10.12.2008

Another Way to Look at McCain's Odds

Presently, we show John McCain with a 5.9 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, a figure that will seem implausibly low to many of you. But here's a bit of context from John Harwood at the New York Times:

In the latest Gallup tracking poll, Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain 50 percent to 43 percent among registered voters. Mr. McCain’s deficit in that survey has remained seven percentage points or more for most of the last two weeks.

Since Gallup began presidential polling in 1936, only one candidate has overcome a deficit that large, and this late, to win the White House: Ronald Reagan, who trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980.
There were 18 elections between 1936 and 2004, and in just one of those -- the 1980 race that Harwood mentions -- did a trailing candidate come back from a deficit this large in mid-October to win the election. One divided into 18 is 5.6 percent, which almost exactly matches our 5.9 percent estimate for Mr. McCain.

There has also been at least one other election in which a candidate made up at least 7 points worth of ground this late, albeit in a losing effort. That was 1968, when Hubert Humphrey had trailed by 15 in Gallup's poll in early October, and 8 points in late October, but wound up losing the election by less than a point. (If you want to see all these numbers for yourself, by the way, Gallup has them here).

Gerald Ford in 1976 also made up significant ground in his re-election bid with Jimmy Carter, but most of that came in August and September. By the first few days of October, Ford had already cut Carter's advantage by 2 points -- the margin he eventually lost by. Ford than made another mini-comeback after Carter's lead expanded again to 6 points, but it wasn't enough to save his re-election bid.

Harwood also mentions Al Gore's comeback in 2000, although that is harder to evaluate since the Gallup poll was exceptionally erratic that year (Gore trailed Bush by an average of 3 points over all polls that Gallup conducted that October). The Pew poll, which was far more stable, showed Gore with small leads in early- and mid- October, although Bush had pulled 2 points ahead by the end of the month.

If 1980 and 1968 do offer a couple of favorable precedents for McCain, they also come with some caveats. If 1980 is the template, it's not clear which candidate gets to play Ronald Reagan, who on the surface would seem to share more circumstances in common with Barack Obama. Although it's relatively uncommon for a candidate who is already ahead to further build his lead in late October (1936 and 1988 fit this definition, but only to a degree), there is nevertheless no guarantee that the next large momentum swing -- if there is one at all -- will favor McCain. And secondly, McCain could very easily come close without winning. The chances are significantly greater than 5.9 percent that McCain will come close enough to make Obama sweat, but like Ford or Humphrey, he might wind up a little short.

Ford, Humphrey, and Reagan, also, did not have to deal with early voting, whereas McCain is pushing back against the fact that Obama is banking votes every day with a substantial national lead. And McCain's deficit in the key battleground states exceeds that in the country as a whole, such that Obama, by our math, has the equivalent of a 1-2 point buffer zone in the Electoral College. If he were to come back, McCain's fate could very easily resemble that of Humphrey, who lost the popular vote by just seven-tenths of a point to Richard Nixon but was beaten handily among the 538 electors.

EDIT: As several commentators have pointed out, my math is a bit misleading since in not all elections did a candidate have a lead of 7 points to lose. Another way to reach the same number, however, is as follows. In two elections -- 1968 and 1980 -- did a candidate make up at least seven points' worth of ground versus where he stood in the Gallup poll with three weeks left to go until the election. That is 2 of 18, or 11.1 percent. However, if McCain were to gain 7 points on Obama, that does not mean that he'd win the election -- it means that he'd be roughly tied, and that we'd play electoral roulette. So perhaps McCain has an 11 percent chance of having a 50 percent chance of winning, which works out to the same 5.6 percent.

All of these approaches, of course, are fairly quick-and-dirty. The more rigorous way to do it is the way that our model does it, which uses just this sort of historical data to build what amounts to a margin of error on the current popular vote estimate. What I am trying to make clear, however, is that my numbers are not drawn out of thin air: it would be quite unusual (though it is hardly impossible) for a candidate to overcome a 7-point gap in mid-October and come back to win the election.

225 comments

Yvonne said...

New thread

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

I saw Ann Selzer commented on the polling. From what I've read, one can trust Selzer to give a non partisan response to the McCain claims.

