, he has to get 5 of 6 blue states whose constituents voted against him. Two of those are the Dakotas, which are going to be double digit McCain wins.
It really comes down to what the actual districts voted, and we won't know that until election night. It also comes down to who the new congresss is. I don't think anyone's breaking ranks for a 49-51 loss. Not breaking ranks for a 40-60 loss, on the other hand, might be really hard to explain to the folks back home.
Today's R2K/Kos tracking poll:
Obama 49
McCain 42
When would this House vote take place? Would it be a "lame duck" Congress that cast the votes or the new Congress?
"...as we draw closer to election day with the race remaining tight, the probability of any one candidate running away with the election diminishes --"
This is historically inaccurate. One of the major problems with US Presidential elections and social science is that we have so few samples to draw from. Prior to WWII, the poll data simply doesn't exist, and even after WWII, it wasn't that great (Dewey beats Truman, anyone?)
In recent history, most elections have been blowouts, with the exceptions of 1960, 1976, 2000, 2004. The idea that major changes in polling cannot occur 6 weeks out is also inaccurate, as evidenced by the 1980 election, which went from a narrow Carter lead to the biggest loss by an incumbent in history. The 2000 and 2004 elections showed the opposite effect, with Gore and Kerry closing in on what looked to be a decided race, with Gore winning and losing, and Kerry coming so close the exit polls had him winning.
Unlike the conventions, political debates can create a permanent shift in the polls, as happened in 1980, 2000 and 2004. With 4 pending, your model is ignoring their potential impact. My subjective opinion says this favors Obama and Biden heavily.
I also put a lot of faith in the economic models that reward or punish the incumbent party for macroeconomic conditions. With the US obviously in Recession, McCain is swimming upstream and he is no Michael Phelps when it comes to economics.
I've predicted a blowout all along, and I think Obama will win by 6-8 points, which is outside the 5 point range that your model considers.
Even still, I'm highly impressed with your analysis. I just think the modeling makes the current situation seem less ephemeral than it is.
"Even still, I'm highly impressed with your analysis. I just think the modeling makes the current situation seem less ephemeral than it is."
The model is predicting what would happen if the election were held today. The current situation is all that exists, as far as it's concerned.
After watching W get the presidency because a bunch of men that got their jobs from his dad and his dad's former boss chose to do so, I don't think Americans will be that outraged when the House does what is within their constitutional right.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the popular vote should not matter when neither candidate is campaigning for it.
Under our rules, it's electoral votes that matter, not popular votes. The campaigns are structured around that rule. The candidates will not be spending any time in NY, CA, or TX (except for fundraising). There's not going to be much of a registration drive or "get out the vote" effort in non-battleground states. We simply don't know what the popular vote would be if candidates were really going after it, because they're not. (And that goes for Bush-Gore in 2000 too.)
I understand the notion that the "popular vote" has popular appeal, but it's kind of like deciding that a football game will be determined by total yards instead of points. It's simply not fair to use a factor that was never really a relevant part of the contest to determine the outcome, even if it seems to make intuitive sense. In this case, our intuition would be wrong.
Unfortunately, that won't stop people from bringing it up. I'd love to see a popular vote system for president. But it's not the system we have, it's not now candidates run their campaigns, and so it's not how candidates should not be judged.
In the event of a tie, what would happen if just 1 faithless elector gave a vote to Hillary?
The House would have three candidates to choose from, and if just a handful of representatives in the right states also voted for her, that could produce deadlock.
Hoping for payback for the 2000 election is juvenille. The Constitution is a wiser document than anyone hoping to change it through anti-Electoral College demagoguery.
If the EC is tied, whatever mechanism decides the POTUS from 2009-20012 is legitimate. That answer doesn't stoke hate and the middle school-esque feelings for retribution that seem to be at the heart of the under 35 political classes, but it is the answer.
FWIW, the punchback from the MSM and Obama will be counter-punched. There is still a lot of time left and Obama's radical ties have not been made a topic of the general election.
natsrgreat: When would this House vote take place? Would it be a "lame duck" Congress that cast the votes or the new Congress?
It would be the new Congress.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
pages/misc/electoraltie.php
I HATE the Electoral College.
That said, if Obama wins through the House of Representatives, OR if Obama wins through the Electoral College and loses the popular vote, my dream will come true.
The abolishment of the Electoral College.
Bet.on.it.
Nate, I think your analysis is off. The nation's worst nightmare is a McCain presidency.
I don't want Obama to win, so in that sense a 269-269 tie would be a nightmare. This wouldn't present any kind of constitutional nightmare. The constitution is very clear on this situation. The D's lead the R's in state delegations and would decide the election in Obama's favor. My understanding is that it's the current House of reps that would conduct this vote, not the House to be sworn in in Jan 09. Correct?
ok but if the GOP refuse to sit and the House is not quorate. What happens then?
2 things off topic.
Did anyone catch what Palin was saying about Energy today? - and if so has anyone got a scooby what on earth she is on about?
secondly, and most importantly. 1up in one other two tied level, Eur-op-e, Eur-op-e
"If I were Obama I would also employ a Rovian device. He should point out that no Republican has yet stood up and apologised to the American people for fucking up the economy. "
Well, that will never happen but it does suggest this morning's "guilt by association" presidential pop quiz:
Which of the following radical individuals with ties to this year's presidential candidates has caused the most suffering to the American people and lasting damage to American institutions? Is it:
A. William Ayers, the 60's radical turned professor of education, was involved in the bombing of empty buildings in the early 1970's who remains unrepentant, saying that he has no regrets and he "should have done more".
B. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, radical preacher of Trinity United Church of Christ who delivered sermons critical of the United States and uttered the now infamous phrase "God damn America".
C. United States Senator Phil Gramm, radical politician primarily responsible for the deregulation of the banking and financial sector, one of the co-sponsors of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which created the "Enron Loophole", co-author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act of 1999 which "modernized" depression era laws separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities.
Anybody got a feel for the chances of Obama breaking an electoral College tie by winning one CD in Nebraska, which splits its EVs? I've read that he's putting together a substantial operation in Omaha.
>>>
That said, if Obama wins through the House of Representatives, OR if Obama wins through the Electoral College and loses the popular vote, my dream will come true.
The abolishment of the Electoral College.<<<<<
I do not think so. The Electoral College is about POWER to the smaller states. To override the EC , you would have to get 2/3 of the states voting to eliminate it.
The small states are just not going to vote to reduce the power of their people to influence an election.
timmy: My understanding is that it's the current House of reps that would conduct this vote, not the House to be sworn in in Jan 09. Correct?
No. As my prior post stated, it would be the 2009 House.
You guys should read about the 1800 election. That was a mess. I just finished a book on it, Magnificent Catastrophe.
The system we have now is due to the Amendment that was passed to fix the issues of the 1800 election.
Back then, each Elector cast TWO votes. The overall majority winner was Pres, and number two was VP.
By this time the Federalists and the Republicans H A T E D each other.. I say things were way worse then they are now.. except they were more princpled I think.
Anyway. if all of a party's Electors voted for the same two people there would be a tie.
In 1800s, no one had coordinated with the States to designate which elector should not vote for Arron Burr.. but they all assumed someone took care of it.
The vote tied. and the lame-duck Federalist party controlled Congress. The choice Congress had to make was between Jefferson and Burr.. the Federalists wanted to toy with the Republicans and make Burr be the President. So when the delegations voted there ended up being a tie again!
