On Election Eve, The Race Is Close But Obama Has The Advantage
The 2012 Election promises to be close in the Popular Voter, but President Obama still retains an Electoral College advantage.
As I write this, it’s about twenty-six hours until the first polls start closing across the nation, including the potentially pivotal state of Virginia. Given the state of the race, of course, it’s unlikely we’ll get a call in any of the truly important states until some time well into the night, and even possible that Midnight could come and go before we’re able to call a winner in the election itself. At this point, all of the arguments have been made, all of the polls have been analyzed, and all the blog posts have been written. At midnight tonight, the process will begin with two small towns in New Hampshire casting their votes and the rest of the nation will begin to follow a few hours later. By the end of the day, and including early voters, somewhere around 120-130 million people will have cast their ballots and the counting will begin. Everyone has made their predictions, including several of the authors here at Outside The Beltway, but in the end it’s the voters who will decide. Based on the available data, though, it certainly does appear that the President is headed for re-election.
The first set of data we have that tells us this are the national polls, where the President maintains a razor-thin 0.7 point lead in the RealClearPolitics Average. As I noted early today, though, that lead masks a momentum that he has had for at least the last two weeks while at the same time the boost that Mitt Romney got out of the October 3rd debate appears to have ended. What the RCP average suggests, of course, is that we’re looking at a Popular Vote margin likely to be as close as what we saw in 2004 and possibly even 2000. Several analysts have suggested that, as in 2000, we could see a split between the winner of the Popular Vote and the winner of the Electoral College, something that has only happened four other times in American history. If that occurs, the most likely outcome would be one where Mitt Romney wins the Popular Vote and President Obama wins the Electoral College, thanks largely to the fact that it in the Electoral College that the President has his true advantage.
I’ve made note of the narrow path to victory that Mitt Romney has in the Electoral College several times since the General Election campaign began and, notwithstanding the fact that he has risen in the polls over the past month, that analysis remains accurate today. To see why, one need only take a look at the current RCP Electoral Map:
First, a caveat is in order. There are several states listed as Toss-Ups that I don’t believe are true toss-ups. Specifically, I think it’s fairly clear that Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are likely to end up in Obama’s column. In all honesty, the Romney campaign has only made a decent run in the polls in one of those states, Wisconsin, and even there the President maintains a fairly good lead in the RCP Average. In Pennsylvania, Obama is ahead in the RCP average, and there hasn’t been a single poll showing Romney in the lead there since February. The President’s position in Michigan seems similarly secure. The final results in these states may end up being closer than some might have expected when the race started — although its worth noting that George W. Bush came within two points in Pennsylvania in 2004 and within 4 points in 2000 — but the President will win these states. Take the 46 Electoral Votes these three states represent and the President’s total increases to 247, while the number of Toss-Up Electoral Votes drops to 100. Of that 100, the President needs only to win another 23 Electoral Votes to win the Election, while Mitt Romney would need to win 79 of them, leaving very little room for error. Even assuming that Romney wins Florida where he is leading, that means he needs to find another 50 votes somewhere, and he’s not currently leading in any of the remaining Toss-Up states. If I was Obama, I’d be pretty comfortable with my path to 270. If I was Romney, I’d be a little concerned to say the least.
If you assign the Toss-Ups to the candidate currently leading in the polls, this is what the Electoral Map would look like:
Coincidentally, this is the map that I forecast in our OTB Predictions thread, although this isn’t what the No-Toss Ups map looked like over the weekend. The point is that this is the direction that the polls are pointing us. Not just one poll, not just Democratic polls, not just “skewed polls,” but all the polls. Even Rasmussen’s polling isn’t painting a very optimistic picture for the Romney campaign on this final night before Election Day. Despite that, Iv’e noticed that pretty much every pundit and blogger on the right who has weighed in on what might happen tomorrow has predicted a Romney victory, some of them to absurd lengths that include giving Romney states like Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon. Most of those people seem to be basing their projections not on the available evidence or some informed supposition about how the vote might go tomorrow, but on hope and blind faith. At the same time, there are also some observers that have taken a more sober view of the race who also project a Romney victory, such as Tom Dougherty, who has a background in analyzing and interpreting political data analysis such that I’m loath to question his conclusions. Perhaps it will turn out that the Pollyannas on the were correct to project a Romney landslide, or that Tom got this right and that the polls, and my own prediction were horribly wrong. If that happens, though, then I’ve got to say that we will need to seriously re-evaluate the entire science of political polling because the last time pollsters would have blown an election this badly would’ve been 1948 when Dewey didn’t defeat Truman.
