Eight maps to understand 2008 electoral college structure

[Antonio the Sixth]

I would like to study more precisely the structure of electoral votes for this election. The following maps are simulations of the Electoral College results of 2008 functions of the popular vote margin. It shows us a lot of things.

- Obama +20%

Obama's biggest weakness : even with a landslide victory, he can't win more than 451 E.V. Republican popular vote appears to be concentrated in some very solid strongholds. Interesting to see that Texas isn't one of them.


- Obama +10%

Even in these situation, McCain does quite good, with Obama carrying only 378 E.V when Clinton won 379 with 1,5% less.


- Obama +5%

Now we see Obama keeping a 338 E.V. majority.


- Obama + 1%

Obama manages to keep Virginia by 0.05% and gets 291 E.V. It's a very good performance, especially considering that Al Gore lost electoral vote with about the same margin.


- McCain +1%

Now we can see McCain's structural failure : even with an 1% popular vote margin,  he would only win 260 votes and so lose the election. Obama so has about 1% of structural advantage : that's enough to reduce McCain possibilities of win.


- McCain +5%

We see a quite strange map for these years : Now Nevada appears to be more democrat than traditionnal democrat strongholds like Minnesota. New Mexico, where John Kerry failed to win in 2004, becomes too a solid democrat state. Anyway, McCain's 311 E.V. is a poor performance.


- McCain : +10%

Now we begin to see McCain doing better than Obama, only failing to carry Northeastern states and obviously Illinois, Hawaii and California, who's becoming a very strong democrat state. McCain manages to get 381 E.V.


- McCain : +20%

You can see what a McCain landslide would look like : carrying 524 E.V., McCain would get a victory comparable with 1972 and 1984 elections. Obama has got only four true strongholds : DC, Hawaii, Vermont and Rhode Island.


We can sum up these result with a table :

Lead	Obama	McCain
20%	451	524
10%	378	381
5%	338	311
1%	291	260

We now can see the famous "blue wall" ( red in this case ) : Democratic vote is more disseminated while Republican is too concentrated : that gives the democrats a very usefull advantage for close election. However, a Republican landslide would be more impressive than a Democrat one.

[pbrower2a]

America is severely rifted along cultural lines. A phenomenon known as the Religious Right -- fundamentalist Christian Protestants who believe that the Bible is literal truth overpowering even rational science, has real power in some parts of America, and that one believes in the Bible their way or risks burning in Hell. Its members are easily manipulated by their preachers (in a church or on a TV screen) who tell them how to vote. They are as a group ill-educated, underpaid people who hold miserable jobs and have large families to support. They believe that the world is a dangerous place full of traps for anyone who wanders from the path set out for them: believe, obey, and sacrifice all happiness.  One might think them potential socialists because of their economic distress. Such proves wrong according to their votes; they vote for the most reactionary politicians available because their preachers tell them to vote "as if their choice is between eternal Glory and eternal damnation".

These people will tell you that Charles Darwin is in Hell for promoting evolution along with all other promoters of "un-Biblical" doctrines. Don't ask.  I must admit that I have used the threat of eternal damnation... against a neo-Nazi. If God is just, then I can imagine Him excusing all sorts of systems of belief except Nazism, no matter which religious doctrine He determines is right.

In November 2004, I (obviously not a member of the Religious Right) was convinced that no thinking person could possibly vote for George W. Bush, a disaster of a President who had sold out America to corrupt and rapacious special interests who treated Americans badly and had gotten America into a troublesome and unjust war that Dubya and his associates had  bungled. A Kerry ad directed at people in Michigan and Ohio (at the least -- states then in economic distress)  lambasted Dubya for economic performance and hardships that I figured that the rank-and-file of the Religious Right would find attractive: vote for one's economic interests. Yet this failed.

As I prepared to go vote, I saw plenty of journalists assuring that Kerry would win decisively because of Dubya's inadequacy in almost every aspect of his governance -- until as I went through the TV channels I saw some television preacher telling people to vote for Dubya, despite all the hardships associated with a right-wing political hack who served only the most rapacious and corrupt interests in America:

"Vote for George W. Bush because YOUR SALVATION DEPENDS UPON YOUR VOTE!"

