Much has been written about the gap between the last BC election polls and the actual results. But that was only half of the stunning BC Liberal comeback. The remainder happened in plain view during the campaign, when the NDP lead in the polls shrank from 20% to single digits. This change was likely caused by several factors, including:
1. Adrian Dix's flip flop on Kinder Morgan
2. The Liberal campaign (clear focus on economy and negative campaigning)
3. Christy Clark's charisma and optimism
4. The BC Conservatives' collapse
I would argue, however, that the underlying cause is simply BC's economic experience in the past 20 years. Without the experience of the 1990s, Dix's flip flop would not have ignited much concern about economic development under the NDP. The Liberal focus on the economy would not have resonated. Christy Clark's hopeful message on the economy would have fallen on deaf ears. And social conservatives might not have decided to pinch their noses and vote Liberal once more to keep the NDP out.
If you're a reader of the Vancouver left-wing media (e.g. Georgia Straight, the Tyee, etc.), you may be under the impression that BC's superior economic performance under the Liberals is a myth, or even a falsehood perpetuated by a right-wing media conspiracy. Indeed, according to BC Stats, BC's real GDP grew by an average of 2.8% per year during 1991-2001, compared to 2.5% during 2001-2010. However, this is not what people felt because:
- BC's population grew more quickly in the 1990s due to a wave of immigration related to Hong Kong's handover to China. Per capita, real GDP grew by 0.8% per year in 1991-2001, compared to 1.3% per year in 2001-2010. That's 60% faster per capita growth under the BC Liberals.
- The latter period, of course, included the sharp 2008-2009 recession, while the former included the tech boom. In Canada as a whole, real GDP per capita grew by 2.3% per year in 1991-2001, compared to 0.8% per year in 2001-2010. So under the NDP, BC fell behind Canada by 1.5% per year. Under the Liberals, BC outpaced Canada by 0.5% per year. That's a difference of 2% per year, or 20% over a decade.
- In the long run, higher GDP leads to higher disposable income. But over shorter periods, disposable income may be impacted by fluctuations in relative prices, taxes, the amount of corporate profits reinvested rather than distributed, etc. Of course, not only did the BC Liberals cut taxes, they were lucky enough that the federal government also cut taxes during their years in power. As a result, in 1991-2001, real disposable income per capita grew by 0.1% per year in BC (0.8% in Canada); in 2001-2010, it was 2.2% per year (2.1% in Canada). This is the kicker: in BC, real disposable income per person grew TWENTY-TWO TIMES FASTER under the Liberals (up to 2010) than under the NDP!
Clearly, the difficulties of the 1990s were not all the NDP's fault, and nobody would credit the BC Liberals for the myriad federal tax cuts in the late Chrétien/Martin/early Harper administrations. We can argue at length about whether the difference between NDP and Liberal policies contributed to BC's change of fortune. But given that people felt their income go up 22 times faster under the Liberals than under the NDP, when the NDP pretends that its economic record was as good as the Liberals', it just sounds out of touch. Statistics correspond to reality. The NDP can argue about statistics, but if its argument diverges too much from people's experiences, people won't listen.
Usually, when you've been out of power for 12 years, people forget what happened last time around, and your opponents bringing it up won't hurt you much. But when what happened was a decade of stagnating pocketbooks, people do remember, especially when the latter decade has been much better. People also understand that parties can change in 12 years. But people will conclude that you haven't changed if you insist that there's nothing wrong with your record. And they will further conclude, perhaps unjustly given the different economic circumstances, that the same stagnation will occur if you are back in power.
If, in response to Liberal attacks, the NDP had actually repudiated its 1990s record and explained how its economic vision has evolved, Adrian Dix might be Premier today.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Saturday, May 18, 2013
2013 BC Election and the Pollsters
The dust is slowly settling after the surprising results of the 40th BC general election. The geographical divide between BC's different regions was very stark - even more so than in 2009:
Note: Updated to reflect changes due to the final count.