I’m prepared for any eventuality tomorrow, but I remain convinced that the most likely outcome by far is that Barack Obama will be re-elected to a second term. Now, let’s let the voters decide this.
What we’ve seen is the national polls converge to the state polls. Takeaway:
1) Romney needs ALL polls to be systemically biased against him. In other words, only his campaign and Scott Rasmussen truly understand voter turnout amongst various groups, including Latinos. Har har.
2) The talk of a split popular/electoral college vote should subside.
3) Nate Silver and the other models that have been using state polls to forecast a popular vote win for Obama over the past few months are going to be looking very, very smart.
Dougherty’s prediction of a 285/253 win for Romney seems unlikely, but it’s not ridiculous nonsense like some of the 300+ EV predictions for Romney.
…I can state that if the Republican party of 2012 had ideas and policies that were attractive to the American Populace, the wall-to-wall lying, the non-Faux press-dodging, voter suppressing shenanigans we have been seeing all year would be unnecessary..
…Republicans need to own that.
…BTW it would be hugely comforting to know that in American Elections, that the way the votes are actually cast are how they are tabulated and presented as de-facto evidence of a fair election.
At present that is not the case.
What kind of miserable hacks are Michael Barone, George Will, and Dick Morris?
They have Romney winning more electoral votes than Dean “Unskewed Polls” Chambers does.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/05/pundit-accountability-the-official-2012-election-prediction-thread/
That’s right–there is nothing to distinguish mainstream Republican pundits from the laughingstock of the Internet.
Seriously, these chumps do not deserve to be taken seriously, ever again.
Steven Taylor commented the other day how democrats were affiliated with the middle class. I thought of him when I read this short piece asserting who’s the candidate of the rich not even being close.
@Geek, Esq.:
What kind of miserable hacks are Michael Barone, George Will, and Dick Morris?
In your world is there any room for a difference of opinion without being called names? Conservative sites, today, are talking about the big discreptancies in projected election outcomes, between both camps. But, instead of calling people ‘hacks,’ they are describing it as different people looking at different electoral models.
@jan:
If you’d bother to read the links before posting them you wouldn’t look so silly. Short version of the exit poll you are using as evidence: Voters making over $100k/yr are much more likely to vote GOP than voters making under $50k/yr.
The key question is this, who is now more credible, Dr Taylor or Timothy Carney?
Desperate, the Romney campaign is not touting its internal polling.
And the usual sites are lapping it up.
How many polls have the campaign done? How many of them have been released?
The Democrat running against Michelle Bachmann released a poll a couple of months ago showing him really close. Did anyone believe that poll showed the real result? Did Bachmann’s opponent release any more polls?
Like everybody else I’ve been following the polls and, having no other evidence, accept them at face value. However, one piece of data has not been discussed or wrapped into the predictions is the fact that the President has had job approval levels that have been slowly rising and have been positive since September. In fact, the job approval levels seem higher than the polls indicate. Has anybody read any insight into what this means?
@jan:
If Obama wins re-election and these predictions of a 300+EV win for Romney are shown to be nonsense, is it still out of line to call them hacks then? Also, I think calling Dick Morris a miserable hack is a compliment.
@jan:
They’re called ‘hacks’ because they are just making stuff up to suit their beliefs and because they get paid to do something that any idiot who has convictions could do.
@Geek, Esq.:
What is sad is that someone gives these people a platform, and pays them to spout trash.
@jan: You’re always good for a laugh. Dick Morris is now, and always has been, a hack. Michael Barone and George Will used to be serious; now, they’re engaged in partisan wishful thinking.
Dougherty’s methodology is the same as Jan’s:
“…who cares what polls say…I don’t like Obama so Romney is going to win…”
My problem is that I think the idiots like Jan and Dougherty will carry the day.