In essence, it is an appeal to one of the ultimate fears: Believe it or burn (in Hell). That is a huge threat to people who believe that there is only one route to salvation.  It tells people that economic distress is a triviality instead of a trap. It tells people that faith is far better than reason.  It tells them that only one valid culture exists, a culture to be protected at all costs from any challenge -- even science.

Their world is not pretty. It is undereducated (remember -- formal education is a trap with its secularism), it usually has bad jobs (workers in low-paying factories, cleaning, restaurant work), and large families. It is largely white, but it is still plagued with high rates of family violence, illegitimacy, and divorce. It is culturally empty except for the culture of their churches (never mind that the Lutherans and Catholics have far better music!)

It is heavily concentrated in the American Southeast... and that is one region in which Obama got crushed politically. The only places in which Obama did worse were Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah, where the Mormons are heavily concentrated and have a different basis of conservatism (they have their own self-contained communities that take care of themselves and don't need much government activity). The Religious Right has members in all parts of America, but not enough that  they can control political life. Where the irreligious, African-American Protestants (who have very different attitudes on economics in view of their history), Catholics, and Jews outnumber the Religious Right and Mormons, Obama did very well.

The Religious Right had its peak around the year 2000, and around that peak it was able to catapult right-wing politicians to power. It may have wanted its children to continue the tradition of Biblical literalism and right-wing politics, but it was unable to keep its youth from fleeing at the first opportunity, and it was unable to attract youth from other origins. As its membership ages, its power wanes and so does its ability to get its political favorites elected.       

[Antonio the Sixth]

Very good post, I perfectly agree with you. These religious right ruined America as nobody did in the past. But now, time for a change is come : rational America, intelligent America, progressive America has taken the power with the best politician since Franklin Roosevelt. Obama can change America, and America wants to change : now we expect truly progressive policies, more freedom and more justice for the future society.
Ok, I know that I am very, very utopian, but history shows us that changes happen : the Roosevelt revolution in 1932, as the Reagan revolution who created so many problems to America.

In fact, I'm more optimistic for the USA than for France or Italy, were two ultraconservatives can govern without opposition and destroy all the past progresses.

YES, WE CAN !!!

[minionofmidas]

We now can see the famous "blue wall" ( red in this case ) : Democratic vote is more disseminated while Republican is too concentrated

which, of course, goes quite against conventional wisdom, which has it that Democrats are concentrated in the big cities and the Black Belt and are out of touch with Teh Real America.

Mind you, things look much more (though not quite) like the conventional wisdom when looking at county rather than state maps. But counties don't have electoral votes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

which, of course, goes quite against conventional wisdom, which has it that Democrats are concentrated in the big cities and the Black Belt and are out of touch with Teh Real America.

Exactly.

[Person Man]

I mean, the implications of these new developments are very exciting. However, the  Religous Right as a distinct ethno-sectarian feature in the United States has been around since at least the 1830s, if not sooner. It's just how it has manifested itself. In the 19th century, they were pretty much divided, politically....however, by the end of the 19th Century, Bryanism created a new "Populist" fundamentalist movement that allied the unions and the Religious Right. However, the 1920s saw the Scopes Trial in Tennessee and the start of the Great Depression....At this point, the Religous Right was socially isolated and did not have a particular "brand" of politics to sell to the American people as the Depression and World War II was being dealt with...until the end of the 1960s, they were pretty much self contained groups throughout the Rural and Southern United States...with their own news stations, brand of Christianity and social groups. By the end of the 1960s, there were new thoughts on how families and society should be run. The idea that people should be able to come to their own conclusions about how to live, worship and bear children began to spread throughout the country, in conjuntion with the Civil Rights movement. The Religious Right began to see that their limited role in America was threatened, and what they lacked in wealth, they made up in with sheer numbers. Eventually, the Nixonian Republicans began to capitalize on this idea that minorities disproportiately benefitted from the new oppurtunities that America's new social contract provided and eventually, Nixon and the Reagan were able to capitalize on a "Southern Strategy",that warned working class white religious fundamentalists that the social contract that in theory protects them from their cruel masters is a form of "reverse discrimination" against whites and at least Fundamentalist Christians. However, their pull is declining as the rise in power that the "Southern Strategy" bestowed upon them is causing them to assimilate into main stream society. So, basically, the Religious Right, was either apolitical, left-leaning or how they are now throughout their history. It just depends on who comes to them. Is it them versus their pin-stripped masters or is it them versus a other ethno-sectarian groups. What will be interesting to see in America's future is how the American Right will reform itself....with the religious right assimilating, the Right can either focus on class divides, ethnic divides or religious divides that transcend ethnic divides (though, this will make it harder for the economic conservatives because they won't be able to blame a less fortunate group for higher taxes). So basically, I see the Republicans of 2020 looking like the Democrats of 1920 or the Republicans of 1950.