I think the House voted 30-something times before the Federalists gave in and Jefferson was elected presidnet.
McCain would not win any ties. This will be a pure party line vote and as a couple of others have indicated, it would raise the partisanship levels another couple of notches, and give Pelosi incredible power.
Combine that with getting the significant legislation done in the 1st hundred days, and we will see a lot of liberal left legislation without any Republican votes. One potential is the Democratic Congress cuts the funding for the War and rebuilding Iraq, as of June or December 2009. That would not be good for an Obama Administration - to be forced to pull out by his own party.
floridagop: The Electoral College is about POWER to the smaller states. To override the EC , you would have to get 2/3 of the states voting to eliminate it.
The small states are just not going to vote to reduce the power of their people to influence an election.
First, the amount of power given to small states through the electoral college is minimal. Small states really get their power through the Senate. By comparison, the disproportionate weight given by the electoral college is small.
Second, the electoral college discriminates not by large-small as much as it does in play/out of play. If a big state were in play, it would get a lot of attention. If a small state is out of play, it gets ignored. Since only a handful of states are typically in play, one would think a substantial majority of states would favor changing the system.
Third, there's a way of instituting a national popular vote system without amending the Constitution. States can apportion their electoral votes as they like--which means they can give all their votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
There is a movement to have states pass laws stating that their electoral votes will go to the national popular vote winner when enough other states to constitute and electoral college majority have done the same. Then we will have a de facto national popular vote system, all within the existing constitutional language. States with 19% of the 270 votes needed have already done so.
See www.natonalpopularvote.com for more info.
Rasmussen for Friday is still evev at 48-48
Daily Kos +7 for Obama
The republicans would steal it from us if we won the popular vote, lets get over this notion that the dems need to give it to McCain if he wins the popular vote.
The founding fathers saw fit to set it up so the party in Congress wins in an EV tie, lets just take it if we tie.
Rasmussen #s won't change until he reweights his partisan weighting next week. At this point, he's an outlier, at least at the national level. We'll see if his methodology is right, though seeing high numbers for both candidates seems to make more sense than 46-42 or something.
Rasmussen has Indiana #s out at noon and other states out at 3
Rasmussen still tied? Amazing, I really want to see his house effect this week!
As for long term, his change to weekly Party ID changes DURING McCain's convention bounce was a terrible idea and an unbiased, experienced pollster would have never done it.
That said, I bet he shows a Party ID shift back to dems on Monday, and his polls fall back into line.
Which of the following radical individuals with ties to this year's presidential candidates has caused the most suffering to the American people and lasting damage to American institutions? Is it:
C. United States Senator Phil Gramm, radical politician primarily responsible for the deregulation of the banking and financial sector, one of the co-sponsors of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which created the "Enron Loophole", co-author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act of 1999 which "modernized" depression era laws separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities.
I get so tired of these people with their lazy talking points.
It was not Gramms fault. It was the Democrats fault (again). The Democrats put into the law that banks first had to prove they were giving out crappy loans to people with piss poor credit BEFORE they would be allowed to engage in the new market activity.
The Democrats guaranteed that every bank playing on the world market would infect the system with crap loans.
This is from the NYT 23 Oct 1999
I would not paste so much in here if it wasn't important for people to know the truth. So that you know who is lying to you today.
[20 paraphraghs removed]
The breakthrough in Friday's legislation came in a backroom meeting at the Capitol soon after midnight, when a group of moderate Senate Democrats -- led by Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Charles E. Schumer of New York -- forced a compromise between Gramm and the White House over the legislation's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-discrimination law intended to encourage lending to minorities and others historically denied access to credit.
Dodd, whose state is home to the nation's largest insurance companies, and Schumer, with strong ties to Wall Street, have long sought legislation to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. Both men said in interviews Friday that they moved to strike a compromise after it became apparent that the legislation might be killed, as it was last year by Gramm, over the debate about the Community Reinvestment Act.
Gramm had maintained that he did not want anything in the bill that would expand the application of the Community Reinvestment Act because it was, he said, unnecessarily burdensome to banks. He had sought a provision that would exempt thousands of smaller banks from the law. He also wanted a provision that would expose what he has described as the "extortion" committed by community groups against banks by requiring the groups to disclose any special financial deals the groups extract from the banks.
But the White House found that provision unacceptable and had its own ideas about community lending. It wanted the legislation to prevent any bank with an unsatisfactory record of making loans to the disadvantaged from expanding into new areas, like insurance or securities.
The White House had insisted that the President would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements. Four days of intense negotiations between Summers, Gene Sperling, the President's top economic policy adviser, and Gramm, while moving the two sides closer, failed to resolve the differences.
..
After receiving calls from executives of some of the nation's leading financial companies, Dodd and Schumer began trying to work out a compromise. An agreement was quickly reached on the issue of banks and expanded powers -- no institution would be allowed to move into any new lines of business without a satisfactory lending record.
The lawmakers bogged down on Gramm's insistence that all community organizations disclose to the regulators what benefits they get from banks. Some Democrats expressed the fear that Gramm's proposal would require the Boy Scouts to file reports with the regulators.
Ultimately, the following provisions were drawn up and both the White House and Gramm said they could accept them:
¶Banks will not be able to move into new lines of business unless they have satisfactory lending records.
¶Community groups will have to make disclosures to regulators about certain kinds of financial deals with banks that they have pressed to make loans under the Community Reinvestment Act.
¶Wholesale financial institutions, a new kind of business that takes large, uninsured bank deposits, cannot be affiliated with commercial banks.
¶Small banks with satisfactory or excellent track records of lending to the underserved would be reviewed less frequently under the Community Reinvestment Act. As a practical matter smaller banks are reviewed about every three years. The deal struck today allows all rural banks and banks with less than $250 million in assets to undergo examination once every five years if their last exam resulted in an "outstanding" grade and every four years if they last scored "satisfactory."
For more than 20 years, Congress has tried unsuccessfully to rewrite the nation's financial services laws and repeal Glass-Steagall, particularly as many other industrial nations had no similar restrictions on their banks. But until recently, the three main industries affected by the legislation -- banks, securities companies and insurers -- had competing interests and were able to lobby any legislation to a standstill.
That all changed in recent years as the lines between the industries began to blur and it became more broadly acknowledged that a deregulation of financial services could be beneficial to insurers, bankers and securities firms alike. Once the three industries rallied around the legislation, they became a formidable political force, raising millions of dollars for lawmakers and pressing both Republican leaders in Congress and the White House for new legislation.
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/financial/102399banks-congress.html
antmatic-
How is Rasmussen doing party ID at the state level?
ya Vince, every problem is the dems fault in your mind, even when the repubs push through the legislation.
ASTOUNDING!
I'll echo mac_1103's question regarding Nebraska. What's the possibility of Obama winning an electoral vote from the district that includes Omaha? Nate, does your model take into account the possibility of Obama winning the popular vote in & around Omaha to take that district's electoral vote? I'm not sure if there has been any good polling recently from Omaha that could be used in your model?
fred: the facts speak for themselves.
@dsimon,
Good post and analysis. I knew about the NationalPopularVote effort. I always thought it would generate spotty approval with 5-10 states over the next decade or two. I did not think it would compare to "Eliminating the EC".
I think that the biggest difficulty beyond the political blog people is the "why do I care" view in the rest of the population.
