This column has been fantasizing about this scenario for months. On Meet the Press, NBC News political director Chuck Todd said that it would be virtually impossible for John McCain to win the popular vote.
I agree. The reasoning is simple:
Whatever happens, Barack Obama is likely to do much better in red states than John Kerry did and will drive up turnout in blue states.
George W. Bush beat John Kerry by more than ten points in 21 states. By my projections, Obama is competitive is six of those states and has the wherewithal to reduce the gap significantly (but probably not win) in two others. For example: Bush won by 20+ points in Indiana. (McCain will win by less than five -- if he wins). Bush won by more than 10 points in North Carolina, Georgia and Texas -- Obama is likely to break 44% in both of them. Obama is likely to break 47% in Missouri -- if he doesn't win.
The upshot is, frankly, that Obama has a better chance to get more total votes than McCain simply by virtue of where is already competitive and how large and distributed his GOTV machine is. Now -- in all likelihood -- if this vote does materialize, it won't somehow skip the battleground states unless they really are in a different dimension.
So the scenarios we're left with:
1. Obama wins the popular vote and the electoral vote.
2. Obama wins the popular vote and McCain wins the electoral vote
« Not To Bragg About It | Main | "W": A Review » A Popular Vote / Electoral College Split?19 Oct 2008 02:54 pm Comments (50)
Marc: Nate at 538 has analyzed this in detail and determined it is much more likely for Obama than for McCain to win the electoral college and lose the popular vote. He calculates a 4.16% change that Obama wins EC and loses the popular vote and a 0.52% chance for McCain. The reason is Obama's strength in the traditional EC battleground states. I think Chuck Todd and Nate Silver need to square off on Bloogingheads TV to resolve this issue. 
Not to be nosy, but why have you been "fantasizing" about this? The last time this happened, very little good came out of it for the country. Sure, it made for great drama for those who make their living commenting on politics, but it created a bitter divide that we're still recovering from.
The interesting thing to remember about that statistic, Led, is that those statistics exist even though there is an 89.96% chance that Obama will win the popular vote. So .52% is McCain's total chance to win the College while losing the popular vote, not just how likely he is to win the College when Obama wins the popular vote. Thus, if we accept Marc's premise that Obama will win the popular vote, McCain's total chance of winning at all drops to less than 1%. This tends to support Curtis: Scenario 2 is incredibly unlikely.
If the Repiglicans pull it out this year I predict the rise of secessionist parties in blue states. A lot of us are tired of being dragged down by crazy creationist warmongering scumbags.
Your conclusion may be correct, but it ignores a crucial fact: the national vote is a composite of, and has at least a decent correlation with, the individual states' votes. At this point, Obama is up by 5-7 in the national polls. By Pollster's estimation, he's up by 6 or 7 in his strongest "tipping point" states, Colorado and Virginia. In other words, McCain has to make up at least 7 points in each of these states by election day. If McCain makes up 7 points in VA, CO, and FL, he'll likely make similar gains nationwide. In such a scenario, the popular vote would be a toss-up, but certainly not a sure-fire Obama edge.
What Patty and Anon21 said. Or to get right to the point: What are you talking about?
At this point, Obama is up by 5-7 in the national polls. By Pollster's estimation, he's up by 6 or 7 in his strongest "tipping point" states, Colorado and Virginia. In other words, McCain has to make up at least 7 points in each of these states by election day. If McCain makes up 7 points in VA, CO, and FL, he'll likely make similar gains nationwide. In such a scenario, the popular vote would be a toss-up, but certainly not a sure-fire Obama edge. Ding ding ding. Obama has been running at or slightly ahead of his national numbers in CO and VA. If he wins either, he wins the election. It' hard to see how he'd win the popular vote and NOT win one or both of those states. Choice No. 2 is highly implausible.
Nate Silver's electoral model is based on Monte Carlo simulation using weighted polling data. It's only as good as the assumptions that go into the weighting and the quality of the polling. A big part of Nate's model, implicit in a lot of his poll data and how he weights it, is that we have a new voter dynamic. This dynamic is exemplified by Gallup 2 likely voters and Daily Kos's weighting of Latinos and other minority groups. Unknown to me is to what extent the assumed new voter dynamic is going to materialize and to what extent we're going to have the same people voting, just hopefully voting differently. In order to quell my doubts, I've volunteered to participate in the Obama GOTV operation.
"This column has been fantasizing about this scenario for months." Yes, because a polarizing electoral college/popular vote split is just what the country needs at this time.