[minionofmidas]

Mind you, things look much more (though not quite) like the conventional wisdom when looking at county rather than state maps. But counties don't have electoral votes.

Looking into this... I began with New England.

Obama + 20 - he wins every county in the region, obviously.
Obama + 10 - same map as really happened, ie every county but Piscataquis
Obama +5 - McCain wins Piscataquis and Washington (ME), Belknap and Rockingham (NH).
Obama +1 - McCain adds 5 more ME counties, Carroll and Hillsborough (NH), and Litchfield (CT)
McCain +1 - adds Plymouth (MA)
McCain +5 - adds Aroostook (ME)
McCain +10 - adds 3 more ME counties, Merrimack (NH), Essex (VT), Worcester and Barnstable (MA) and Windham (CT)
McCain +20 - adds 4 more ME counties, Obama winning only Cumberland. Adds 3 more NH counties, Obama winning only Grafton and Cheshire. Adds 3 more VT counties -  Caledonia, Franklin and Rutland - Obama still winning 10. Adds 4 more MA counties - Hampden, Essex, Norfolk and Bristol - Obama still winning 7. Adds 4 RI counties, Obama winning only Providence (but the state). Adds 5 more CT counties, Obama winning only Hartford.

EDITed for 3 sillee mistakes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Mind you, things look much more (though not quite) like the conventional wisdom when looking at county rather than state maps. But counties don't have electoral votes.

Looking into this... I began with New England.

Obama + 20 - he wins every county in the region, obviously.
Obama + 10 - same map as really happened, ie every county but Piscataquis
Obama +5 - McCain wins Piscataquis and Washington (ME), Belknap and Rockinham (NH).
Obama +1 - McCain adds 5 more ME counties, Carroll and Hillsborough (NH), and Litchfield (CT)
McCain +1 - adds Plymouth (MA)
McCain +5 - adds Aroostook (ME)
McCain +10 - adds 3 more ME counties, Merrimack (NH), Essex (VT), Worcester and Barnstable (MA), Kent (RI) and Windham (CT)
McCain +20 - adds 4 more ME counties, Obama winning only Cumberland. Adds 4 more NH counties, Obama winning only Grafton. Adds 4 more VT counties - Orleans, Caledonia, Franklin and Rutland - Obama still winning 9. Adds 4 more MA counties - Hampden, Essex, Norfolk and Bristol - Obama still winning 7. Adds 3 more RI counties, Obama winning only Providence (but the state). Adds 5 more CT counties, Obama winning only Hartford.

Very good job. Unfortunately, New England is not at all representative of the coutry...

[minionofmidas]

Very good job. Unfortunately, New England is not at all representative of the coutry...

Yes, I know. I just had to begin somewhere. Will continue this.

New York, New Jersey, New England

D by 20 has McCain winning Schoharie, Hamilton, Steuben, Allegany, Wyoming, Genesee and Orleans in NY, Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon and Ocean in NJ, and 30 counties in central and western Pennsylvania (out of 47 he really won. Okay, so two of the 30 - Bradford and Sullivan - are in northeastern Pennsylvania, I'll admit it.)
D by 10 has McCain winning all the counties he really won minus Chenango, Chemung, Ontario in NY and Mercer and Greene in PA. Clinton PA is tied.
D by 5 has McCain winning all the counties he really won plus Washington, Madison, Niagara, Chautauqua NY and Carbon and Cambria PA.
D by 1 has McCain adding 8 more NY counties (including some big prizes, most notably Suffolk), Somerset and Salem NJ and Elk PA.
R by 1 adds just one more scalp - Broome NY.
R by 5 adds 7 more NY counties including Nassau, Bergen and Gloucester NJ, and 6 PA counties including Bucks and Berks (and the state).
R by 10 adds 4 more NY counties, Atlantic NJ (and the state), and 4 more PA counties, including Allegheny.
R by 20 adds 6 more NY counties including Erie (and the state), 4 more NJ counties, and 4 more PA counties. By that point, Obama holds only the four larger NYC Boroughs, Westchester, Albany and Tompkins NY, Hudson, Essex, Union, Mercer and Camden NJ, and Philly.