I am the political junkie in my family. At a get together of 20 extended family members who all vote, I asked for positions on Popular Vote. 5 had an opinion. The rest were all "Why do I care?"
1. McCain cold preclude the possibility of a tie by picking up Maine's moose-filled northern congessional district EV under Main'e unusual system shared only with Nebraska.
2. A 269-269 EV tie on election night would lead to faithless electors being offered billions by Adelson, Soros, etc. to swich sides.
3. As I keep pointing out, the daily Kos/Research 2000 tracker is worthless due to its disclosed built-in pro-Dem demos. It has 13% of likely voters being Latino even though the Pew Hispanic Center says Latinos make up only 8% of likely voters. The percentages of women and Democrats are also excessively pro-Dem and at odds with other national posters.
Having the HOUSE pick the President and the Senate pick the VP IS NOT the country's worst nightmare.
I happen to think that it would be a good thing for the House always to be picking the President - which would be more likely if we were open to 3rd, et al parties. It would simply make the system more Parliamentary.
And increasing the size of the House (using cube root "law") to about 700, so that there would be smaller, more competitive, and less alienating districts would be a ticket for a more responsive government. Where there is no vision the people perish!
Stepping off of the commentary and back to the statistics. You will note well that Nate is able to summarize fairly easily the counts for specifics combinations using the format Kerry+state-state [you could using Bush-state+state for McCain wins].
I think it would be extremely useful and interesting to see the top combinations for O simulated wins and the top combinations for M simulated wins.
If you need to
You could use p-bar + 3 times Square root of [p*(p-1)/N] where N= either M wins or O wins (for each list)and p-bar is the average % of any particular combination coming up to provide a cut off for sorting out the "real" top list.
Such a list of likely combinations I think would be far more interesting that what the tipping point state analysis has devolving into, i.e no asymmetry and no separation of noise from information.
floridaGOP-
Folks cared alot in 2000, if it had happened to a republican I bet we can get the concensus built to change it. The repubs care little about how they win, so the fact that dems viewed it as unfair meant little. Dems are more about equal voting so I bet the next repub person to win the popular and lose the EC drives the change we need.
No electoral college!
The next Congress takes office January 3, 2009. It would be the new Congress who would vote in the case of an Electoral College tie since the Constitution says that as soon as the Electoral College votes are counted, which would occur on January 6, 2009, and the resulting count is a tie, the Congress would go into session immediately to vote for President (House) and Vice President (Senate). In that event, based on current party affiliations, Obama would get 27 votes, 1 more than he needs (since DC gets a vote per the 23rd Amendment). However, it is a very likely scenario that Obama loses the popular vote in the case of a 269-269 tie. In that case, the pressure on just one Elector to switch to McCain would be enormous during the period between the popular vote election on November 4, 2008 and the Electoral College vote on December 15, 2008. What happened in Florida in 2000 would pale in comparison as party operatives spread out across the U.S. in an effort to pressure Electors to switch their vote from one candidate to the other. This effort would be especially true of the Republican Party since it would be almost certain that Obama would win in a vote of House delegations. Their argument would be that McCain won the popular vote, so at least one Elector should change their vote to validate the popular vote, thereby giving McCain a 270-268 win in the Electoral College. Of course, the Democratic Party would just as aggressively try to ensure that the Electors vote to reflect their state votes, resulting in a 269-269tie and a near certain Obama win in a vote of House delegations.
Someone said:
"I happen to think that it would be a good thing for the House always to be picking the President - which would be more likely if we were open to 3rd, et al parties. It would simply make the system more Parliamentary.
And increasing the size of the House (using cube root "law") to about 700, so that there would be smaller, more competitive, and less alienating districts would be a ticket for a more responsive government."
Fred says:
I love this idea.
I must be the opnly one who sees a Daily Kos tracking poll and gives it as much credence as I would a Rush Limbaugh-sponsored tracking poll.
Ryan,
You need a scenario where Obama loses PA. It's going to happen. Unurban PA will not forget the SF 'clinger' remarks. And, small town PA can really identify with Palin.
Finally, with all the hubub about Ohio in 2004, did anyone notice that Pennsylvania was even closer?
also mandate the districts be as rectangular or square as possible
and repeal the 17th amendment to prevent the Federal Govt from growing itself ever larger
I agree that given what happened in 2000 when Bush won the election despite losing the popular vote makes it unlikely that the Democrats would vote against Obama in the event of a 269-269 tie.
Of course, it depends on the size of McCain's popular vote margin:
Gore won the popular vote in 2000 by 544,000 votes or 0.51%. I think we can say for certain that if McCain wins the popular vote by that margin or less, the Democrats won't have any second thoughts about voting Obama into the White House.
If the margin is anything up to a million votes they probably won't have any doubts either. The problems would start if McCain won the PV by more than a million votes I think. That's when a lot of pressure would come onto them. I hope a tie doesn't happen because the potential for things like riots and protests would be very high.
Dang, forgot:
PA is trending McCAin. Latest Zogby has McCain up 5 in PA.
Joe:
To even count Zogby as a credible pollster anymore is beyond laughable.
You guys have problems with the DK-sponsored polls. But a Zogby poll would equate to Kos releasing results of some diaried poll as "official" and meaningful.
PA will be close. No doubt. But not really for the reasons you speculate.
Cherry-pick more, though.
@fred-
I am a republican, I know and work with lots of them. I think I can speak with more clarity on how republicans view issues, better than the vast majority of posters here.
I have never been revved about Popular Vote, before or after the 2000 election. If McCain loses on a tie or as the Polular vote winner, it may change a few minds, but many Republicans are originalists (think Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) -- they like to interpret the Constitution as written and then tend to respect existing political artifacts.
This could change, but if you think Republicans are going to vote with Democrats (in large numbers) to eliminate the Electoral College, it would be good to get a lot of Republicans to say that...
everyone is forgetting people with only cell phones not being polled,obama wins easy
"I must be the opnly one who sees a Daily Kos tracking poll and gives it as much credence as I would a Rush Limbaugh-sponsored tracking poll."
You can't discount a poll simply because of who pays for it. The company that CONDUCTED the poll (Research 2000) is nonpartisan.
Really, the biggest outlier in the national tracking polls right now seems to be Rasmussen (who has 48-48 again today). But they're all data.
"That said, I bet he shows a Party ID shift back to dems on Monday, and his polls fall back into line."
Rasmussen's party ID weighting is not based on a ROLLING average of party identification?
That would suck, as it would put discontinuities in his trends.
Does anyone know if the 538 model factors in Nebraska splitting its votes? There is a reasonable probability of the NE 2nd district going for Obama. I would assume that adding a degree of freedom with a single vote increases the number of scenarios where a tie is the outcome.
"Their argument would be that McCain won the popular vote, so at least one Elector should change their vote to validate the popular vote, thereby giving McCain a 270-268 win in the Electoral College."
I fail to see why a popular vote edge for McCain in a tie scenario means he should win it. I agree with you that McCain will certainly argue this and MAYBE a state will buy it, but the Constitution makes it clear that it matters not one bit who wins the popular vote.
I think I join the majority in saying I REALLY, REALLY hope this doesn't happen. For God's sake, why can't we just have an odd number of electors??
@sid,
This is the 3rd time I posted this. It is on RR site.
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large. Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process (see methodology).
Generally, our baseline targets are established based upon survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews). Targets have been updated monthly.