The comedians win and America loses. And Jan will have the pathological liar in the White House that she has wanted since Palin.
One election trivia is the latest polling data from Rasmussen that came out today. After polling some 15,000 people, with a MOE of 1 pt., he came up with an almost R+6 number in who comprises voters out there. Now, he could be wrong. But, if he isn’t, then that number is considerably different than the bulk of polling data which have any where from a D+2 all the way up to a D+11 (CNN) kind of screen in determining their numerical estimates of who is ahead or behind in states and nationally.
Also, Mitt Romney is attracting crowds much larger than Obama, with himself being the draw, without great rocker/rapper stars, like Bruce Springsteen and JayZ, who Obama has as opening acts to draw crowds at his events.
@Fiona:
Morris is pure entertainment, I agree. However, Will and especially Barone have their act together. Just because they don’t see it like you all do around here, doesn’t autmatically put them in the ‘Hack’ or ‘wishful thinking’ files. BTW, what are you going to say if they are right. Is your default answer going to go from ‘Hack’ to voter suppression? Just curious.
@David M:
Like I said before, I look at both sides predictions as looking at different models. Both the Obama and the Romney campaigns seem seriously not BSing in their beliefs that their side has the wind at their back and are winning this thing.One of them is going to be very wrong and consequently very bummed.
..George Will lost all credibility with his lies about Climate Change Science.
I just saw Christine Todd Whitman describing what Republicans have done to Democracy in FLA as a “third world nation.”
If you can’t compete…cheat.
Republicans turn my stomach.
@jan:
Re. crowds? Last chance to see. Retirement tour.
@jan:
I do love the way you folks find a statistic and cling to it like a life raft. Do you suppose Nate Silver and Sam Wang have just overlooked whatever statistic Fox showed you? Or do you think they’re deliberately blowing up their reputations by making phony predictions?
I’m far from declaring victory. I’m a guy who doesn’t believe I’ve got a deal until I’ve actually spent the advance. So I’ll wait to celebrate if there’s something to celebrate 24 hours from now.
But that aside, seriously, do you think all the professional poll gurus are just messing with you? And only you and Fox news know the truth?
@jan: If attendance is the marker, why isn’t Britney Spears president?
Or Palin, for that matter?
@jan: Interesting statistics. Having more Republican voters out there and yet basically polling a tie seems to imply a lot of Republicans are voting for Obama. Of course, that is why I don’t practice math in public.
Jan is jealous that Romney can’t even get Fat Christie to join him campaigning.
So that becomes a good thing.
Delusions can be funny.
>a split between the winner of the Popular Vote and the winner of the Electoral College … has only happened four other times in American history
Actually, it’s only happened three times. A lot of people make the mistake of including 1824. That wasn’t a split; Andrew Jackson won a plurality in both the popular and electoral vote, but because he didn’t receive a majority of electors (due to there being four major candidates in the race), the election was thrown into Congress, which picked Adams.
Furthermore, the “splits” that allegedly occurred in 1876 and 2000 happened, in both cases, under highly questionable circumstances. Only in 1888, when Benjamin Harrison defeated President Cleveland electorally while losing the popular vote, did such a “split” occur without there being any controversy or doubt over the electoral results.
That should give an idea how rare this type of situation truly is–and why I’m always skeptical whenever people speculate that another such “split” is on the horizon. Because it happened (supposedly) just 12 years ago, people make the mistake of assuming it’s a lot more likely than it is. The fact that the 2000 debacle happened recently doesn’t change the fact that it was basically a freak occurrence.
I think Nate Silver gets this; he only gives about a 7% chance of such a split occurring in this election. That’s not that far from if you simply took the percentage of times it has already happened (3 out of 56 elections = 5%).
The worst part about the election being over tomorrow (subject to the inevitable lawsuits and recounts if Obama gets tossed out on his keister) is that the next major election cycle is two long years away. I for one might actually have to do my job in the interim, and that truly would be tragic.
In any event, I’m genuinely surprised that PA is close enough that Team Obama not only had to put money in there this past week they had to call in the cavalry in the form of Wild Bill Clinton. After PA voted for Kerry I had forever written off that state for GOP prez candidates. But Romney might actually win it, which would in various respects be shocking.