Island, Coast and Northwest: 15 NDP, 2 LIB, 1 GRN (14-4-0 in 2009)
Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster: 11 NDP, 5 LIB (8-8 in 2009)
Rest of Metro Vancouver: 19 LIB, 5 NDP, 1 IND (16-8-1 in 2009)
Fraser Valley and Interior: 23 LIB, 3 NDP (21-5 in 2009)
TOTAL: 49 LIB, 34 NDP, 1 GRN, 1 IND (49-35-0-1 in 2009)
But the salient feature of these results was, of course, its unexpectedness. Why did all the polls miss the boat? This seems to be a recurring theme in recent Canadian elections, but as we saw last fall, polls in the United States have remained quite accurate. Why are American pollsters doing so much better than their Canadian counterparts? Here are a few potential explanations, and how I feel about them.
1. Live Phone vs IVR vs Internet Polling
There is no evidence that traditional polls fare better than non-traditional ones in the United States or other countries. Some traditional Canadian pollsters suggest that new methodologies are behind the erratic polling in this country, but it's unclear why Canada would be different.
2. Resources for Data Analysis (Likely Voter Screen)
That said, methodology probably does matter, but at the stage of data analysis. Some US media organizations, unlike Canadian ones, actually pay substantial sums for their polls. This enables polling firms to do proper research and develop, for example, a reliable likely voter model. The availability of extensive exit polling data in the United States also helps.
3. Polarization and Undecided Voters
As we all know, the differences between Democrats and Republicans are stark, and even a month before the vote, there remain very few undecideds in a US presidential election, and in most US Senate elections. In Canada, the fraction of undecided voters is typically much higher. This produces a potential for sudden shifts that are hard for pollsters to capture.
4. Local Candidates
In the US, polls (except for "generic Congressional ballot" polls, which tend to be inaccurate) state the names that will actually appear on the ballot. In Canada, they typically only state the name of the party. A popular Canadian incumbent from an unpopular party may therefore enjoy more support than pollsters imply.
Hopefully, the Canadian pollsters figure things out before 2015, or the projections for the next federal election could be dead wrong...
Note: Updated to reflect changes due to the final count.
Island, Coast and Northwest: 15 NDP, 2 LIB, 1 GRN (14-4-0 in 2009)
Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster: 11 NDP, 5 LIB (8-8 in 2009)
Rest of Metro Vancouver: 19 LIB, 5 NDP, 1 IND (16-8-1 in 2009)
Fraser Valley and Interior: 23 LIB, 3 NDP (21-5 in 2009)
TOTAL: 49 LIB, 34 NDP, 1 GRN, 1 IND (49-35-0-1 in 2009)
But the salient feature of these results was, of course, its unexpectedness. Why did all the polls miss the boat? This seems to be a recurring theme in recent Canadian elections, but as we saw last fall, polls in the United States have remained quite accurate. Why are American pollsters doing so much better than their Canadian counterparts? Here are a few potential explanations, and how I feel about them.
1. Live Phone vs IVR vs Internet Polling
There is no evidence that traditional polls fare better than non-traditional ones in the United States or other countries. Some traditional Canadian pollsters suggest that new methodologies are behind the erratic polling in this country, but it's unclear why Canada would be different.
2. Resources for Data Analysis (Likely Voter Screen)
That said, methodology probably does matter, but at the stage of data analysis. Some US media organizations, unlike Canadian ones, actually pay substantial sums for their polls. This enables polling firms to do proper research and develop, for example, a reliable likely voter model. The availability of extensive exit polling data in the United States also helps.
3. Polarization and Undecided Voters
As we all know, the differences between Democrats and Republicans are stark, and even a month before the vote, there remain very few undecideds in a US presidential election, and in most US Senate elections. In Canada, the fraction of undecided voters is typically much higher. This produces a potential for sudden shifts that are hard for pollsters to capture.
4. Local Candidates
In the US, polls (except for "generic Congressional ballot" polls, which tend to be inaccurate) state the names that will actually appear on the ballot. In Canada, they typically only state the name of the party. A popular Canadian incumbent from an unpopular party may therefore enjoy more support than pollsters imply.
Hopefully, the Canadian pollsters figure things out before 2015, or the projections for the next federal election could be dead wrong...