Ohio
D by 20 still has Obama winning only half the counties in the state - exactly so: 44 out of 88. Still, that's twice as many as he really won (again, exactly so).
D by 10 has Obama winning what he really won plus Harrison, Seneca, Hocking, Pike and Clark.
D by 5 has McCain winning what he really won plus Lake and Jefferson.
D by 1 gives McCain six extra counties including Stark and Montgomery, and the state.
R by 1 adds Wood, Portage and Hamilton (thus reducing Obama to exactly half the no. of counties he really won)
R by 5 adds Monroe.
R by 10 adds Erie, Ashtabula and Summit.
R by 20 adds Lorain, Trumbull, Mahoning and Franklin, leaving Democrats with Lucas, Cuyahoga and Athens.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Antonio,

Excellent work!

Suggest you crank in the projected reapportionment for 2010, and you'll see significantly different results.

[pbrower2a]

I would like to study more precisely the structure of electoral votes for this election. The following maps are simulations of the Electoral College results of 2008 functions of the popular vote margin. It shows us a lot of things.

- Obama +20%

Here's the point:

Bill Clinton was able to win the states in  green in 1992 or 1996. Jimmy Carter was able to win the states in yellow and green in 1976.  Both won running as southern moderate Democrats.  Should Obama convince people in those states colored yellow and green, he wins the electoral college 504-34. (You don't show it, but due to a quirk of Nebraska and Maine law those states apportion their electoral votes in accordance with the formula of two statewide for the statewide winner and the others to the winners of Congressional districts. No other states do so. That's how Obama wins 504 electoral votes in that scenario: Obama would barely win two of three electoral districts in Nebraska but lose statewide and lose one district by about a 75-25 margin. Maine would split its electoral votes only in a huge Republican landslide).

Obama just couldn't allay the concerns of Americans in the South outside of Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, states that have drifted away from the southern political culture. If he is effective between now and November 2012, then he probably picks off a few states from the yellow and green categories.  

[Person Man]

He might have a chance in Texas, Georgia and SC, but I don't tkink Obama or anyone else could pull in the others.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here's the point:

Bill Clinton was able to win the states in  green in 1992 or 1996. Jimmy Carter was able to win the states in yellow and green in 1976.  Both won running as southern moderate Democrats.  Should Obama convince people in those states colored yellow and green, he wins the electoral college 504-34.

Yes, but the real point is that, contrary to Carter and Clinton, Obama doesn't more need to be saw as a moderate. The democrat's advantage permit them to run as real progressives instead of moderates : now a liberal like Obama can win the election without the help of the South ( excepted Virginia who is influenced by Washington DC suburbs ).

[minionofmidas]

Yes, but the real point is that, contrary to Carter and Clinton, Obama doesn't more need to be saw as a moderate. The democrat's advantage permit them to run as real progressives instead of moderates : now a liberal like Obama can win the election without the help of the South ( excepted Virginia who is influenced by Washington DC suburbs ).

But only if they do as well as Obama - and Gore - in the suburbs. Which depends on continued unpopularity of the Republicans there. Which is not a given.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, but the real point is that, contrary to Carter and Clinton, Obama doesn't more need to be saw as a moderate. The democrat's advantage permit them to run as real progressives instead of moderates : now a liberal like Obama can win the election without the help of the South ( excepted Virginia who is influenced by Washington DC suburbs ).

But only if they do as well as Obama - and Gore - in the suburbs. Which depends on continued unpopularity of the Republicans there. Which is not a given.

After Bush policies, who ruined American economy, they will continue to have resentment for at least one decade. Don't forget that the last who did so, Jimmy Carter, permitted a 12-years period of republican government.