However, from now through Election Day, we are making two adjustments to that process. First, due to potentially changes in the political environment, we will now base our targets upon survey interviews conducted over the preceding six weeks, rather than three months. Second, we will update the targets weekly, rather than monthly. Each weekly update will be reported here.
"PA is trending McCAin. Latest Zogby has McCain up 5 in PA."
By the same argument, NC is trending Obama.
@David
Does anyone know if the 538 model factors in Nebraska splitting its votes? There is a reasonable probability of the NE 2nd district going for Obama. I would assume that adding a degree of freedom with a single vote increases the number of scenarios where a tie is the outcome.
YES, the 538 model takes this into account for Nebraska and Maine
Nate it is the CURRENT House and Senate that would decide. And the possibilities are scary. Check out this article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/bloomberg_vs_the_12th_amendment.html
Have any of you read the 12th amendment? Each state gets one vote. The most likely outcome is for each state to cast its vote in the way it went during the election. This is terrible for Obama. The important states like California and New York are suddenly worth the same amount as Alaska and Idaho. McSame would easily win that tie breaker. We need to win this thing the first time around!
thanks floridagop
I don't know why they'd use block averages instead of a rolling average. Perhaps there is a fair amount of noise in the party identification numbers, and the final numbers would reflect instability in the party ID as opposed to changes in underlying polled data.
Anyways, six weeks is a long time, and an RNC bounce that began two weeks ago will be bringing down Obama's numbers in Ras for the next month.
electoral-vote covered the "what-ifs" of this last week.
The current state delegations split 27-21-2 for the Democrats. After the election,Democrats could go as high as 33.
In order for McCain to have any shot in hell, upsets have to occur in states whose delegations could flip. And even then, he'll have to target states with Congressman who have been around so long that they wouldn't get damaged politically if they switch, such as if they were to retire soon.
It's possible, but things would have to play perfectly for McCain.
The interesting thing is that if the House vote results in a tie, the Senate gets to decide who becomes acting President. Here, again, it comes down to which states can be flipped away from a likely 5-seat Democrat majority.
It's very possible we could end up with Acting-President Biden for awhile.
Rasmussen fast becoming an outlier with a tie again posted today from most recent polling of yesterday.
That´s true?.
From RealClearPolitics:
Percentage US$ Traded
Republican Party Nominee to win Ohio's Electoral College Votes in 2008 Election 45.1% $22K
Democratic Party Nominee to win Ohio's Electoral College Votes in 2008 Election 53.9% $22K
For RCP, Obama has more chances to win in Ohio.
It is my understanding that electoral college delegates are not in any way obligated to vote for the candidate for which they were elected. So in the event of a tie (or even a very close electoral race within 1-2 points) the electoral college delegates could decide the outcome before it ever went to Congress. I understand that this is essentially impossible to model or predict, but it could become a huge issue if the race is tied. Obviously in the short term it would create incredible turmoil and animosity from the losing side, but in the long run it might be useful by demonstrating what an undemocratic farce the electoral college truly is. However, this is probably equally true of any ambiguous scenario such as a tie or a difference between the electoral collage and popular vote winners.
Dailydem:
Actually READ what people above have written, please.
You are wrong. They will explain why in great depth.
In short: No, states WON'T go to their popular votes. States go where their reps want to go, and that is not necessarily (and in many cases, probably not) with their popular vote.
Think about the primaries, wherein superdelegates intended to vote against their own districts.
Thank you, come again.
Pander:
You really think some representative from state X is going to say "Hey everyone, I know you voted 55-45 in favor of this guy, but I'm going down party lines. And oh... vote for me again in two years!" Don't get angry at me for pointing out the obvious. Get angry at the system and go out there and knock on doors and make sure it doesn't come down to a tie.
The early voting in Virginia has begun today!
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1841934,00.html
How fortunate that Joe Biden is going to speak in Virginia today....
I wonder.... will pollsters have to include a new category into their crosstabs: "already voted for"?
fl-gop-
Yes, I know. The question is, how do they weight their state polling, not their national polling. Is the state polling using the national polling Party ID number in some way, or not.
The reall issue with Ras is not the switch to weekly, but when the switch was made to weekly Party ID changes - during a convention bounce. Why would an experienced pollster do this? Bias?
No one has the numbers from Rasmussen tracking day by day?
dailydem said...
"Hey everyone, I know you voted 55-45 in favor of this guy, but I'm going down party lines. And oh... vote for me again in two years!"
You think the party would let a representative that betrayed his party to run again? All reps know who write their checks.
FloridaGOP,
Rasmussen evidently has problems with it's model: people there have questioned the validity of the "previous 3 months" party ID poll to use as an adjustement. So they have now adopted a 6weeks adjustment. But it is of no good to their cause since in these final months bounces are almost continuos and the shorter the timeline the higher the chance of having "older bounce" rumour in the adjustement sample. So they are measuring what they believe are two different wavelines, what I argue is that they are measuring twice the same wave superposing different timeframes arbitrarily. This added to my previous criticisms on how the party ID samples are being treated (implicitly)as party=candidate at 100% rate.
Since RAS dose not use registration data but simply "asks" party identification (very different than affiliation)I have the doubt their question amounts to asking "who will you vote for". How long does it take to interview 15000 for party identity ? I believe it takes a long-long time and this is certainly not in touch with one of pollsters' main goals: correctly measure the moment.
If Congressional Dems don't come through in a 269-269 situation, no matter who wins the popular vote, there is no use for them. And if that happens, then maybe we can finally get electoral college reform.
Why are you including IA as a possible McCain state? 2004 was generated by last minute attack ads that gave Bush the win. This time, Obama has the "boots on the ground" here in the Hawkeye state and has had them here since December. And the McCain-Palin gaffes yesterday in Iowa's second largest city (Cedar Rapids, which Palin called Grand Rapids and called it the Palin-McCain ticket) did not gain them many votes either. Iowans are intelligent voters who study the candidtaes AND the issues, moreso the latter. We will be an Obama state.
Arnaud
48-48 ras daily tracker.
I agree that a 12th amendment scenario looks bad for Obama. And I don't mean to diss on the Constitution, but it's a ridiculous tiebreaking procedure. Giving Hawaii and Delaware (which is GOP, by the way) the same vote as California and Texas in deciding the next president is utterly insane.
It would be a beautiful mess.
I think people are underestimating the pressure on some of these D reps in red states, especially ones like ND where it's the only rep and he essentially gets the whole state vote himself.
And maybe, just maybe, they'll believe it's right and vote on their conscience and not political expediency?
@cora
I know that but it's for 3 days. we don't know the result day by day.
I really think at the next census, they should just create an extra electoral vote (and seat in congress) and let the data show which state gets it. And then this will never come up unless some third party gets some electoral votes.
Watching Paulson speak now...I wonder where President Bush is, or Vice-president Cheney. It seems that the Democratic Congress is taking control of the country now. Let´s see how they do...
"I think people are underestimating the pressure on some of these D reps in red states, especially ones like ND where it's the only rep and he essentially gets the whole state vote himself."
On the other hand, you have Michael Castle (R-Del.) in the same situation. I would be shocked to see either him or Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) go against their state's popular vote, especially since neither is expected to be close. They've got to represent the views of their constituents...it would be political suicide.