I know this is a favorite fantasy of political junkies. But I think Chuck, as genius as he is, is missing an important point: organization. Pulling out a EC victory while losing the popular vote takes enormous skill and organization. Your campaign has to be extraordinarily sensitve to movement and disciplined in its strategy. This is especially true for Republicans. It's relatively easy for Democrats to run up the numbers in their base precincts, which are mostly densely populated. The enthusiasm among the progressive base will make this even more possible. The GOP's base is more spread out which makes turnout more challenging. This is usually offset by a higher turnout rate among their base, but there is simply no way the GOP's base is more enthusiastic than the Dems', Palin or no. When a campaign is so close as to have a split between the EC and the popular vote, it all comes down to field. Bush won the EC in 2000 and both in 2004 by having one of the best field programs in US political history. But the Obama field program eclipses that. And the McCain campaign seems to have invested very little in field. And they are neither organized nor disciplined.
I'm sorry, Marc, but this is just pure ignorance on your part. As Led mentioned above, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has looked into this issue with infinitely more rigor than either you or Chuck Todd, and he's consistently concluded that Obama has a structural advantage in the electoral college. Most notably, Obama appears to be doing a little better in both Colorado and Virginia than in the nation as a whole. If this trend continues, a slight McCain edge in the popular vote would still translate into an Obama win in the electoral college, since Colorado and Virginia together would be sufficient for Obama in almost any conceivable contingency. (Of course, Nate's model takes into account all the less obvious but still relevant alternative paths for Obama as well..) Your analysis is also pretty terrible. First, you ignore completely the unusually strong margins (relative to his national total) McCain is running up in his most secure states, even though these will be the most important contributors to any disparity between the popular vote and the electoral college. Then you assert that Obama is "likely to break 47%" in Missouri as if it was some kind of metaphysical certainty. Yes, Obama is "likely to break 47%" in the current electoral climate. He is not likely to break 47% in Missouri if his fortunes deteriorate nationwide enough for the election to be competitive in the first place.
Comon guys, be easy on the author, he can dream, can't he? Thats what this country is all about, dreamers. He has a dream that McCain might have a chance, don't take away his dreams.
Let me echo the criticism of this type of lazy statistical analysis. Substract 5-7 pts off his national lead and do the same on the state polls then Colorado, Virginia, and possibly Florida are still pure toss-ups. Basically none of the Kerry states enter and remain 3-4 pts up. Fact is that Obama is still favored to win the electoral college even with a zero popular vote margin and fighting chance with a one percent deficit. (Ignoring the difference in ground games as well).
"NBC News political director Chuck Todd said that it would be virtually impossible for John McCain to win the popular vote. "I agree. "... "So the scenarios we're left with: Um, duh?
Bud Gibson: It's not as if Nate is just making those assumptions up. They're based, in large part, on the changed compositions of this year's primary electorate, as well as updated registration figures where available. I am eager to see how well Nate's model performs. Election Day is the big test.
I suppose there is a scenario Marc is omitting: 269-269. Eventually that leads to a President Obama though, so we can probably file that under Marc's #1.
Ever heard of the saying "It ain't over until it's over"? That really applies to this election, too. It is so disgusting how the entire debate over the election is based on opinion polls. It's vitually impossible to find an article or debate about this election that doesn't somehow base itself on opinion polls. Can't the American people be allowed to make the decision based on reality rather than polls? We all know, Mr. Ambinder, that McCain could still very realistically take the popular vote. Please don't be so asinine.
Steve: Ever heard of the saying "It ain't over until it's over"? That really applies to this election, too. It is so disgusting how the entire debate over the election is based on opinion polls. It's vitually impossible to find an article or debate about this election that doesn't somehow base itself on opinion polls. Can't the American people be allowed to make the decision based on reality rather than polls? Polls are measures of the reality of public opinion. Not precise measures, but measures nonetheless. This simple fact tends to be forgotten by whichever side is down in the polls at any given moment, but if it wasn't, there would be many fewer surprises in politics.
Steve:
I'm a regular reader of 538, but I have to say I'm not totally convince that Obama will do better in Colorado/Virginia then nationally. For one thing, Bush did better in both Colorado (+5) and Virginia (+8) than nationally (+3). Granted this is 2008, not 2004, but as an Obama supporter, I'm still nervous. Also, there have a number of polls showing McCain ahead in Virginia, including the recent Mason-Dixon. Colorado looks better, but there have still been very few double digit or high single digit results, unlike nationally (though there have also been many fewer polls overall. Mind you, I'm certainly not saying Obama won't do better than nationally in these states, just that as an Obama supporter I'm still a little nervous.