I guess the way to argue against those claims is to take all polling such as this site does and look for trends. If McCain is truly trending strongly, it should be reflected in the collection of polls.

Adam said...

"He got an additional 1.5 million contributors"

This isn't actually true, the 4 mil line was a misstatement that was walked back.

I expect $90-100 mil for September.

Nour said...

" what on earth is with the massive national advertising happenintoday by Obama---does he really need to be spending some of that massive cash to adverise during the Chargers/Patriots game (i.e. California/Mass. demographic??) Not exactly someone I want in charge of the budget, if you know what i mean. . . . ."

Long time lurker, first time poster.
The 2 Obama ads during the Chargers/Patriots game were pretty effective. From my couch in SoCal I rarely get to see Obama ads (the Olympics being a glaring exception), and it felt good to be included. Wasn't even sure if it was a local or national buy, but it still made a difference: it was a good reminder that there's a battle out there and that we should donate. Been feeling pretty helpless out here in blue California while O's numbers fell then rose, and any ad exposure is good at this point, makes us feel included, back in the conversation. It did help, of course, that the bolts won after last weeks wolloping, if I was a patriots fan i'd be making zero positive associations ;)

Yvonne said...

Nour,

I am a Patriots fan in SoCal and I am not happy, but I kind of expected it after Tom Brady got injured. I guess no postseason for me. But there are still the RedSox. By the way, there is a new post and thread. You should switch

prathap said...

To Adam,

"I wonder why the BO campaigne just get over with it by producing a birth certificate vault, any idea folks ?"

Uh, they did. Reporters have seen the actual birth certificate. Anybody's free to file a lawsuit, and it's not always dismissed instantly even if it's frivolous (there's a similar one going on in NH claiming McCain can't run because of the ambiguous legal status of the Canal Zone in 1926). Try not to get *too* delusional.




Me,
Iam not getting delusional about it. I am independent and absolutely detest palin but i respect john mccain. I like BO and his visions. But what concerns me is the post election constitutional crisis incase if were true, check this link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTA_nOHeVTg

Mr.Berg seems to go any length to disqualify BO. what then ?

prathap said...

John,
I think there is a big october surprise in store! From Mr. Berg in pennsylvania who has filled a criminal lawsuit against BO. I wonder why the BO campaigne just get over with it by producing a birth certificate vault, any idea folks ?

First of all, there's no such thing as a "criminal lawsuit". The government brings criminal charges (which individuals can sometimes press), and private citizens bring civil lawsuits.

I'm not an Obama fanatic by any stretch. I'm probably going to vote for him, but only because I dislike him less. But I can say with a good deal of certainty that Berg is a complete crank. In addition to this lawsuit being without any factual merit (hasn't his birth certificate been produced already?), he almost certainly lacks legal standing to bring this kind of claim (though I'll admit that the Supreme Court has never spoken on this issue).


Me,

Well Mr.Berg seems to go any length to get his case, infact he says he would annul the electoral college count for BO, check this link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTA_nOHeVTg

fernando said...

I just recently discovered this site and like many others love it. Just a quick comment, it really irritates me when people talk about Obama being biracial in response to the historic significance of Americans voting for a Black man. My son is biracial, but when people who are racists hassle him, they don't see that, they see another young Black man. He identifies as Black because his experience has been that for racists, he is Black, regardless of his white mother. I find it maddeningly ironic that in a country where historically if you had one drop of "Black" blood you were considered Black that all of a sudden when there is a for the first time a viable Black candidate some people like to claim ooh, he isn't really Black, he's biracial. Please.

Tizan said...

Being in IA is not stupid it reflects the state of the game...

When in you are trailing in soccer by 3-0 and there is only 10 minutes remaining you move all your players in offense in the hope of scoring 3 goals and hoping that your opponent does not score anything...

So McCain is playing IA,PA etc in the hope that NC,OH,FL, CO, NV etc will take care of themselves...its a desperate game plan that reflects his chances...not a stupid one at all. When you have 5% chance of winning remaining...you charge full steam into offense. remaining in defense does not make use of that 5% probability.

Nick said...