The electoral college system benefits sparsely populated states by a ratio of about 3 to 1 compared to the more populated states. This system was installed by intent in order to enable the formation of "a more perfect union" and in a time when 98% of the population was rural. Progress has been toward urbanization and extended voting rights. The "liberal" idea of one-man, one-vote has been held out as an ideal, and states have the right to move toward that notion, but most have declined. Those states where initiatives have been launched are very careful not to commit until all are committed. It could happen. I didn't think that the European Union could survive, but they may well be the successor to the US if we continue trending toward "belief" vs "reason" in our decision making and policy setting.
FOR P Smith:
Blame the Republicans for screwing up the economy? Do you not know your politics. It is the house's primary job to handle economic issues including the budget and taxes while it is the senates job to handle bnaking, housing and urban affairs. Keep in mind that Obama took the second most amount of money from Fannie Mae in order to stop and/or slow down an investigation into their cooked books. Frankly I put the blame on him and others and theird greed for the economy today. Don't blame just the Administration. It takes both and most of it falls on the senate by the way which is democrat for the past two years. They should apologize.
FOR P Smith:
Blame the Republicans for screwing up the economy? Do you not know your politics. It is the house's primary job to handle economic issues including the budget and taxes while it is the senates job to handle bnaking, housing and urban affairs. Keep in mind that Obama took the second most amount of money from Fannie Mae in order to stop and/or slow down an investigation into their cooked books. Frankly I put the blame on him and others and theird greed for the economy today. Don't blame just the Administration. It takes both and most of it falls on the senate by the way which is democrat for the past two years. They should apologize.
Then there's the entire question of whether or not 269-269 would make it to the actual EC vote.
538 people with the power to become utterly famous and change the course of history? One might break.
" It is the house's primary job to handle economic issues including the budget and taxes while it is the senates job to handle bnaking, housing and urban affairs."
Even accepting your premise, these problems didn't just magically appear in the final two years.
I see that McCain has decided to go all out today in attacking Obama and blaming him for being part of the problem that led to the economic crisis. This from the clown who has been a champion of deregulation for the past 26 years. Obama cannot allow these lies to sit there unanswered. McCain's further assertions that Obama is seeking to profiteer from the crisis need to be exposed for the worst kind of divisive McCarthyite garbage that they are.
Obama needs to repeat the terms "26 years", "king of deregulation", "nation of whiners" and "liar" until they are firmly engrained in every swing voter's mind.
What would be particularly interesting is if the electoral college ends in a tie 269-269 and McCain wins the popular vote. It would be decided by the House of Representatives. Each state gets one vote. I have no doubt if 435 Congressmen and women voted the Dem would win, but since each state gets one vote you could very well have enough Democrats switch sides because they think it's "fair" to give McCain the win. Could you imagine? One thing is certain. If the roles were reversed, no Republicans would vote for the Democrat to be "fair".
1peter3:15Nate it is the CURRENT House and Senate that would decide.
No, that's incorrect. The Twelfth Amendment requires that Congress assemble in joint session, and federal law requires that the joint session to count the electoral votes occur on the 6th day of January in the calendar year following the meeting of the electors.
So it's the next Congress that would be voting in the case of an electoral tie.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
United_States_Electoral_College
Let's be rational. There is STILL a 96.8% scenario that a tie WILL NOT happen.
The odds are in the same territory as a popular vote tie at 3.2%
You guys are forgetting something. If the electoral college ends in a tie, and the democrats are constitutionally favored with their congressional delegation, and McCain gets the nod, there will be race riots in every metropolitan city in the country.
Try telling an African American that
"Well, your guy won, and the constitution says he should be the winner, but those democrats in congress didn't vote for him so, sorry"
Thats not gonna fly. For the sake of the country not coming apart at the seams, Obama wmust be President.
Dkangl - The prime cause of this economic crisi is lack of oversight and deregulation. Those are Republican bywords. McCain's campaign team is run by the very people you now try to denigrate despite the fact your political ilk have acted as their handmaidens for years. Trying to blame this on the Dem congress which has been in place for 20 months is possibly one of the most laughable things I have heard to date. Presumably the actions of the GOP congress that governed for the previous 12 years had nothing to do with it.
It must be tough waking up each morning knowing that the only way your candidate is going to win is by lying his way into the White House. Good luck with that pal.
What % of the voting population is in Dark Blue or Deep Red States where their votes don't matter most of the time? Much more than 1/2.
eric: What would be particularly interesting is if the electoral college ends in a tie 269-269 and McCain wins the popular vote.
Again, I ask: why should the popular vote matter if neither candidate was campaigning for it?
It's like deciding that a football game should be decided by total yards after the game is over, when during the game both teams thought they were going for maximum points.
I don't care that Gore "won" the popular vote in 2000. Neither candidate did squat in NY, CA, or TX, and who knows how many people stayed home in non-battleground states because they knew their votes wouldn't matter.
Until our electoral system is based on the popular vote, the popular vote should be considered irrelevant.
I doubt very much McCain would be able to gather 26 state votes on a first ballot.
The problem would be tied states, which count for no one and prevent a clean majority. All you can do is keep revoting.
The odds are in the same territory as a popular vote tie at 3.2%
Actually, the chance of a popular vote tie is closer to the odds of winning the powerball lottery two days in a row.
@cora,
This is an area where I do not have a lot of expertise, so positions from either side can confuse me.
On Rasmussen National Polls, I depend on Nate/Sean, who although they are strong Obama supporters, rate Rasmussen as 3rd best of the pollsters and I note that Nate has said "He has no reason to question Rasmussen's methodology".
Fred and you note that Rasmussen has changed his methods of PartyID, during the conventions and that is troubling, but Rasmussen's rational for doing that also seems reasonable.
On PartyID, polling 22500 over 6 weeks to set the number seems OK, I guess we could compare the methods of all Pollsters to see which we liked best.
I do not question Poll methodology (except Interactives) for anyone including R2K/KOS. I just look how one poll moves week to week and day to day. Then I compare them against each other to get an idea who favors Obama and who favors McCain
A Popular Myth - The Illegitimacy of "Popular Vote" Claims
"Again, I ask: why should the popular vote matter if neither candidate was campaigning for it?"
Because the goal is to express the will of the people, not to reward the best campaign.
DarÃo said... Ohio, Intrade
I believe Ohio is Obama's for the taking. He might win Ohio and lose one or more of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota. The economy being the #1 issue, Ohioans trust Dems on that issue on the whole more. He's polling well there last two polls taken recently and Palin is not as big of a play there as other Midwest states.
Let's just hope that whoever loses will have the wonderful spirit of Richard Nixon, who was screwed out of the presidency by the Daley (Chicago) machine but refused to make a fuss. He said it would be so bad for America that no outcome would be good for the country. (And of course if a couple of northern KY counties had been part of IL, he would have won anyway.)
Compare this patriotic attitude to Al Gore, who was ready to fight until 1/20/05. Pathetic!
dsimon: That's exactly what the article I just wrote is about. More people need to educate others on this *before* the election.
"Because the goal is to express the will of the people, not to reward the best campaign."
The popular vote as currently measured doesn't express the will of the people. It's an invalid metric.
Not sure anyone is reading this far down, but some response to stuff above:
1) I'm skeptical of Obama's chances in the Nebraska 2nd Congressional District (Omaha). Bush received 61% of the vote here in 2004. Getting 10% of voters who took Bush over Kerry to take Obama over McCain would seem to require a titanic shift in my estimation. With McCain around 60% in some statewide Nebraska polls, this would have to reflect truly huge margins in the 1st and 3rd Districts to also reflect an Obama lead in the 2nd CD.
