Posted on 10/31/2012 7:12:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
One of more absurd notions to crop up in the latter stages of the presidential campaign is that GOP challenger Mitt Romney could win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College vote.
Until Hurricane Sandy, this was a cable TV notion in search of historical and mathematical mooring. That it bobbed aimlessly through the occasionally mindless waters of talking heads made it no different from any other might-this-happen adventure in televised banality.
But think about it for just two seconds.
The concept is built on the theory that Romney could run up the vote in Southern and high Plains states and get close enough to Obama in the swing states to win the popular vote but fall just short of the magic 270 Electoral College number for victory.
I know from where this myopia springs. It would be hard in this campaign to remember that California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York are still part of the Union and their votes count. We remember Massachusetts only because Romney's headquarters is there. But we forget about it entirely in the context of this Romney-wins-the-popular-vote-only lunacy.
Consider this simple demonstration of Clintonian arithmetic. Here are the margins of victory in actual votes in 2000, 2004, and 2008 for the Democratic candidate in the following big-population blue states: California: Al Gore over George W. Bush by 1.3 million; John Kerry over Bush by 1.2 million; Barack Obama over John McCain by 3.2 million.
New York: Gore over Bush by 1.7 million; Kerry over Bush by 1.3 million; Obama over McCain by 2 million.
New Jersey: Gore over Bush by 504,000; Kerry over Bush by 241,000; Obama over McCain by 602,000.
Maryland: Gore over Bush by 331,000; Kerry over Bush 308,000; Obama over McCain by 669,000.
Massachusetts: Gore over Bush by 737,000; Kerry over Bush by 732,000; Obama over McCain by 795,000.
Illinois: Gore over Bush by 569,000; Kerry over Bush by 545,000; Obama over McCain by 1.3 million.
What about Texas, you might say. Wouldn't Romney roll up huge numbers there, partially off-setting these big blue states?
See for yourself. Texas: Bush over Gore by 1.3 million; Bush over Kerry by 1.6 million; McCain over Obama by 950,000. Romney will roll up a big number in Texas. But as the data show, the number fell by 600,000 votes from '04 to '08 and was 300,000 lower than 'the 00 cycle. It is likely to be somewhat smaller this year due to Texas's changing demographics and ideology.
Ask yourself this: Has Texas become more or less hospitable to Democrats since 2008 and does it still offset all the blue states? What about California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or New York? Of these, only New Jersey can be argued to have taken a slightly more right-leaning slant since 2008. Even so, it has, on average, given the Democratic nominee 449,000 more votes than the Republican in the last three cycles.
Don't kid yourself that turnout would be lower in these states this time because they aren't swing states and don't receive the media attention or candidate visits. That was just as true in 2000, 2004, and 2008 as it is now. And the popular-vote margins in these states are enormous and will loom large for President Obama. That means Obama won't have a popular-vote problem with Romney. He may have an electoral college problem, though.
Imagine a scenario in which Romney edges Obama by 100,000 in Ohio, 30,000 in Iowa, 15,000 in New Hampshire, and 50,000 in Virginia. That's 41 electoral votes with a microscopic edge of 195,000 votes in four states. That 195,000 would be slightly more than a third of the average Democratic margin since 2000 in New Jersey and one-tenth of the average Democratic winning margin in California.
Here's where Sandy comes in and could make a profound difference in terms of the popular vote and electoral vote.
Pennsylvania took a hit from Sandy. It wreaked havoc in Philadelphia and the eastern part of the state. Even before Sandy struck, the Obama campaign announced it was going up with TV ads to protect a statistically small lead. Obama knows he has to run up the vote in Philadelphia and outperform Romney in Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties in the Philadelphia suburbs to offset Romney's dominance in western Pennsylvania. Mobilizing voters in Philadelphia will be crucial and a big post-Sandy challenge. How important are these votes for Obama?
In south-central Philadelphia's 1st Congressional District, Obama beat McCain by 222,664 votes. Kerry beat Bush there by 179,818. In western Philadelphia's 2nd Congressional District, Obama beat McCain by 267,250 votes. Kerry beat Bush there by 228,363.
From two Philly districts, Obama extracted a popular-vote advantage of 489,914. Obama carried Pennsylvania by 620,478. Seventy-nine percent of Obama's statewide margin came from the 1st and 2nd congressional districts. Those votes and the ability of those voters to navigate city streets and deal with the post-Sandy deluge may loom large in the battle for Pennsylvania and its 20 electoral votes. This will also be true in Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery for both campaigns. But inner-city Philadelphia is vital to Obama.
Obama might also absorb popular-vote losses disproportionate to his 2008 performance or the Kerry and Gore standards in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. Together, these states produced an Obama victory of 3.4 million votes. They gave Kerry a 2.3 million edge and Gore a 2.7 million margin. The three-cycle average of Democratic nominee victories in these three states combined is 2.8 million votes.
Storm-diminished turnouts in these three states could cost Obama tens of thousands of popular votes. It could also cost him 20 electoral votes in Pennsylvania. The implications are obvious in Virginia as well, but that state was always going to be close and the margin of victory understood to be narrow. There are ways Obama can win without Virginia but not many without Pennsylvania.