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Happy New Year!
Happy 2013!
Ironic tidbit: the PQ fulfilled its promise to raise taxes on rich Quebecers only partially so that the top tax rate would remain below 50%. However, with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on high income Americans and the increased Medicare tax, individuals with federal taxable income above $400,000 and married couples with federal taxable income above $450,000 will be paying a marginal rate above 50% in California, New York City, Oregon and Hawaii. Those four jurisdictions have more than 50 million residents! It looks like Québec wouldn't have been so out of whack after all...
Ironic tidbit: the PQ fulfilled its promise to raise taxes on rich Quebecers only partially so that the top tax rate would remain below 50%. However, with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on high income Americans and the increased Medicare tax, individuals with federal taxable income above $400,000 and married couples with federal taxable income above $450,000 will be paying a marginal rate above 50% in California, New York City, Oregon and Hawaii. Those four jurisdictions have more than 50 million residents! It looks like Québec wouldn't have been so out of whack after all...
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Rudimentary Guide to Election Night
Sadly, work is getting in the way, and I won't be able to post as extensive a guide as I hoped before polls close. The basic thing to remember is that states are typically called immediately only when the margin is greater than 10%. Looking at my state-by-state map, this means that while most states in dark blue/red will be called right away, most (if not all) other states won't. Obama supporters certainly shouldn't freak out if PA isn't called right at 8pm ET, or MI/MN aren't called right at 9pm ET.
We likely won't get a call in any battleground state (tossups and those coloured in the lightest blue or red) until at least 10pm ET. So if you're on the East Coast, you can probably go have a nice long dinner and still not miss any big calls.
If any of PA, MN or MI is called before 10pm ET, Obama is performing at least a little better than expected, and he should probably be viewed as a 95%+ favourite. (Right now, it's more like 90%.) On the other hand, if NC is called for Romney before 10pm ET, then Romney is overperforming, and we're likely in for a long long night.
The Democrats have a decent chance of winning the Senate as early as 11pm ET; if not, it shouldn't be too long a wait after that time. Obama will likely not win the presidency that early, and while I do expect him to win before sunrise tomorrow (most likely between midnight ET and midnight PT), there's a chance that we're headed for long legal battles...
Also, keep an eye out for Marriage Equality propositions in ME, MD and WA, as well as MN's proposal to enshrine discrimination in their state constitution.
Happy viewing!
We likely won't get a call in any battleground state (tossups and those coloured in the lightest blue or red) until at least 10pm ET. So if you're on the East Coast, you can probably go have a nice long dinner and still not miss any big calls.
If any of PA, MN or MI is called before 10pm ET, Obama is performing at least a little better than expected, and he should probably be viewed as a 95%+ favourite. (Right now, it's more like 90%.) On the other hand, if NC is called for Romney before 10pm ET, then Romney is overperforming, and we're likely in for a long long night.
The Democrats have a decent chance of winning the Senate as early as 11pm ET; if not, it shouldn't be too long a wait after that time. Obama will likely not win the presidency that early, and while I do expect him to win before sunrise tomorrow (most likely between midnight ET and midnight PT), there's a chance that we're headed for long legal battles...
Also, keep an eye out for Marriage Equality propositions in ME, MD and WA, as well as MN's proposal to enshrine discrimination in their state constitution.
Happy viewing!
2012 US Senate Elections
For posts on the Presidential election, click here (state by state) and here (popular vote).
Note: Maine is safe for independent Angus King; it is coloured in light blue since he is likely to caucus with the Democrats.
Some states are less solid than the others. Of the "lean Democrat" states, I'm least confident about MA, IN and VA. Of the "lean Republican" states, ND and NV have the best chance of causing a surprise.
I think the Democrat is marginally ahead in both tossups, MT and WI. However, the advantage is so slight that they might have a better chance of splitting. (For example, if the Democrat has a 60% of winning in each, and the two races are independent, then the Democrats have a 36% of winning both, and the states have a 48% chance of splitting.) For this reason, I view the most likely outcome as the Democrats winning all states coloured in blue and both tossups, but the most likely seat count as 53-47.