2) If you are looking for a "Congressional District" scenario, a more likely bet seems like Maine's 2nd Congressional District - which is the Northern part of the State. Kerry only took @53% of the vote there - so flipping 3-4% of the vote in 2008 seems like a much easier task tha flipping 10%. With Obama at 51-53% statewide, it also makes it a bit more plausible, albeit still pretty unlikely for that to reflect a real split among the two Maine CD's. Then again, there's also a lot of moose hunters up there...
3) The State delegation analysis in the House relies on the Democratic delegations from Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota all voting for Obama - despite their States having possibly voted by 60% margins for McCain. Mississippi may yet tilt Republican in this year's Congressional election, bucking the Naitonal Trend. In the Dakotas, Earl Pomeroy has the seat as long as he wants it in North Dakota, so he may stick with the Democrats. On the other hand, there's probably little the DNC could do to him if he doesn't. I'd love to see an enterprising reporter ask him about it. In South Dakota, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has only been in Congress since 2004, and has won her elections with 51% and 53%. It isn't hard to imagine that if she were to vote for Obama it could be tantamount to political suicide for her. Obama may want to consider promising her a Cabinet position up front...
4) On the other hand, I would imagine that Mike Castle in Delaware could easily vote for Obama - Biden, so that could offset one State defection the other way - but every other Republican State delegation is likely to vote for McCain in a tie scenario. The possible exceptio is Virginia, but that delegation is solidly Republican.
5) Tennessee's delegation is 5-4 Dem, but the Dems are mostly very safe. Lincoln Davis is relatively new to the bizarrely drawn 4th District, which is often competitive, but he rolled with 64% of the vote last time around.
Indiana has a one vote Democratic margin in the delegation, and three fairly vulnerable Democrats. Joe Donnelly finally won the 2nd CD (South Bend area) in the Democratic wave of 2006 - but he's not safe long-term. Brad Ellsworth is a freshman in the southwestn 8th district, and Baron Hill has always had a tough fight in the southeastern 9th district. He lost there as an incumbent by only 1,500 votes in 2004 before getting it back in 2006. Southern Indiana is pretty solidly Republican country, with counties where Bush was winning 55%, 60%, and even 70% of the vote.
So all-in-all, I think the conflicting political pressures of a 269-269 tie would be pure insanity, and ultimately bad for the country. Hopefully it doesn't get to that point....
With regards to the baseball analogy in your link, it's generally accepted by statistical analysts that the better team is the one that scores more runs, and in the long run the will win more games. It's a great way to predict close divisional races midseason, picking out if one team has a significant run differential difference.
"The popular vote as currently measured doesn't express the will of the people. It's an invalid metric."
Disagree. It may not be a perfect metric, but it is the only one we have and it does express the will of the people to at least some degree.
Could an alliance of 17 house delegations deadlock the 12th-amendment vote by preventing a quorum? That's how I read the language, though it seems possible that the minority party of a delegation is meant to be allowed to vote if the majority refuses.
If so, that seems like a serious possibility. Here are two scenarios:
A: Something gets into the water supply, and McCain ends up winning a majority of the popular vote, the Republicans get more state delegations than expected, and there are a few Democratic defections. Democrats wanting to appoint Obama now control only, say, 23 delegations. If they prevent those delegations from casting ballots, there could potentially be a battle between Speaker Pelosi and the Republican Supreme Court over interpreting the 12th amendment. Probably, with various delaying tactics, the Democrats could hold out until March 4, when the Senate could name Obama vice-president and thus president.
B: The Republicans get moderately lucky and McCain ends up with a minority of, but at least 17, state delegations pledged to him. Those delegations could pull the same trick out of vindictiveness, extending Bush's presidency, giving McCain time to challenge the election, and potentially screwing things up by forcing the Senate to either appoint Biden VP, causing him to become president on March 4th, or Obama VP, giving the Republicans the opportunity to allow a vote in the House and argue that Obama is now ineligible.
"Disagree. It may not be a perfect metric, but it is the only one we have and it does express the will of the people to at least some degree."
No, it doesn't. Especially when it is close.
Bad information is worse than no information, and the "popular vote" is bad information. I explain why in my article.
dsimon said... Popular Vote
I agree with you. All I'm saying is Dems try to play fair, even at their peril sometimes, whereas Reps are cutthroat. If you had a handful of Dems in Congress, say 3 or 4 out of 230 who said you know what the only tiebreaker that seems fair i the popular vote. My guy didn't win the popular, but there's no other way to break the tie, so I'm going to give it to him. I could see that happen. After all Joe Lieberman, a supposed Dem is as right wing omn the War as any Rep and would always vote against his party on that issue, Chuck Hagel the opposite. All you'd need is a few folks to think that way and it could flip it. I also believe, barring a big Obama gaffe, which I don't expect, or a decisive univerasally accepted blowout in the debates by McCain, which I don't expect, the only way Obama loses in my opinion is if prejudice white people in swing states don't vote for him even though they think they should or would vote for a generic Dem. Don't have too much faith in your elected officials, even if they're on your side or the general voting public, they're likely to let you down. This election could restore some of my faith, but for now I'll go ahead and expect the worst.
I think it would be good if one of the debate moderators brought up this possibility and asked the canidates.
It would be interesting to hear their answer.
@Charles M. Kozierok
A Popular Myth - The Illegitimacy of "Popular Vote" Claims
Charles, we do not frequently agree. But this time you are on the money.
The telling point is that small states like NH and Iowa would lose importance, ad revenues, and visibility to the rest of the country compared to current elections. Why either NH or Iowa would ever vote for eliminating the EC is beyond me.
ARG today is the 6th out of the last 7 pollsters to show McCain ahead in IN. Only outlier Seltzer has shown BO ahead in IN so Selzer should stick to its home state of IA where it is accurate.
ARG confirms that ND is now off the table with Sarah "Fargo" Palin on the ticket.
I read your article the first time you posted it, and I didn't agree with it. It's focusing more on the contest of an election (the campaign strategies) than the purpose (expressing the will of the people).
"ARG today is the 6th out of the last 7 pollsters to show McCain ahead in IN. Only outlier Seltzer has shown BO ahead in IN so Selzer should stick to its home state of IA where it is accurate."
Wait, so now we're agreeing that Pennsylvania and Michigan aren't going to McCain?
Charles M. Kozierok said...
The popular vote as currently measured doesn't express the will of the people. It's an invalid metric.
Here's the problem Charles. For all of the good reasons why the electoral college is in place, and i get the argument, check this out.
I am a hardcore Obama supporter. I've given money, gone to two rallies, read both books, I caucused and voted for him in the primary and I blog all of the time and am very focused on the day to day.
All of that being said, I'm in Texas. I don't campaign for him because it would be a waste of my time here. I can't really take time out of my job and family life to go on a road trip to the closest swing state, which would probably be New Mexico or Colorado about 1000 miles away. I might not even vote. It would be a waste of time, except for psychologically. MCCain will win Texas by more than a million votes even if he loses i a landslide. I'm rational. So, talk about disenfranchised. You can't get more disenfranchised than that.
"The telling point is that small states like NH and Iowa would lose importance, ad revenues, and visibility to the rest of the country compared to current elections. Why either NH or Iowa would ever vote for eliminating the EC is beyond me."
This, I agree with. I don't want to remove the electoral college. But I see no reason the popular vote isn't a powerful argument in swaying congressmen in a tiebreaker.