Given this argument, the GOTV will be determinative, and McCain will have to find some heretofore unrevealed strength to prevail. In short McCain will likely continue to implode, this began as Palin became more visible. On the popular vote, most states with the greatest population will largely vote for Obama; McCain will do the same is the states with the smallest population. In sum this suggest that Obama will likely receive most of the actual votes cast. On the electoral count, it is most unlikely that McCain will win enough of the battleground states to counter the west coast states and those on the east coast that are favorable to Obama. Between those states in the atlantic/southeast region area and the great lakes region that are considered battleground or toss ups McCain does not have the organization or resources to keep pace. McCain would have to run the tables in these nine states to prevail; this does not count another five or so states in other regions. True, anything is possible but the most significant unspoken fact is that the Democrats have a structure to compete as never before and the Republican can nor longer rely on yesterday's divisions. In short in recent election it was not the strength or structure of the Republicans, it was the lack of a coherent structure among the Democrats. But for these factors, Obama would have never gotten passed the primaries nor is it prudent to think that this structure will come apart in the short term. Note this does not even reach the issues of the day: the current administration, Palin, economic issues, Iraq, Obama's $150M haul in September, and so on. So called game changers are mostly myths but unknowns are that, it is prudent to attempt to measure the known as compared to the speculative; herein, theft is not discounted nor is McCain's continued implosion. In sum given the above it does appear that Obama will win soundly on both measures.
I don't think this is all that likely, but it's still interesting to consider. Another interesting scenario would be the 269-269 electoral college tie. Dave O'Gorman wrote about this possibility here:
I'm getting some word that Obama is not who he says he is. My sources tell me that he is not a U.S. citizen. My listening post also is saying that he was born, in fact, in Kenya. I'm hearing that this is going to all come out, with the affair story (google Vera Baker), next week and will send Democrats scrambling.
This is great news....FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!!
Marc, I usually like your reportage, but you got fisked here. I think you need to think the numbers through a little more. Seriously, Nate runs a great site. Check it out.
I don't know exactly where Craig is coming from, but the fact remains that there's a lot about BHO that we haven't been told or that the MSM has actively tried to cover up (see the NYT's recent "investigation" into the Ayers link). Does the MSM really think they're going to be able to keep this covered up forever? Aren't those reporters who've covered up for BHO running the very great risk of becoming minor, modern-day Durantys? The BHO administration - if there ever is one - isn't going to be able to give all of them comfy sinecures, no matter how hard some have lied to get him elected.
I think the best gauge of Obama's chances is Colin Powell. No way he would turn his coat unless he was absolutely certain that an Obama victory is in the bag. He’s a rat but he’s a very, very careful rat. If he’s leaving the Republican ship, it’s pretty clear that he see no advantage to himself over the next 4-8 years in being a Republican.
There's one thing I haven't seen mentioned: The last time the electoral college and popular vote were split, it was largely due to Republicans' voter suppression efforts in Florida. (I'm talking about the purging of the voter rolls -- let's leave the recount fiasco out of this.) Nate Silver's analysis strongly suggests that if there's a split this election, it'll be Obama winning the big prize; McCain only gets the consolation. But Silver's model doesn't take into account voter suppression. So... If it goes down like Ambinder "fantasiz[es] about," isn't this suggestive of Republicans' voter suppression efforts working again? That's not something I fantasize about.
I'm getting some word that McCain is not who he says he is. My sources tell me that he is not a U.S. citizen. My listening post also is saying that he was born, in fact, in Panama. I'm hearing that this is going to all come out, with the beastiality story (google McCain and goats), next week and will send Republicans scrambling.
Mark, obviously the chance of this happening is non existent. A tie is only 1/4 of 1% on 538 and this scenario is .60%. Trying to further this horse race meme that the MSM is trying to push is crazy. Even Rove has Obama over 300 and RCP at 277 already.. I enjoy your blog but wasting your time on this fantasy when you could be covering a dozen more useful topics makes sense to me.
Dan, get a life and quit believing the nonsense from right wing loon sites. This is total BS and you know it
John Nail, I'm not sure if I'm missing the joke or you are. Darn internets.
Obama could still be defeated if undecided voters are persuaded to stick with the more familiar McCain. Acropolis Review has a summary of some good reasons to consider supporting Obama. Be sure to send it to undecided friends:
IF Mccain gains 7 points in the national polls, Mccain likely wins the popular vote. However, a 7 point gain would be the likely movement of voters in already very red states. Obama thus wins the EC.