Later today: a guide to election night
Note: Maine is safe for independent Angus King; it is coloured in light blue since he is likely to caucus with the Democrats.
Some states are less solid than the others. Of the "lean Democrat" states, I'm least confident about MA, IN and VA. Of the "lean Republican" states, ND and NV have the best chance of causing a surprise.
I think the Democrat is marginally ahead in both tossups, MT and WI. However, the advantage is so slight that they might have a better chance of splitting. (For example, if the Democrat has a 60% of winning in each, and the two races are independent, then the Democrats have a 36% of winning both, and the states have a 48% chance of splitting.) For this reason, I view the most likely outcome as the Democrats winning all states coloured in blue and both tossups, but the most likely seat count as 53-47.
Later today: a guide to election night
2012 US Presidential Election: State by State
Click here for a summary of national polls.
Dark blue: Obama by 9 or more
Minnesota: Obama by 7
Oregon: Obama by 6
Michigan: Obama by 6
Pennsylvania: Obama by 5
Nevada: Obama by 4
Wisconsin: Obama by 4
Ohio: Obama by 3
New Hampshire: Obama by 2
Colorado: Obama by 2
Iowa: Obama by 1
Virginia: Obama by 1
Florida: Romney by 1
North Carolina: Romney by 3
Arizona: Romney by 8
Dark red: Romney by 9 or more
Electoral College count: Obama 303, Romney 235
Decisive state: Ohio
Tightest Obama state: Virginia
Least confident Obama state: Iowa (fewer polls than Virginia, and polls were off in 2008)
Tightest and least confident Romney state: Florida
Next up: Senate races
Minnesota: Obama by 7
Oregon: Obama by 6
Michigan: Obama by 6
Pennsylvania: Obama by 5
Nevada: Obama by 4
Wisconsin: Obama by 4
Ohio: Obama by 3
New Hampshire: Obama by 2
Colorado: Obama by 2
Iowa: Obama by 1
Virginia: Obama by 1
Florida: Romney by 1
North Carolina: Romney by 3
Arizona: Romney by 8
Dark red: Romney by 9 or more
Electoral College count: Obama 303, Romney 235
Decisive state: Ohio
Tightest Obama state: Virginia
Least confident Obama state: Iowa (fewer polls than Virginia, and polls were off in 2008)
Tightest and least confident Romney state: Florida
Next up: Senate races
2012 US Election: Summary of National Polls
A small number of pollsters are expected to release their last polls on Election Day. This post may therefore be updated.
Most recent poll of 28 pollsters with national likely voter polls since October 4:
5, 4, 3.32, 3, 3, 3, 3
2.8, 2, 2, 2, 1.6, 1, 1
1, 1, 0.5, 0, 0, 0, 0
0, 0, -1, -1, -1, -1, -2
Average: Obama +1.2
Median: Obama +1
The 21 with polling in November:
4, 3.32, 3, 3, 3, 2.8, 2
2, 2, 1.6, 1, 1, 1, 0.5
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, -1
Average: Obama +1.3
Median: Obama +1
Non/bi-partisan, live-operator polls with polling in November:
0 Politico/GWU/Battleground (11/4-5)
1.6 IBD/TIPP (11/3-5)
1 UPI/CVoter (11/3-5)
0 American Research Group (11/2-4)
0 CNN/ORC (11/2-4)
-1 Gallup (11/1-4)
3 ABC News/WaPo (11/1-4)
1 NBC/Marist (11/1-3)
3 Pew (10/31-11/3)
Average: Obama +1.0
Median: Obama +1
Internet polls with polling in November:
2.8 Google Consumer Surveys (11/5)*
0.5 JZ Analytics (11/3-5)
2 Ipsos/Reuters (11/1-5)
3.32 RAND Corporation (10/30-11/5)
3 Angus Reid (11/1-3)
2 YouGov (10/31-11/3)
Average: Obama +2.3
Median: Obama +2.4
*Voters "100% likely" to vote
Automated phone/mixed/partisan polls with polling in November:
-1 Rasmussen Reports (11/3-5)
0 Gravis Marketing (11/3-4)
2 Public Policy Polling (11/2-4)
4 Democracy Corps (11/1-4)
0 Monmouth/SurveyUSA (11/1-4)
1 Purple Strategies (10/31-11/1)
Average: Obama +1.0
Median: Obama +0.5
I think you can see why I predicted that Obama will win by about 1% :)
Most recent poll of 28 pollsters with national likely voter polls since October 4:
5, 4, 3.32, 3, 3, 3, 3
2.8, 2, 2, 2, 1.6, 1, 1