Eric: I'm not arguing for or against the EC. I am making the point that adding up 51 individual state contests and trying to conclude that they represent what would be the result of a nationwide popular vote contest is wrong.
"But I see no reason the popular vote isn't a powerful argument in swaying congressmen in a tiebreaker."
Because it doesn't represent the real national popular vote, that's why. You can't add up popular vote figures and make that conclusion.
Do you think the popular vote might be different if say, the candidates campaigned in California, New York and Texas? Because right now they don't.
It's all in my article.
@Inkstain.
Even accepting your premise, these problems didn't just magically appear in the final two years.<<<<<
YES -- these problems did not magically appear in 8 years either and there are enough examples of Schumer & Dodd for instance and Barney Frank fighting against regulation of these companies we are bailing out. Great Dem quotes, and many Dems taking large sums of lobbyists $$$$$.
This does not say it is NOT the Republicans fault, just complex issues, lots of real examples to use against Dems. Sort of a He said/she said with each side looking for the best soundbytes.
Eric,
I'm in Louisiana and I know my vote will be useless but I'll be damned if I have to remember this election without knowing that I cast my ballot for Obama.
It seems like every Indiana poll has McCain up by 3 or so outside of Selzer. If this is the case, Would Obama not likely win in Novemeber? He has a huge ground game in Indiana and McCain has nothing.
I read your article. Citing your article to defend your article is begging the question.
"Do you think the popular vote might be different if say, the candidates campaigned in California, New York and Texas? Because right now they don't. "
It doesn't matter whether it would be different. You are acting like the only actors in the election are the campaigns themselves fighting against each other. The citizens of the United States have the opportunity to vote every four years for their president, regardless of what campaigns do or do not do, and the sum of their votes is the national vote total, regardless of what it might have been in different scenarios.
"It seems like every Indiana poll has McCain up by 3 or so outside of Selzer. If this is the case, Would Obama not likely win in Novemeber? He has a huge ground game in Indiana and McCain has nothing."
If you can put a definitive number of the ground game advantage in each state, you have a fortune to make in political consulting :)
I believe that there is a real chance for Obama to get the one EV from Omaha. State polling will be terribly inaccurate because the Obama campaign makes a play for that district only, but not for the whole state. They will literally knock at every door.
Obama needs to gain 10% of Bush voters? I think he has already achieved more than half of that in Iowa. The question is, is Omaha more like Iowa or more like Wyoming?
The whole district is an urban area, which favors Obama. 10% of the population are black. 40% are of german ancestry, people who are at least open to Obama.
He might also get a real heavyweight to campaign for him, Senator Hagel. Yesterday he already doubted Sarah Palin´s experience. He could be the key to win a few, necessary percent of moderate republicans to win the district.
I just think it will be tough for McCain to gain ground on economic issues going forward. Just my opinion.
"All of that being said, I'm in Texas. I don't campaign for him because it would be a waste of my time here. "
I'm in New York State and it's the same way here, but in reverse. I drive around all day and literally have not seen one single piece of McCain periphenalia. Not a bumpersticker, not a sign, not a tv or radio ad - nothing. And very little Obama stuff either. It's like the presidential election is taking place on another planet that I can only access via the internet.
I thought Maryland was thinking of passing an amendment of some kind saying that it would cast its EVs for whoever wins the national popular vote.
"It seems like every Indiana poll has McCain up by 3 or so outside of Selzer. If this is the case, Would Obama not likely win in Novemeber? He has a huge ground game in Indiana and McCain has nothing."
You overestimate the importance of a ground game. It doesn't swing a red state 3 points come election day.
"I read your article. Citing your article to defend your article is begging the question."
No, it's an effort to avoid repeating myself.
"the sum of their votes is the national vote total"
It's the national vote total but NOT representative of the actual popular vote totals of the nation, because of how the campaigns are conducted.
Treasury bailout likely to cost "hundreds of billions."
Any talk of an overall tax cut in the next presidency, from either side, should be completely and utterly dead.
"It's the national vote total but NOT representative of the actual popular vote totals of the nation"
By definition it is. The campaigns are attempts to change the voting, not create it out of thin air. The vote exists with or without the campaigns.
"I thought Maryland was thinking of passing an amendment of some kind saying that it would cast its EVs for whoever wins the national popular vote."
I think several states are committing to do that, but only if all the other states did first.
I find it interesting that RCP is using Research 2000 state polls, but not their tracker which is paid by dailykos. If they are done the same way, does this make sense? Why include one and not the other?
If we have to play the blame game with regards to this economic crisis.
A) The Republicans have been in power in Congress 12 of the last 14 years
B) President and admin. for 8 years
C) The hands-off 100%, pure deregulation, let the markets do what they will is a Republican approach, plain and simple.
The fact that Greenspan made some decisions while Clinton was office is not that relevant. He mad the worst decisions to create this mess under Bush in 2002 and 2003. This Congress, in power for all of 20 months is basically a eunuch because the President won't allow them to do anything and they don't have enough numbers to overcome that. The Republicans are at least 90% to blame here. Bill clinton will make it pretty clear over the next week or two. For all of you people that don't like him because he got a blowjob in the White House nd wouldn't tell you about it, you all know deep down inside whether you like it or not, that he knows what he's talking about. When Ben Stein is on board with the Dems, you know they must be right.
Craig, you are correct. A popular vote tie is a long shot. So is the likelihood of an electoral college tie. In life and math, 33 to 1 is better than 80 million to 1...but still a long shot.
We have let the pundits tell us there are still only about 5 to 10 states at play. I agree with Chuck Todd: there are 10 to 15 still at play because of the continued presence of Obama field offices from the primary forward.
Take Indiana. There is a strong Libertarian base in the state. The L candidate for Gov. in 2004 got 11%. Georgian Bob Barr is the L Presidential candidate and appeals to the hard righties in some key states with libertarian bents: GA, IN, MT, VA, CO, NV, ND, etc.. Add in the massive Democratic effort to bring more voters into the process (500,000 in IN alone)and you can see why I say there are more toss ups than people think.
People are ticked and the opposition party has registered more people in every state.
"I find it interesting that RCP is using Research 2000 state polls, but not their tracker which is paid by dailykos. If they are done the same way, does this make sense? Why include one and not the other?"
To cook the numbers. If R2000/DKos doesn't count, neither does Rasmussen/Fox News.
"The campaigns are attempts to change the voting, not create it out of thin air. The vote exists with or without the campaigns."
I'm disappointed that you really can't understand the fallacy you are putting forth.
If you say the campaigns are attempts to change voting, then you are admitting that HOW they try to change voting influences the outcome.
How much attempt has there been to change voting in California? New York? Texas? Illinois? Georgia? Very little.
How much motivation do people have to come out and vote in those states compared to battleground states?
This DOES matter. You cannot conduct an election based on one set of rules, then tally votes based on another and pretend this represents anything. It makes as much sense as adding up runs in a World Series.
@Sean
It seems like every Indiana poll has McCain up by 3 or so outside of Selzer. If this is the case, Would Obama not likely win in Novemeber? He has a huge ground game in Indiana and McCain has nothing.
What do you think a ground game is worth in % of votes. There are some states where there is not enough $$$ or enough volunteers to flip. This country is divided almost equally on partisan lines.
The possibility of a different outcome if there had been different actions been taken does not invalidate the outcome. I'm not denying that the campaigns could choose to influence the popular vote in different ways. I'm denying that this fact negates the reality of the popular vote, specifically as a potential tiebreaker argument to congressmen.
