In 2008, Obama won the national popular vote by 7.26% (52.87% for Obama and 45.60% for McCain) and got 365 EVs. Had McCain increased, and Obama decreased, their respective vote percentages by 4.47% in every state and the District of Columbia, McCain would have won the national popular vote by 1.67% (50.07% to 48.40%) but Obama would have still defeated him in the Electoral College by 278-260. And had McCain increased, and Obama decreased, their respective vote percentages by 4.76% in every state and the District of Columbia, McCain would have won the national popular vote by 2.25% (50.36% to 48.11%) but there would have been a 269-all tie in the Electoral College and the Democrat House would have decided the election.
But the 2008 elections were an aberration in more ways than one, and I don’t think there has been a presidential election in which the “fulcrum” state (the one that would need to flip in order for the other candidate to win assuming that such candidate gained votes by an equal percentage in every state) was one that the winning candidate carried by such a high percentage above his national victory margin. If Romney beats Obama in the national popular vote by 1%, I think he’ll carry NC, VA, FL, OH and NH and get to 270.
Yes, I've tinkered with Dave Leip's Atlas enough to know that. ;D
Good analysis. 2008 was an aberration and any conclusions about that election applied this year or in the future will be flawed.
It’s like ice skating judging. Throw out the low score, throw out the high score, and average the rest.
Elections where the overwhelming motivation to vote is emotion - either anger or enthusiasm (both in large supply in 2008) are outliers.