1, 1, 0.5, 0, 0, 0, 0
0, 0, -1, -1, -1, -1, -2
Average: Obama +1.2
Median: Obama +1
The 21 with polling in November:
4, 3.32, 3, 3, 3, 2.8, 2
2, 2, 1.6, 1, 1, 1, 0.5
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, -1
Average: Obama +1.3
Median: Obama +1
Non/bi-partisan, live-operator polls with polling in November:
0 Politico/GWU/Battleground (11/4-5)
1.6 IBD/TIPP (11/3-5)
1 UPI/CVoter (11/3-5)
0 American Research Group (11/2-4)
0 CNN/ORC (11/2-4)
-1 Gallup (11/1-4)
3 ABC News/WaPo (11/1-4)
1 NBC/Marist (11/1-3)
3 Pew (10/31-11/3)
Average: Obama +1.0
Median: Obama +1
Internet polls with polling in November:
2.8 Google Consumer Surveys (11/5)*
0.5 JZ Analytics (11/3-5)
2 Ipsos/Reuters (11/1-5)
3.32 RAND Corporation (10/30-11/5)
3 Angus Reid (11/1-3)
2 YouGov (10/31-11/3)
Average: Obama +2.3
Median: Obama +2.4
*Voters "100% likely" to vote
Automated phone/mixed/partisan polls with polling in November:
-1 Rasmussen Reports (11/3-5)
0 Gravis Marketing (11/3-4)
2 Public Policy Polling (11/2-4)
4 Democracy Corps (11/1-4)
0 Monmouth/SurveyUSA (11/1-4)
1 Purple Strategies (10/31-11/1)
Average: Obama +1.0
Median: Obama +0.5
I think you can see why I predicted that Obama will win by about 1% :)
Monday, November 5, 2012
Election Day 2012 in America
Detailed posts coming up overnight or in the morning. But since the polls will be closing in about 20 minutes in Dixville Notch and Hart's Location, NH (these hamlets vote at midnight and are allowed to close their polls when everyone has voted), I'd like to give some approximate projections now.
Obama wins the popular vote by about 1%.
Obama wins between 271 and 347 electoral votes, likely 303.
The Democrats retain a majority in the Senate, with 52-54 seats. (This total includes two independents expected to caucus with Democrats.)
Obama wins the popular vote by about 1%.
Obama wins between 271 and 347 electoral votes, likely 303.
The Democrats retain a majority in the Senate, with 52-54 seats. (This total includes two independents expected to caucus with Democrats.)
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Five Days to 2012 US Election
The state of the race has moved very little from three weeks ago - so little that a few times, I thought about writing an update, but gave up since there was basically nothing to add.
In the past few days, things seem to have shifted marginally - maybe 0.5-1% - towards Obama: the latest national polls give him an ever so slight edge (roughly 0.5%), while Romney arguably had the advantage (by 0.5% or less) last week. To my knowledge, 24 different pollsters have released a national poll of likely voters since the Oct. 3 debate that shook up the race. Here are their most recent results, expressed in "Obama minus Romney" terms, from highest to lowest:
5.46, 5, 3, 3, 2, 1.3
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0.1
0.07, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
-1, -2, -2, -2, -3, -5
Average: Obama +0.41
Median: Obama +0.085
Listing only the 18 polls that started on or after October 20 (or, equivalently, that ended on or after October 24) gives us:
5.46, 5, 2, 1.3, 1, 1
1, 1, 1, 0.1, 0.07, 0
0, 0, 0, -1, -2, -5
Average: Obama +0.61
Median: Obama +0.55
Sixteen of these have updated over the past week. By this I mean that as of a week ago, they had released a post-first-debate poll, and they released another one in the past 7 days. The changes in the Obama-Romney gap are:
-2.3, -2, -1.7, -1
-1, -1, -0.7, +1
+1, +1, +1.44, +2
+2, +3, +3.07, +4
Average: Obama +0.55
Median: Obama +1
This national movement was reproduced in many of the swing states. In particular, Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire, which were virtually perfectly tied as of my last post, now all appear to have an ever so slight Obama lean. Obama may not win all three, but Romney is even less likely to sweep them.