"It makes as much sense as adding up runs in a World Series."
As mentioned, there's a *ton* of valid statistical analysis done in baseball *entirely* on the basis of run differentials. A strong run differential is much more indicative of a team's true ability than actual wins and losses, and is thus more predictive going forward.
These polls that don't measure demographics properly or don't show their internals could be very invalid. Especially this year when demographics will matter more than most. In Indiana, for example, Selzer included cell phones. If the African-American population is under or over-represented or the younger voters, or cell-phone users, or new registrants, or major metro vs rural it can totally throw off the poll. This happens a lot of the time. There was a Virginia poll that came out a few days ago with McCain up 9 points. It had the AA vote at 10%, it should've been more like 22% (2204) or more. It had the 18-29 vote at 3% (16% in 2004). If it had accounted for the proper demographics, the poll would've have likely been about tied. This was one that showed faulty internals. A lot of these polls don't even show internals.
"I'm denying that this fact negates the reality of the popular vote, specifically as a potential tiebreaker argument to congressmen."
Then you are denying simple logic.
You cannot, with any validity, try to convince a congressperson to change his or her vote based on a claim about which candidate has more overall popular support of the nation, when the figure itself doesn't represent that. I can't put it any more simply than that.
The fairest way to count the vote would be to count the popular vote, but divvy it up according tothe electoral college. That way small states wouldn't be under-represented. They'd actually continue to be over-represented, but states like Cali, TX, NY wouldn't be irrelevant most of the time.
"You cannot, with any validity, try to convince a congressperson to change his or her vote based on a claim about which candidate has more overall popular support of the nation, when the figure itself doesn't represent that. I can't put it any more simply than that."
Then why even have elections at all, if votes are improper ways to measure the will of the people? Winning the most votes doesn't logically prove popular support, even on the state level. Why not use polls and demographic models?
What do you think a ground game is worth in % of votes. There are some states where there is not enough $$$ or enough volunteers to flip. This country is divided almost equally on partisan lines.
That's the $64,000 question of this election - the ground game! I think the best data we have is from the Democratic primaries. I'd look back to that to see if we can cull an good estimate of impact.
The Indiana poll that shows Obama is up by 3 points was not a fluke. Here is why:
Obama and Clinton's campaigns added 500K voters on the rolls that were not there in 2004. Also, the state GOP and McCain have no fighting presence at the Presidential level. They are taking it for granted. Obama has 32 offices covering 64 counties where the turnout for the D primary was no less than 2 times that of the R primary.
Plus, the Libertarian (Barr) could pull 5 to 10% in this state. Libertarians tend to be disaffected conservative Republicans. L Gov. candidate Horning in 2004 got 11%. Do not consider Indiana red just yet.
That's a good question: how many of these Indiana polls are including third parties?
To me the whole national vote is bogus, since the rules are given by the electoral college. Therefore, there is no incentive for big states with lots of votes to have big turn outs if their candidate is in the lead.
So with the larger states going Obama's way the argument about the nation popular vote being used to force Dems to vote for Mccain is flawed.
I wish everyone in CA and NY would vote, then this issue would not even be on the table.
I think R2000/DKos is 5 point away from the reality (to man latinos and to many democrats). But if you reduce this 5 points then you have a "little gallup".
But at the end. Every national tracking poll is only for some trends (shift for McCain or Obama). But not very important for the state polls.
"Then why even have elections at all, if votes are improper ways to measure the will of the people?"
That doesn't follow from my argument. The point is that you have to measure in the same way that you campaign.
"Winning the most votes doesn't logically prove popular support, even on the state level."
Yes, it does. While it is true that not everyone will vote, you are conducting and measuring in the same manner.
If people want to elect a president based on popular vote then change the constitution. Until then, we do not know who would win such a contest.
I think the fairest, easiest, and least fuck-uppable (haha) way to determine the winner is very simply the popular vote.
It's never likely to be as close as Florida's vote in 2000.
More importantly, everyone's vote is essentially weighted the same. As an unaffiliated voter in Massachusetts (12 EVs, reliably Democrat), I frankly feel like my vote just isn't as key to the election as an unaffiliated voter in Ohio (20 EVs, almost always a swing).
" The point is that you have to measure in the same way that you campaign."
And this is where we disagree, and the entire thing becomes moot from there. If I agreed with you on this point, I'd agree with you on everything else.
Polling is really screwed up this time. Nationally take Rasmussen. They simply change their voter ID based on what happened in the last 30 days in terms of momentum. If they continue to do that, they may as just well say it's 48-48 until November 4th. If, for example, when McCain was up for 4-5 points two weeks ago and their poll was tied, they kept the same ID breakdown as then, Obama would be up probably 6-10 points in their poll. But now, all of the sudden , voter IDs have changed, yeah okay. Much of the state polling doesn't measure proper metrics. Nate does a good job of trying to assign proper value to them, but because size of sample and date matter in his weighting, the fact that a poll could be completely useless based on merit isn't accounted for as much as it probably should. Some of these polls are absolute garbage.
"And this is where we disagree, and the entire thing becomes moot from there. If I agreed with you on this point, I'd agree with you on everything else."
Okay, a different tack.
Do you really think that, if a nationwide straight vote had been taken between Gore and Bush in 2000, that Gore would have beaten Bush by 500,000 votes?
>>>>The fairest way to count the vote would be to count the popular vote, but divvy it up according tothe electoral college. That way small states wouldn't be under-represented. They'd actually continue to be over-represented, but states like Cali, TX, NY wouldn't be irrelevant most of the time<<<<<
It would be hard to believe that , in this election, if McCain wins the popular in a close loss to Obama, that democrats and specifically the posters to this blog would argue that McCain should be president.
At the National level, Republicans control more states, and they are not going to vote to give that advantage up. Just look at any Red-Blue map and count the states.
"I frankly feel like my vote just isn't as key to the election as an unaffiliated voter in Ohio (20 EVs, almost always a swing)."
Don't worry, I doubt Ohio will be a key swing state when it's all said and done.
The ARG poll in Indiana showing Obama down by 3 points is encouraging for the simple reason that Obama should not even be close there. However ARG is a steaming pile of crap so just because I like some of their results doesn't mean I'm going to start pretending they have value.
As for the trackers, I think it is fair to say that Rasmussen is underweighting Dem support by 2 or 3 points and Research 2000 are overstating it by the same margin. In reality Obama is probably 3-4 points up now which is more than enough were the election to be held today.
We still have a long way to go though. The Republicans could yet bomb Iran or do to Obama what they did to the Kennedy brothers.
If there's a tie a lot of "Blue dog" Democrat Congressman will have to vote for McCain since people in their districts will have voted for him by large margins.
Means a McCain Presidency, and a lot of whining from the left. ;)
"Do you really think that, if a nationwide straight vote had been taken between Gore and Bush in 2000, that Gore would have beaten Bush by 500,000 votes?"
No idea. Do you think if Gore hadn't sighed, he would have won? If Bush hadn't moved from Connecticut to Texas? If we didn't have campaign finance laws?
Americans were given the option to vote for President and they did, I don't see any reason to discount it based on possibilities that didn't occur any more than I would discount a state vote where one side probably had more support but had weak turnout and lost.
Marist has BO +9 in Michigan, even in OH and +3 in PA (+5 likely voters).
http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/
Post a Comment