[pbrower2a]

Yes, but the real point is that, contrary to Carter and Clinton, Obama doesn't more need to be saw as a moderate. The democrat's advantage permit them to run as real progressives instead of moderates : now a liberal like Obama can win the election without the help of the South ( excepted Virginia who is influenced by Washington DC suburbs ).

But only if they do as well as Obama - and Gore - in the suburbs. Which depends on continued unpopularity of the Republicans there. Which is not a given.

Assuming that Obama doesn't foul up badly as President:

1. Incumbency aids any average-to-above President.

2. Nothing says that the GOP will run a strong Presidential candidate in 2012. Romney has yet to show that he can win in the South, and Huckabee has yet to show that he can win outside the South. John McCain was the strongest GOP nominee for President since Ronald Reagan, the elder Bush running on Reagan-era momentum.

3. Texas is a possible GOP loss in 2012. It is not a core southern state; think of it as Kansas (northwestern Texas, including Amarillo, Lubbock, Wichita Falls, Midland, and Odessa) grafted onto Florida (but with more blacks and Mexican-Americans instead of Cuban-Americans). Mexican-Americans are a fast-growing part of the electorate and they are younger and  more liberal than America as a whole.

Should Obama win Florida by 8%, Obama wins Texas in 2012 because Florida is about four times the size of Kansas in electoral votes.

4. Obama ran an "Avoid the South" (except VA, NC, and FL, and for a short time GA and SC) campaign. In 2012 his electoral campaign will less target specific states because he will have lesser direction of his campaign because he will have greater concerns as President. By 2012 the Southern states that he lost by double-digit or near-double-digit margins (GA, SC, WV, KY, TN, MS, AL, LA, AR) will either accept his Presidency and vote for him or reject it. If these states' voters think that Obama did fine, then Obama picks up several of them together.

[minionofmidas]

2. Nothing says that the GOP will run a strong Presidential candidate in 2012.

No, but nothing says they'll run a sacrificial lamb either.

All I'm saying is, don't get too cocky. Some Republicans on here seem to take it for granted that Reps will rebound right away, some Democrats seem to take it for granted that 2008's pattern will be stable at least for a while.
Neither proposition is rational.

[Landslide Lyndon]

2. Nothing says that the GOP will run a strong Presidential candidate in 2012.

No, but nothing says they'll run a sacrificial lamb either.

All I'm saying is, don't get too cocky. Some Republicans on here seem to take it for granted that Reps will rebound right away, some Democrats seem to take it for granted that 2008's pattern will be stable at least for a while.
Neither proposition is rational.

Well, if Jindal, Romney and Palin are the best options the Republican party has to offer, then the Democrats are entitled to feel somewhat optimistic. (along the fact of course that Obama has shown time and again that he is an excellent politician)

[pbrower2a]

2. Nothing says that the GOP will run a strong Presidential candidate in 2012.

No, but nothing says they'll run a sacrificial lamb either.

All I'm saying is, don't get too cocky. Some Republicans on here seem to take it for granted that Reps will rebound right away, some Democrats seem to take it for granted that 2008's pattern will be stable at least for a while.
Neither proposition is rational.

Strange things can happen, but unless Obama really fouls up, the Republicans will need a candidate of unusual talent by the standards of the Presidency to beat him. The GOP might not want to offer a sacrificial lamb, but it won't let Obama run unopposed. They might as well run a Thomas E. Dewey who has a chance to build upon his 2012 performance as run a Walter Mondale equivalent best described as someone who gets eternal fame for "long and distinguished service to the Party" by running for the Presidency and getting defeated. Who is the equivalent of Ronald Reagan these days? I think that he is already in the White House.

Of course it is theoretically possible that the Detroit Lions Losers Football Team could win the 2011 Super Bowl or that Charles Manson could win a Nobel Peace Prize. Somewhat less likely than Obama getting defeated in a landslide, of course.

[minionofmidas]

Of course it is theoretically possible that the Detroit Lions Losers Football Team could win the 2011 Super Bowl or that Charles Manson could win a Nobel Peace Prize. Somewhat less likely than Obama getting defeated in a landslide, of course.

Landslide? Yeah, I don't see it either.