Similarly, in Florida, Romney's already slight advantage has eroded to the point that the state is almost a virtual tie again. The state is definitely in play, and if Obama wins Florida, it's game over for Romney. However, it's unlikely to be the decisive state since there are 303 electoral votes that appear easier to get for Obama than Florida's 29 electoral votes.
Obama's most likely path to 270 is still through Wisconsin, Nevada and Ohio. This trio puts Obama at 271, barring a huge upset in a state like Pennsylvania, Minnesota or Michigan.
Something to keep in mind: in 2008, the polls grossly overestimated Obama's margin in Iowa. Therefore, even though Obama appears to have a small but stubborn lead there, I'm not too confident that he will win. On the other hand, the 2008 polls grossly underestimated Obama's margin in Nevada (as they did Harry Reid's in 2010), so it seems very likely that he'll carry that state even though his polling lead there is also slight. In Colorado as well, the Democrats were underestimated in both 2008 and 2010, though the effect wasn't as big as Nevada.
In the past few days, things seem to have shifted marginally - maybe 0.5-1% - towards Obama: the latest national polls give him an ever so slight edge (roughly 0.5%), while Romney arguably had the advantage (by 0.5% or less) last week. To my knowledge, 24 different pollsters have released a national poll of likely voters since the Oct. 3 debate that shook up the race. Here are their most recent results, expressed in "Obama minus Romney" terms, from highest to lowest:
5.46, 5, 3, 3, 2, 1.3
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0.1
0.07, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
-1, -2, -2, -2, -3, -5
Average: Obama +0.41
Median: Obama +0.085
Listing only the 18 polls that started on or after October 20 (or, equivalently, that ended on or after October 24) gives us:
5.46, 5, 2, 1.3, 1, 1
1, 1, 1, 0.1, 0.07, 0
0, 0, 0, -1, -2, -5
Average: Obama +0.61
Median: Obama +0.55
Sixteen of these have updated over the past week. By this I mean that as of a week ago, they had released a post-first-debate poll, and they released another one in the past 7 days. The changes in the Obama-Romney gap are:
-2.3, -2, -1.7, -1
-1, -1, -0.7, +1
+1, +1, +1.44, +2
+2, +3, +3.07, +4
Average: Obama +0.55
Median: Obama +1
This national movement was reproduced in many of the swing states. In particular, Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire, which were virtually perfectly tied as of my last post, now all appear to have an ever so slight Obama lean. Obama may not win all three, but Romney is even less likely to sweep them.
Similarly, in Florida, Romney's already slight advantage has eroded to the point that the state is almost a virtual tie again. The state is definitely in play, and if Obama wins Florida, it's game over for Romney. However, it's unlikely to be the decisive state since there are 303 electoral votes that appear easier to get for Obama than Florida's 29 electoral votes.
Obama's most likely path to 270 is still through Wisconsin, Nevada and Ohio. This trio puts Obama at 271, barring a huge upset in a state like Pennsylvania, Minnesota or Michigan.
Something to keep in mind: in 2008, the polls grossly overestimated Obama's margin in Iowa. Therefore, even though Obama appears to have a small but stubborn lead there, I'm not too confident that he will win. On the other hand, the 2008 polls grossly underestimated Obama's margin in Nevada (as they did Harry Reid's in 2010), so it seems very likely that he'll carry that state even though his polling lead there is also slight. In Colorado as well, the Democrats were underestimated in both 2008 and 2010, though the effect wasn't as big as Nevada.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
US Election: All Eyes on Ohio and Virginia
Three weeks ago, I gave a list of 10 states totaling 125 electoral votes that will likely determine the outcome of the 2012 U.S. presidential election - both candidates need a majority of those 125 votes to win. At the time, Obama led in all 10 of those states, but of course, Romney has gained substantial momentum since then with his strong performance in the first debate.