Still flabbergasted that Team Obama back in ’09, ’10, or even ’11, didn’t swap Ken Salazar for Biden. If Salazar had been on the ticket (or Tim Kaine, Kay Hagan, Sherrod Brown, etc.) the Dems really could have made life difficult for the GOP/RNC.
Surprised that Team Romney ran by GOP standards a pretty good campaign. Although if OH really does come down to the literal wire the decision not to name Rob Portman as veep (perplexing even in real time) could go down as one of the worst electoral blunders in history.
Most of all I’m surprised that Team Obama decided to go all in on the young urban SWF strategy, in addition of course to the inner city racial minority strategy. The latter is axiomatic. But the former might cost Obama the presidency. It’s a base turnout election, granted, but the wild card is the working and middle class white male vote, not Suzie von Abortion attending Smith, Wellesley or Barnard.
That all said, Tuesday p.m. is poised to be quite enthralling. Sort of like how a train wreck is enthralling.
Kylopod,
I understand what you’re saying about 1824 and you’re correct in one sense. However, it was a situation where the person who received the most popular votes did not receive the most electoral votes.
>However, it was a situation where the person who received the most popular votes did not receive the most electoral votes.
No, it wasn’t! Jackson received the most popular votes and the most electoral votes. He just didn’t receive a majority of electoral votes–only a plurality. So the race ended up being decided by Congress, not by electors.
@jan:
That’s not really the point as Barone, Will & Morris aren’t supposed to be part of the campaigns. If everything breaks Romney’s way and the polls have been biased against Romney by several points, he’ll still only win 295-243. Predictions for Romney above 300 EVs are nothing but wishful thinking, as are predictions that Obama could get over 370 EVs. Ridiculous predictions should be called out on both sides, but the GOP seems to have an appetite for them.
the President maintains a razor-thin 0.7 point lead in the RealClearPolitics Average. As I noted early today, though, that lead masks a momentum
Which is entirely attributable to PPP and Washington Post polling, which a truly objective and knowledgeable analyst would discard.
@David M:
Barone, Will, and especially Morris, have their own way of interpreting the nuances of the polling. I certainly can’t control their way of processing the election, nor am I going to pre-judge them right now. All these predictions are floating out there, including Nate Silver’s. Whoever, is totally off the mark will suffer a discredited reputation, including Nate Silver, should his high percentages of victory for Obama prove to be ‘wishful thinking,’ or looking like a hack job.
Tomorrow we will all have a better understanding of the public mood out there, and how closely they mirror the polls and election models of both campaigns.
@jan: The question is: if you are wrong with all your predictions, will you admit it? Or will you switch to conspiracy theories about “they stole our votes!” or “the MSM did us in!”
@Let’s Be Free:
The most recent PPP national poll in the RCP average was from April, so it must have been quite the poll to still be providing momentum for Obama. And the last two ABC News/Wash Post polls were both Obama +3, so that can’t account for any movement towards Obama.
Nate Silver updated 538 around 8:00 PM. (I’ve been nervously checking every half hour or so for the last week.) 91.4% odds for Obama, 50.6% – 48.2% popular vote. He’s taken OH off his competitive state list, numbers similar to national.
I used to think so. At some point I realized Will just had sophisticated language skills and a penchant for obscure historical political trivia, and therefore seemed a lot smarter than he actually was. His content is often idiotic, like his blithe dismissal of climate change. He literally said, in response to The summer heat records, that it was simply hot because it was summertime. Krugman makes him look like an idiot every other sunday with little effort.
@michael reynolds:
But that aside, seriously, do you think all the professional poll gurus are just messing with you? And only you and Fox news know the truth?
As usual you extrapolate much more from my posts than what is said, padding it with your own subjective generalizations construed about other people, political parties, and who knowns what else.
Polls to me are markers along the way, that man has computed and put out there for public consumption. I’ve already acknowledged that the polls are either tied, or with Obama ahead — most, though, being squarely in the MOE. Beyond these tedious rearrangement of numbers, though, are other variables, which most of you seem to dismiss.
I don’t.