The chance of a Romney popular-vote victory and Obama Electoral College victory were always statistically and mathematically remote. The chances of the opposite occurring were always easier for me to see. And Sandy may alter that terrain in ways that prove more harmful to Obama than Romney.
Sandy will be blamed for Obama’s defeat.
It might just be enough to counter Dem vote fraud. Maybe.
Well, Obama blamed the Arab Spring and Japan’s Tsunami for lack of job growth and a slowing economy, so this is just par for the course.
Cheers!
Maybe spotty issues in the 13th (a lot of power outages out there still), but doubtful.
If anything, I see Sandy possibly impacting red parts of the state that will be the slowest to have power restored due to lower population densities and therefore lower priority in getting them restored.
Sandy could affect the results in Connecticut. The Connecticut coastal cities and towns got hammered. Further inland the damage was minimal and life is quickly returning to normal.
Obama is up by single digits in Connecticut; 5%-9%, depending on which poll you look at.
Here are some of Connecticut’s coastal cities (numbers refer to 2008 election):
New Haven - 88.5% Obama, cast 2.7% of all votes in Connecticut
Bridgeport - 83.9% Obama, 2.5% of votes
New London - 80.8% Obama, 0.6% of votes
Hamden - 70.1% Obama, 1.8% of votes
West Haven - 66.9% Obama, 1.3% of votes
Norwich - 66.4% Obama, 0.1% of votes
Norwalk - 65.9% Obama, 2.3% of votes
Westport - 65.3% Obama, 0.1% of votes
Stamford - 64.4% Obama, 3.0% of votes
The only conservative towns on the Connecticut coast are negligable:
Darien - 45.4% Obama, 0.1% of vote
New Canaan - 46.9% Obama, 0.1% of vote
The loss of power in the coastal cities and towns could result in a loss of 7.5% of Obama’s 2008 support.
Sandy plays ZIP in the election.
Maybe time to stick your thumb in dye, too.
Stop early voting. You go to the booth like you're supposed to....where there is no gun to your head.
If Sandy is used as an excuse for Obamatons not voting then it says nothing about Romney and everything about the quality of people who support Obama.
Personally, I’d swim the streets to get to my polling station. Most polling stations are located a mile or two from people’s homes. If the station is open there is no excuse, no plausible way to spin it.
People line up for hours, in all weather, for an iPhone but can’t find there way to a poll. Beeeee Essssss.
I don’t give a RIP who/what is blamed.
I will just be THRILLED to see the Marxist defeated!
I do feel badly for the good people who suffered losses in this storm.
If people are languishing in the dark and cold for days or even a week, they are going to be extremely angry. And I don’t think they’ll blame Romney.
That's my take on it.
The reason Darien is more conservative than the rest is it tends to be where a lot of the Wall Street types live. I know two people that live there. They are both traders for major financial institutions. They get paid straight commission(like me). That tends to make you more conservative, at least financially.
Voters in those high-Obama-percentage areas will have been “deemed” to have voted for Obama, and they’ll just add in those votes that are ‘missing’.
Sandy hit Obama states that will stay Obama states. Virginia already was polling in favor of Romney. PA was getting close. New Hampshire was polling slightly in favor of Romney.
I’m thinking Virginia will still go for Romney, so that’s in the “doesn’t matter” column.
New Hampshire was trending Romney, so he’s the one who stands to get hurt in that state.
Pennsylvania was getting close, so it’ll be hard to tell what the results will be and what they’ll be based on.
The “win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College vote” mantra is one the Lapdog Media bleats about during every Presidential election.
Gives them something to do when they’re not fellating the DemocRAT nominee.
I was formulating this morning the notion that there was a slight chance that Hurricane Sandy could suppress early-voting strategies in Southeastern Pennsylvania (ultra-liberal Philly and suburbs), making chances of a Romney win in Pennsylvania ever so slightly more possible. But equally as likely would be that the storm could give cover for some horribly nefarious measures, such as holding center-city Philly voting open until midnight, while campaign workers feverishly worked to identify, and provide phony ballots for, anyone who didn’t vote.
I can’t image Sandy affecting any other potential swing state.
Pennsylvania does not have early voting.
Interesting.
I am just sick of hearing about this storm , how tunnels havewater in them and hwo the media are acting over this.
Just turned Megyn Kelly on and you’d think a cat 5 had it her and then the worst tornado ever but what really pisses me off is how the media look to obama for their help, how Christie said people want to see him and for him to hug them.
Why does this media act as if oabma is a messiah and why the hell do I need to see elected officials who are on a photo op.
The people need to see the President, the people need to see elected officials, the people need big Govt.
WTH.
I just sick of hearing about it and seeing the media act.
Megyn Kelly upset that two houses on the beach on a beach with million $ homes have beenruined and how a 99 year old bumper car is no more and how a roller coaster has water round it.
Hell these infrastructures are nearly a hundred years old and why the hell did they put gas lines near the coast anyway or build houses where you can shake your neighbors hand
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.