I'm unclear on the usefulness of the % chance to win. The playoff odds report over at BP makes sense to me, since there isn't, say, one major thing which can go wrong to affect a teams chances much either way. If Manny Ramirez gets hurt, you've got your AAAA OF tucked away somewhere to mitigate the damage. In politics, however, one gaff can have a very large effect and all of a sudden a huge number of voters can swing one way.

bushworstever said...

To Nick Bradley:

In 1992, even without Perot, Clinton would have won.

From:
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

"Analysis: Perot's vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bush's victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s -- Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257."

GaMeS said...

prathap said...

Well Mr.Berg seems to go any length to get his case, infact he says he would annul the electoral college count for BO, check this link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0



Omigosh! My bad! I didn't know that Mr. Berg could do that!!! O plz tellz me abot teh annulz!!!!!11!!1!eleventyone!!!!

O noes!!!! I haz even bettur idea!!! Iz annulz him first!!!!

*ding*

u am ANNULZ, mR bErg!!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL



p.s. Apologies to anyone who clicked on the "fixed" version of that link ... I felt it was more intelligent than the link this fucking idiot provided. =)

Corinne said...

Your probabilities makes sense. If you want a ballpark, suppose the CNN Electoral Map is true (264 Obama, 174 McCain, 100 Tossup) and that the tossup states were completely random: 50% chance going to either candidate. McCain-Palin needs to win all seven states (NV, CO, MO, OH, VA, NC, FL) or has only one pathway to victory. That probability would be: (0.5) ** 7 = 1.5625%.

Dominic said...

Nate, please don't talk about Gerald Ford's "re-election" bid. Ford was never elected President, in fact, he was never elected to a state-wide public office, much less a national one. Another word has to be found for this. Perhaps "reinstatement"?

kingres said...

Nate & Sean,

re: Another way to look at McCain's odds

Remember Stein's Paradox?

As you know from studying baseball, the pitchers with the lowest ERAs in June will be likely to have lower ERAs than average in Sept. After all, they probably are the best pitchers. But the very low ERAs will migrate toward the mean. The gap will "shrink."

I believe that your electoral model has some of this "shrinkage" built in. You might remind your readers to expect this. It's a description of how statistics behave, independent of fundamentals, message, etc.

You guys are doing a great job - stats, commentary & on-the-ground reporting. Keep it up. Thanks.

cloud9ine said...

Nate,

You just started making elementary errors.

1. You are mixing probability with statistics.

2. As the second poster said, your analysis should have been Given A, what are the chances of B. Not there have been 18 elections. There has not been equally large leads in polling mid-october in each of those. The polling leads were either higher or lower.

Nick said...

Correction:
"Ford than made another mini-comeback after Carter's lead expanded again to 6 points, but it wasn't enough to save his re-election bid."

Since Ford wasn't elect (he was appointed), this would not have been his "re-election" bid, rather his "election" bid.

Eskimo said...

i have a statistically implausible crush on nate

Larry said...

One quick comment... in case it wasn't already made... Gerald Ford did not lose in a re-election bid. He was an incumbent, but he was never elected.

elaine9838 said...

Nate, what do you think about the effect of early voting? It seems that only those of us who are already dead sure would vote early, so it wouldn't matter much.

Sol said...

What I'd like to know is how often do "plateaus" occur in these sorts of situations. I don't think anyone expects Obama's numbers to just keep going up until the election, but a glance at the Super Tracker doesn't show any time where there was a sort of "leveling off" in the polls - it's always going fairly strongly for one of the candidates. Is this just due to how the model works, or is steadiness in public opinion really just that fickle?

Nemo said...

Not sure why you'd go to all the bother of analyzing the history of the popular vote. Barack has clearly mastered the art of creating the *electoral* advantage, and, therefore, I'd rather have seen a contrasting between Obama's popular/electoral advantage (quite different numbers) versus the popular/electoral advantage of other similar historical candidates.

David said...

Johnny's site has some stuff about his.

Cheese said...

"There were 18 elections between 1936 and 2004, and in just one of those -- the 1980 race that Harwood mentions -- did a trailing candidate come back from a deficit this large in mid-October to win the election. One divided into 18 is 5.6 percent, which almost exactly matches our 5.9 percent estimate for Mr. McCain."

This reasoning is completely and utterly wrong. You just totally destroyed all confidence I had in the rest of your work. Goodbye.

egapre said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,