However, from the posts on OTB, most of you seem totally invested in these polls, calling others who are not, delusional. It’s funny, because certainty is not guaranteed for most things in life, including elections that look like they are in the bag. I, for instance, am not certain that Mitt Romney is going to win. But, I also definitely feel there is much to hang hopes on, making inroads in these snapshot polling numbers, changing the ultimate end game of EV’s that each candidate has that will be surprising to many of you.
I think Obama has the edge, but I also think some of the criticism regarding the polls-especially those with really high D turnout may in the end have some merit. I don’t think it is necessarily hackery to complain about a poll with a D+9 or 11, but who knows, the D’s might turn out in numbers that high.
I think Morris is a hack though, period.
I am curious though if the criticism of the polls plays out and Romney wins, what will the story here be since anyone who has doubts about the polls is declared a hack.
My guess is still that Obama wins mostly because he just has too many states with large electoral votes in the bag without even trying.
I will be curious though, once Obama becomes a lame duck if the media will actually start to cover him with a more critical eye, or if they will continue to pander.
@jan:
That’s not exactly right, as some states like Ohio may have individual polls that are within the margin of error, but when polling aggregators combine the poll results it reduces the margin of error and gives Obama a statistically significant lead.
@Geek, Esq.:
Barone and Will are hacks, to be sure, but ‘miserable hacks’?
Dick Morris, on the other hand, is quite possibly lower than a drowned cockroach at the bottom of the Mariana Trench (and I’m sorry I had to impugn drowned cockroaches in this manner.)
@gVOR08:
Nate Silver has no where to go but double down on his predictions, based upon a mathamathical model that many think is outdated and simply not applicable to 2012. In some quarters, Silver is taking on a John Zogby patina, a polling guru who was the darling a while back. But, due to some really bad predictions Zogby is now in the Dick Morris category. Silver could be there after Tuesday. Just sayin….
@Just Me:
That’s pretty much the reason I’ve been mocking the idea of Romney winning with 300+ EVs. Romney winning would be a surprise, but if it happens it’ll be a narrow win like 271-267.
@David M:
Trends are where it is at…..which way the numbers are going.
I think Ohio will go for Romney.
The early and absentee voting has been down for dems and up for R’s, compared to what went on in 2008. And, this is a state who heavily goes R on election day — even McCain won the numbers on election day in Ohio, but lost the state due to the high early and absentee votes Obama was able to bank before election day.
Actually, this early voting pattern, of R’s doing better, dems doing worse, in ’12 than they did in ’08, is something occurring in most of the swing states.
@jan:
Nate Silver is a statistician, not a pollster, and he has a proven record of accuracy. In 2008 he called the Obama victory in great detail, and in 2010 he called the huge GOP congressional victory with great precision. Not every one is as biased as conservative pundits.
@Tsar Nicholas: Which job would that be, the one at the petroleum brokerage, the consulting firm, the law office, or the labor arbitration firm?
The Romney campaign seems to be hanging it’s hat on “Pennsylvania is in play.” That’s the same 11th hour cheese that McCain churned out in 2008. I think bithead was the only person in America that fell for it.
@jan:
Well, we’ll know in about 24 hours.
@Just Me:
I will be curious though, once Obama becomes a lame duck if the media will actually start to cover him with a more critical eye, or if they will continue to pander.
After the election, Benghazi is going to burst open, rendering details exposing Obama’s bad judgement call, and then the cover-up that ensued. I also think that Fema’s faux pas are going to mount, like not ordering enough water, not having generators on hand, food shortages, gas lines, people crying and suffering, sanitary conditions breaking down…it’s going to get ugly, and is already being termed as Katrina II by some, and given an F- by people like Rudy Guiliani. The MSM, though, is toning down any criticism, while exploiting the Christie photo op — unlike what they did with Bush and Katrina.
Obama has a larger lead in Ohio polls this year than he did in 2008.
@michael reynolds:
Well, we’ll know in about 24 hours.
Agree.
If you’re right I’ll be back and admit as such………
You meant the guy who did noting to protect the health of workers at ground zero? Yea, I am really interested in his opinion.
Jesus Christ….jan repeats every single talking point….you don’t have to watch Fox News…jan will repeat it for you here.
What a pathetic being.