Right now, based on state-by-state polls, I'd classify those states as follows:
- Clear Obama lead: PA (20), MN (10)
- Obama edge: OH (18), WI (10), IA (6), NV (6)
- Tossup: VA (13), CO (9), NH (4)
- Romney edge: FL (29)
This gives a 277-235 lead for Obama in the electoral college.
(By the way, some other states like MI (16) on the Obama side or NC (15) and AZ (11) on the Romney side are also relatively tight, but they are very unlikely to be decisive. In the above list, it looks like MN is also firmly in the Obama column.)
However, as Nate Silver has pointed out time and time again on his blog, the national polls have lately been somewhat more favourable to Romney than the state polls. If we give the "Tossup" states to Romney, we end up with a very tight race: 277-261. This is very similar to Mr. Silver's "now-cast", which gives Obama a 280.4-257.6 lead (he has NH as leaning Obama).
We can now probably narrow down the list of states to watch to the seven "Obama edge" or "Tossup" states above: OH, VA, WI, CO, IA, NV and NH. This doesn't mean that PA will definitely go for Obama or that FL will go for Romney, but if those things don't happen, the winner is likely to have over 300 electoral votes.
Ohio and Virginia are the keys to the election: if a candidate wins both of these, he forces his opponent to run the table on WI, CO, IA, NV and NH.
If Ohio and Virginia split, then, in most cases, whoever can carry three of WI, CO, IA, NV and NH wins. The exceptions are:
- OH, WI and any one of CO/IA/NV is enough (so VA, NH and two of CO/IA/NV is insufficient)
- OH, CO and either IA or NV is enough for Obama (so VA, WI, NH and either IA or NV is insufficient for Romney)
Polls close at 7 in Virginia, 7:30 in Ohio, 8 in New Hampshire, 9 in Colorado and Wisconsin, and 10 in Iowa and Nevada (all times Eastern) - conveniently, the two most important states close first.
Right now, based on state-by-state polls, I'd classify those states as follows:
- Clear Obama lead: PA (20), MN (10)
- Obama edge: OH (18), WI (10), IA (6), NV (6)
- Tossup: VA (13), CO (9), NH (4)
- Romney edge: FL (29)
This gives a 277-235 lead for Obama in the electoral college.
(By the way, some other states like MI (16) on the Obama side or NC (15) and AZ (11) on the Romney side are also relatively tight, but they are very unlikely to be decisive. In the above list, it looks like MN is also firmly in the Obama column.)
However, as Nate Silver has pointed out time and time again on his blog, the national polls have lately been somewhat more favourable to Romney than the state polls. If we give the "Tossup" states to Romney, we end up with a very tight race: 277-261. This is very similar to Mr. Silver's "now-cast", which gives Obama a 280.4-257.6 lead (he has NH as leaning Obama).
We can now probably narrow down the list of states to watch to the seven "Obama edge" or "Tossup" states above: OH, VA, WI, CO, IA, NV and NH. This doesn't mean that PA will definitely go for Obama or that FL will go for Romney, but if those things don't happen, the winner is likely to have over 300 electoral votes.
Ohio and Virginia are the keys to the election: if a candidate wins both of these, he forces his opponent to run the table on WI, CO, IA, NV and NH.
If Ohio and Virginia split, then, in most cases, whoever can carry three of WI, CO, IA, NV and NH wins. The exceptions are:
- OH, WI and any one of CO/IA/NV is enough (so VA, NH and two of CO/IA/NV is insufficient)
- OH, CO and either IA or NV is enough for Obama (so VA, WI, NH and either IA or NV is insufficient for Romney)
Polls close at 7 in Virginia, 7:30 in Ohio, 8 in New Hampshire, 9 in Colorado and Wisconsin, and 10 in Iowa and Nevada (all times Eastern) - conveniently, the two most important states close first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)