The good folks at PublicPolicyPolling, one of 2010's best pollsters, have begun a series of state polling for the 2012 cycle. In each state they're testing Obama against a standard battery of Romney, Palin, Huckabee, and Gingrich, plus occasional 'bonus' candidates in relevant states. I have checked for each of the numbers from each of the states what that poll suggests about the 2012 election, under the assumption of uniform national swing. In Britain they use UNS to go from national polls to district-level polls; here, I'm going from state-level to national-level. But then I'm going back to state-level to see how many electoral votes Obama would then win, using a likely 2010 apportionment. The takeaway? The only polls showing Obama losing are from essentially Mitt Romney's home states. Obama is leading this election.
Barack Obama won the 2008 national popular vote by 7.3%. The marginal state, i.e. the state that cast the 270th electoral vote for Obama ranking them from strongest to weakest margin, was Colorado, which he won by 9.0% (Iowa (+9.5%) cast Obama's 269th EV). A likely apportionment would still have Colorado as the marginal state, so we would need a 9.0% UNS or more in order for a Republican to win (this means Obama has a 2.7% structural advantage in the electoral college). If the map in 2012 were identical to that of 2008, using my apportionment, Obama would win 358, as opposed to 365, EVs. Okay, now to the polling data.
PPP have polled Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, and Montana in the latest round of polling. Obama won those states in 2008 by, respectively, 25.8%, 16.4%, 10.2%, 6.3%, 0.3%, -0.1%, and -2.4%. Keeping those numbers in mind...
PPP find Obama at the following numbers against Mitt Romney in these states: MA +9, MI +4, MN +5, VA +5, NC 0, MO -6, MT -11. All of those are significant swings against Obama except for Virginia; the range is from -1.3 to -16.8. That last is from Massachusetts, Romney's home state. There is every reason to think that that swing would not be national; likewise the -12.4% swing in Michigan, another Romney "home" state. These seven polls respectively put Obama at 166, 224, 286, 332, 358, 286, and 273 EVs. He's winning in all cases, but not by a whole lot (except taking the Virginia data).
PPP find Obama at the following numbers against Sarah Palin in these states: MA +29, MI +21, MN +18, VA +11, NC +5, MO +3, MT -2. Most of these are shifts toward Obama. Yeah, that's right. The range is from +0.4% in Montana to +7.8% in Minnesota. These polls respectively show Obama winning 372, 372, 388, 372, 372, 372, 372, and 369 EVs. I think it's fair to say Obama's sitting around 372 EVs against Palin, don't you?
PPP find Obama at the following numbers against Mike Huckabee in these states: MA +24, MI +12, MN +10, VA +5, NC -4, MO -7, MT -10. All shifts against Obama, ranging from -0.2% in MN to -7.6% in MT. These polls show Obama at 332, 304, 358, 332, 304, 273, and 273 EVs, respectively. I think Obama's in a similar place versus Huckabee as with Romney, though certainly with a very, very different map (and I might want to see some states where Huckabee is noticeably stronger than Romney before being confident of that).
PPP find Obama at the following numbers against Newt Gingrich in these states: MA +24, MI +15, MN +13, VA +11, NC +1, MO -1, MT -2. Swings from +4.7 in Virginia to -1.8% in Massachusetts, where it doesn't matter. These polls show Obama at 332, 332, 372, 372, 369, 343, and 369 EVs. I'd say that against Gingrich we're looking at a similar level overall to 2008, slightly worse than vs. Palin but much more comfortable than against Huckabee or Romney.
The only actual bonus candidate is Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota. He trails Obama by 8 there, suggesting a -2.2% swing. That would give Obama 332 EVs. If Pawlenty can't do well enough to project at least tied with Obama in his own state, it's hard for me to imagine him being competitive nationally.
Conclusion: So far at least, Barack Obama is in solid shape for the 2012 Presidential election. Huckabee or Romney would make the contest genuinely competitive, but there certainly doesn't appear to be massive atrophy compared to 2008 even against them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to visit, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR (6), CT (7), DE (3), DC (3), ME (4), MI (17), NV (5), NM (5), NY (31), NC (15), and OR (7), and both houses in CA (55), CO (9), HI (4), IL (21), NJ (15), MD (10), MA(12), RI (4), VT (3), and WA (11). The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
www.NationalPopularVote.com