[jokerman]

Yes, but the real point is that, contrary to Carter and Clinton, Obama doesn't more need to be saw as a moderate. The democrat's advantage permit them to run as real progressives instead of moderates : now a liberal like Obama can win the election without the help of the South ( excepted Virginia who is influenced by Washington DC suburbs ).

But only if they do as well as Obama - and Gore - in the suburbs. Which depends on continued unpopularity of the Republicans there. Which is not a given.

After Bush policies, who ruined American economy, they will continue to have resentment for at least one decade. Don't forget that the last who did so, Jimmy Carter, permitted a 12-years period of republican government.

Suburban, middle class voters have notoriously short political memories.  It doesn't take long after a crisis for them to return to their vain pursuit of the American Dream (which drives them into siding with the wealthy classes), and aloofness towards any intellectual ideals in politics.

[pbrower2a]

2. Nothing says that the GOP will run a strong Presidential candidate in 2012.

No, but nothing says they'll run a sacrificial lamb either.

All I'm saying is, don't get too cocky. Some Republicans on here seem to take it for granted that Reps will rebound right away, some Democrats seem to take it for granted that 2008's pattern will be stable at least for a while.
Neither proposition is rational.

The last thing that I would expect is the stability of a pattern that dooms one of the major parties to predictable defeat over decades. During a time in which one party experiences frequent defeats it makes adjustments of its rhetoric and leadership. It tries to position itself to pick up constituencies that the other party neglects or serves badly. The alternative is oblivion. The Democratic Party leadership built a new coalition while Reagan and Bush were riding high with landslides. It got a charismatic young politician (Bill Clinton) instead of one of the tried-and-true losers like Walter Mondale to challenge a President who seemed out of pace with America.

The last realignment happened despite the dominance of one of the Parties, at least in the Presidency. In the close election of 1976, Jimmy Carter won Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas -- states that the Democrats have not since won. Gerald Ford won Washington, Oregon, California, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine -- states that the Republicans never won after the GOP landslides of 1980, 1984, and 1988.

What happens? No political party can satisfy everyone. It can't simultaneously aid the poor and deflect the ire of people who harbor contempt for the poor. It can't serve hawks and doves at the same time. It can't serve management and labor consistently to the satisfaction of both.

Repeated landslide elections show the structural weaknesses of the chronically-defeated Party but also create complicity among winners.  The underdog party picks up disgruntled voters from the other Party and puts itself in position to win.l



 

[Nym90]

Actually Ford lost Pennsylvania in 1976, but otherwise your point stands.

[justfollowingtheelections]

2. Nothing says that the GOP will run a strong Presidential candidate in 2012.

No, but nothing says they'll run a sacrificial lamb either.

All I'm saying is, don't get too cocky. Some Republicans on here seem to take it for granted that Reps will rebound right away, some Democrats seem to take it for granted that 2008's pattern will be stable at least for a while.
Neither proposition is rational.

Well, if Jindal, Romney and Palin are the best options the Republican party has to offer, then the Democrats are entitled to feel somewhat optimistic. (along the fact of course that Obama has shown time and again that he is an excellent politician)

Don't forget Huckabee

[pbrower2a]

2. Nothing says that the GOP will run a strong Presidential candidate in 2012.

No, but nothing says they'll run a sacrificial lamb either.

All I'm saying is, don't get too cocky. Some Republicans on here seem to take it for granted that Reps will rebound right away, some Democrats seem to take it for granted that 2008's pattern will be stable at least for a while.
Neither proposition is rational.

Well, if Jindal, Romney and Palin are the best options the Republican party has to offer, then the Democrats are entitled to feel somewhat optimistic. (along the fact of course that Obama has shown time and again that he is an excellent politician)

Don't forget Huckabee

Huckabee has yet to show that he would win the Republican nomination. Romney is likely to win a bunch of primaries in northern and western states that the Republicans had no real chance of winning in 2008 and have about the same chance of winning in 2012. But even if Huckabee won the Republican nomination, it's hard to understand how he would win any stats outside the South that didn't vote for Obama by double-digit margins.

Charlie Crist is probably the most likely of the current crop of GOP possibilities to have a chance to ever become President. Crist would probably lose to Obama about like Dewey lost to FDR in 1944, but he would have polished his political skills so that he could run against a weak successor to Obama and win. Other Republicans would show thier political weaknesses.