![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the lore of states
Nov. 6th, 2012 08:35 amAs I watch the presidential vote unfold tonight, I'm going to look at the swing state vote in historical terms. (Sorry, no map this time.) There's only a few swing states because, over the last few elections, the voting preferences of the states have stabilized remarkably. In 2008, nine states voted for Obama that had gone for Bush in 2004. (None went the other way.) I've checked all the elections in which the presidency turned over to the other party back to 1920, and this is the one in which the fewest states changed hands from the previous election. Add to that 2000, and you have a three-election stable platform.
How does that platform look going into 2012? Well, here's the states that went for the same party in all three elections, 2000-2008, in decreasing electoral vote:
Republican: TX, GA, AZ, TN, MO, AL, KY, LA, OK, AR, KS, MS, UT, NB, WV, ID, AK, MT, ND, SD, WY
Democratic: CA, NY, IL, PA, MI, NJ, WA, MA, MD, MN, WI, CT, OR, HI, ME, RI, DC, DE, VT
It's pretty safe to say that, if any of those go to the other party this time, that candidate is in trouble. The only possible exceptions are WI going Republican, because of Ryan's home state effect, or AZ going Democratic, which the Latino population keeps threatening to make it do, if Joe Arpaio doesn't lock them all up first. Ignoring those possibilities, it gives Democrats a base of 242 electoral votes and Republicans a base of 180, because even though the Republicans have more states, they skew smaller.
What about the remaining states? NH (4 votes) went R in 00, but D in both 04 and 08; it seems to be in the D column now. IA (6 votes) and NM (5 votes) went R in 04 but D in 00 and 08; IA is a tossup and NM seems to be in the D column. (It has lots of Latinos but it doesn't have Joe Arpaio.) Adding NH and NM to the D column gives a base of 251 electoral votes, only 19 away from a win.
Here's the remaining states, all of which voted for Bush twice and Obama once:
FL (29), OH (18), NC (15), VA (13), IN (11), CO (9), NV (6)
So, given the above disposition, if Obama also wins either FL, or OH and any one of the others, that's enough to take the election. Given the voting uncertainties in both FL and OH, what other routes are there? A lot of prognosticators like VA for Obama; as with OH, it and one other would be enough.* (I'm more doubtful: come on, VA? Obama's win there last time astonished me no less than NC or IN, both of which are also purple but pretty firmly in the R column this time.) Obama's likeliest prospects in this part of the list are CO and NV, but those aren't enough by themselves; however, CO and NV and IA together would be, barely.
So that's the angle from which I'll be watching the election tonight, or, rather, not watching it, but, as has been my custom for over a decade for breaking news of any kind (including 9/11), repeatedly pressing the "reload" button on news websites, so that I don't have to listen to the newscasters and commentators yammering away.
*And if that one other is NV, that's the squeakiest of all possible wins.
PS, and I'll say this now rather than jumping on the bandwagon later: I've changed my mind over supporting a national popular vote. With the increase in mailed-in ballots, it can take up to a month to get all the votes verified and counted. If the state already leans overwhelmingly a certain way, that won't affect the electoral vote under the current system, but in a close election under popular vote, any state's uncounted ballots could hold the presidency in uncertainty.
How does that platform look going into 2012? Well, here's the states that went for the same party in all three elections, 2000-2008, in decreasing electoral vote:
Republican: TX, GA, AZ, TN, MO, AL, KY, LA, OK, AR, KS, MS, UT, NB, WV, ID, AK, MT, ND, SD, WY
Democratic: CA, NY, IL, PA, MI, NJ, WA, MA, MD, MN, WI, CT, OR, HI, ME, RI, DC, DE, VT
It's pretty safe to say that, if any of those go to the other party this time, that candidate is in trouble. The only possible exceptions are WI going Republican, because of Ryan's home state effect, or AZ going Democratic, which the Latino population keeps threatening to make it do, if Joe Arpaio doesn't lock them all up first. Ignoring those possibilities, it gives Democrats a base of 242 electoral votes and Republicans a base of 180, because even though the Republicans have more states, they skew smaller.
What about the remaining states? NH (4 votes) went R in 00, but D in both 04 and 08; it seems to be in the D column now. IA (6 votes) and NM (5 votes) went R in 04 but D in 00 and 08; IA is a tossup and NM seems to be in the D column. (It has lots of Latinos but it doesn't have Joe Arpaio.) Adding NH and NM to the D column gives a base of 251 electoral votes, only 19 away from a win.
Here's the remaining states, all of which voted for Bush twice and Obama once:
FL (29), OH (18), NC (15), VA (13), IN (11), CO (9), NV (6)
So, given the above disposition, if Obama also wins either FL, or OH and any one of the others, that's enough to take the election. Given the voting uncertainties in both FL and OH, what other routes are there? A lot of prognosticators like VA for Obama; as with OH, it and one other would be enough.* (I'm more doubtful: come on, VA? Obama's win there last time astonished me no less than NC or IN, both of which are also purple but pretty firmly in the R column this time.) Obama's likeliest prospects in this part of the list are CO and NV, but those aren't enough by themselves; however, CO and NV and IA together would be, barely.
So that's the angle from which I'll be watching the election tonight, or, rather, not watching it, but, as has been my custom for over a decade for breaking news of any kind (including 9/11), repeatedly pressing the "reload" button on news websites, so that I don't have to listen to the newscasters and commentators yammering away.
*And if that one other is NV, that's the squeakiest of all possible wins.
PS, and I'll say this now rather than jumping on the bandwagon later: I've changed my mind over supporting a national popular vote. With the increase in mailed-in ballots, it can take up to a month to get all the votes verified and counted. If the state already leans overwhelmingly a certain way, that won't affect the electoral vote under the current system, but in a close election under popular vote, any state's uncounted ballots could hold the presidency in uncertainty.