Okay, even if your scenario is true, the likelihood of the second event is vanishingly small. If we take the 538.com percentiles, the conditional probabilities (conditional on Obama winning the popular vote) are: Scenario 1. Obama wins both: (88.98 - 0.59) / 88.98 = 99.337% Scenario 2. Obama wins popular vote, McCain wins EV: 0.59 / 88.98 = 0.663%
Losing the popular vote and winning the Electoral College has only happened about three times in some 250 years. For it to happen twice in 8 years (since it happened in 2000) must be a very small probability. Even with this crude logic, McCain's chances are vanishingly small.
I don't think there is any evidence that Obama is likely to do worse in the electoral college than in the popular vote. According to FiveThirtyEight.com Obama has a 4.69% chance of winning the election and losing the popular vote while McCain has a 0.59% chance of doing so. This is obviously largely speculation an I wouldn't put to much credence on it, but if we are going to speculate lets do so in the correct direction. I actually think Obama is going to win outright, but his electoral college strategy seems to be pretty solid.
There have been 12 Presidential elections that were decided by less than a 1% margin; meaning if less than 1% of the voters in certain states had changed their mind to the other candidate the outcome of the entire election would have been different. https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html
Truth is McCain is not who he says he is. He is really Julius Cesear reincarnated from another savior with the same initials..J.C. son of the of the Virgin Mary. And as for Sarah Palin, she's an incarnate of Medusa, the mythical gal with the snakes in her hair...that's what's beneath that bun she wears on the back of her head... Marl...
I think Marc and Chuck Todd are missing the real story here. If neither of them think that McCain can overcome his popular vote deficit in the national polls then they are both saying that he can't win. It takes quite a leap to say that McCain has a chance at an electoral college strategy when his has been the meta-strategy campaign. It's been Obama who has organized the ground game in these battleground states all summer while McCain was trying to win the media war hoping to make that organization ultimately irrelevant. I think some of the more sophisticated analyses are picking this up - i.e. Nate seeing McCain having to move beyond tied to have a better than even chance at winning. Loosing the national vote by more than a point or two and winning the electoral college is extremely unlikely for either candidate. Although the election isn't over in that McCain has however small of a chance to reverse Obama's national lead, I wish the pundits would recognize this is essential to McCain and not get hung up on these "sweep the swing state" analyses.
All McCain has to do to fulfill Marc's "fantasy" is to sweep the following states, all of which are blue or tied right now according to electoralvote.com: Colorado Good luck!
Hey MoeLarryandJesus, good comment. BUT, don't leave those of us who are little blue islands adrift in a sea of red in our states out in the cold. If you succeed in secessionist efforts, rescue us please, lol! (Only joking--no hate mail or comments taking me seriously, please). I'm so sick of GA going red and only half encouraged by the fact that some electoral maps show us as 'pink.' My point is, you are being too narrow in your view if you just look at the map and think the blue states are overwhelmingly different from the red ones. Yes, in NY and others, the margin of the democrats winning is huge. But in some red states, the margin of republicans winning is not that large. Don't discount the democratic support simply because it isn't quite enough to turn the electoral college tide. We are still out here. The country is much, much more divided geographically than a mere glance at the electoral map would tell, and much more democratic with the popular vote. I'm so sick of the electoral college ruling the country, and it often means my vote does not really count. Too bad we can't split our electoral vote like I just learned two states can do. At least here in GA, the democrats would have a strong chance of winning the center of the state with Atlanta.
Isn't the second option sad for America? A black man wins the popular vote and then loses the presidency on a historical/legal technicality designed to make sure only the elite could choose a president?
Let's not forget that the Electoral College has a significant Republican tilt to it. It wasn't designed that way. It was designed to have a small state tilt. If each state was based on population then President Gore would have been elected in 2000. The reason that Florida counted was that Bush was a bunch of small states and Gore won a few big states.
The current system does not reliably reflect the nationwide popular vote. The statewide winner-take-all rules makes it possible for a candidate to win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections. In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide. Nationwide popular election of the President is the only system that makes all states competitive, guarantees that the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide wins the Presidency, and makes every vote equal. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Voting early is a terrific option. At my age (67), I'd never expected to feel so good while marking my early ballot. Another possibility for change: Don't re-elect any Senator or Representative who's been in Congress more than 6 years. At least that would/could throw a wrench into both major political parties.
To Sally:
Hi, I want to thank Craig, John Nail and especially dan for your hilarious posts. Everyone who I've showed the "exchange" to has been delighted. So tell me, dan, did you pay those guys to be the straight men? You all have my best wishes, keep up the good work!
Obviously, the electoral college is NOT in touch with the popular vote. Perhaps this is the FIRST CHANGE we need to make....
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
And let's be honest. The scenario we are left with is (1).
Posted by Curtis | October 19, 2008 3:15 PM