@David M:
Ohio early voting decline for Obama. There are many ways to massage the data. But, what seems to be constant is that fewer people have been a part of early voting in areas that went for Obama in Ohio in ’08. Most of the data has been based on what has been collected through Saturday. So, it could be different by tonight. Also, a characteristic of republicans, in that state, is to vote on election day. The GOTV tomorrow will decide what happens in Ohio.
Obama’s fuzzy Ohio early vote math.
@anjin-san:
Hmmmm, so Guiliani was known for nothing else dealing with 911. Selective memory you have….
I wonder how much disease will be encountered (flood water sewage etc), in years to come, from the mishandling of Sandy? Any crystal balls around?
Please provide specifics. What exactly should have been done differently? And why would Christie give one of his biggest political enemies rave reviews for doing a crappy job?
Also please give some detail on the specific health hazards that will exist years from now.
However, from the posts on OTB, most of you seem totally invested in these polls, calling others who are not, delusional.
Delusional, or at least engaging in wishful thinking, are those on the right predicting a Romney landslide. It’s certainly possible he could eke out a victory, but it’s likely to be a narrow one, given the electoral map and the outcomes of most recent elections, which have been relatively close. The electorate is simply too divided for a landslide for one candidate or another. Romney’s no Reagan.
BTW, I have been in the middle of a major flood – there was a picture of my street on the cover of Newsweek. Disease risks from floods are measure in days and weeks – not years.
@anjin-san:
I don’t have a crystal ball, and neither did the people who were clawing their way thru the ruins of the twin towers. For you to sit on the sidelines now, and give a crappy response like you did about Guiliana, who was on the front lines 24/7 thru that horrific time is stupid!
BTW, what did Obama do after his brief NJ tour, making a few calls to cut red tape for Chistie, have a photo or two taken, but to breeze off for Las Vegas again — same thing he did during the Benghazi event? He has been handling the tragedy from a long distance vantage ever since — yeah, very presidential! The standards dems set for R presidents are not the same for presidents that have a D next to their name — that is for sure!
First Results are In! It’s a Tie!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/06/1156513/-First-Official-NH-Results-Obama-5-Romney-5
Why does the timestamp on my previous post say 00:45?
I know that is EST but here in the Central Time Zone it is 11:26 PM.
@ Jan
I thought Guiliani was a good mayor, I spent a lot of time in NYC while he was in office. He had a few good days on TV after 9.11. As noted, he colluded with the Bush administration to whitewash the health risks at ground zero. A lot of good men are paying the price.
On the national stage, Guiliani has been an utter buffoon.
@ Jan
In other words, you can’t provide any specifics about Obama’s supposed mistakes related to Sandy. You can’t explain why there will supposedly be health risks years downstream. You are just parroting the latest line from Fox. Got it.
You don’t need a crystal ball – we have something called science. Sadly, conservatives have turned their back on it.
@jan:
“Many think…”. “In some quarters…”. Care to specify? Or are those similar to “they say…”?
@jan:
Ohio does not have partisan voter registration, so GOP vote totals are inflated because they had a presidential primary and anyone who voted in that primary is considered a Republican. It’s likely Obama still has a healthy early voting lead in Ohio.
Jan sez:
But she lies by omission and ignores the huge stars Romeny has had at his events…Meatloaf and Kid Rock.
Jan…a truly pathetic being.
Jan’s “mishandling of Sandy” isn’t just wrong, it’s deeply evil.
A lot of fine people lost their lives. You can see their faces and read their stories here.
Beyond the practical “heed evacuation” advice, also avoid risky trees, and for God’s sake follow manufacturer’s recommendations for safe use of a gasoline generator.
(I was clipped by a falling tree branch, at night, backpacking. Gave me a healthy respect. Sleeping in a tent figuring there was a 80% chance you had fractured arm will do that. Do NOT try to move the car.)
The above is from Dougherty’s site. Personal accountability and responsibility are important to him, and he’s voting for Romney? The disconnect on the right is of startling proportions.
@bk: I really doubt that Jan could explain a Monte Carlo process even with Google. An understanding of statistics (or math) she does not have.
(And yes, by the way, I used Monte Carlo simulations when doing the background work for my doctoral thesis. On supercomputers. Any questions?)
Hi Jan