It’s difficult to explain how Nate Silver calculates his “tipping point state” formula, so if you are really interested in the details, go read his article. The basic idea, however, is fairly simple. In any scenario where one single state decides the presidential election, how likely is each state to be that state?
Using his simulations, it turns out that Virginia decides the election 28.4% of the time. The only other states that are decisive more than 7% of the time are Ohio (21.8%), Colorado (10.5%), Pennsylvania (8.3%), Nevada (7.8%), and Iowa (7.4%).
Nate brings this up in the context of Obama’s decision to change his immigration policy, but that’s not what interests me. Even if Latinos are underrepresented in these tipping point states, they are still overrepresented in two of them: Nevada and Colorado. So, he has good reason to want to make Latinos happy. And, frankly, votes are votes. Obama wants to maximize his support from Latinos in every state, even New Hampshire and Oregon. After all, he wants to do more than win. He wants some coattails so he can govern in his second term.
One of the glaring things here is the absence of Florida. It appears that however Florida votes it is unlikely to play a decisive role like it did in 2000. Basically, if Romney wins Florida, he would have won the election even without out, and the same is true for Obama. That’s probably not good news for Marco Rubio.
Another interesting tidbit is that Nate currently has Obama winning Pennsylvania with a 81.5% probability, Nevada with a 68.2% probability, Virginia with a 62.8% probability, Iowa with a 61.2% probability, Colorado with a 56.9% probability, and Ohio with a 53.2% probability. So, in every likely tipping point state, Obama is doing better than he did nationally (52.9%) four years ago. In Ohio, he’s well above the 51.5% he carried in the state against McCain. I think it is fair to say that he is in a commanding position.
But he’s not yet in a position to expand the map. Historically, presidents are either reelected by a bigger than original margin or they are defeated. It would be highly unusual for Obama to win reelection and not add any new states to his column. The most likely candidate is Arizona, where some new polling (pdf) shows him within the margin of error. I’m not sure what states come after Arizona, but my best guess is Missouri, Georgia, South Carolina, and Montana are in that group. The two states he won last time but is most likely to lose this time around are Indiana and North Carolina, followed by Florida. But I remain unconvinced that he will win by a narrower margin than he won last time around. It could certainly happen, but it is far more likely that he will lose outright than that he will fail to build on his margins.
Another interesting tidbit is that Nate currently has Obama winning Pennsylvania with a 81.5% probability, Nevada with a 68.2% probability, Virginia with a 62.8% probability, Iowa with a 61.2% probability, Colorado with a 56.9% probability, and Ohio with a 53.2% probability.
If President Obama wins those, it’s impossible for Willard to win. The real question is if Steve Israel will blow it re: taking back the House.
Aren’t we we ~25 seats down in the House? That’s no easy task when the economy is dead weight. The previous majority was built up over two election cycles.
For starters .. when you recruit former GOPers(who was registered as a GOPer until Jan. 2011 and donated to Willard) to run against asshats like Allen West .. in a split district .. you’re showing how unserious you are about your job.
Only the nomination of a True Progressive Hero in a district that elected Alan West would demonstrate a savvy understanding of politics.
It would be highly unusual for Obama to win reelection and not add any new states to his column.
We live in highly unusual times and Mr. Obama is a notable departure from previous presidents. Precedent is out the window.
Obama won by hugely expanding the map. Indiana? For a Dem? NC? VA? All of these were highly improbable. I really wonder if he can repeat in NC.
Every precedent is a precedent until it is not. I am not holding my breath on this “law of politics”.
Not after the 2010 election, unfortunately. The Democratic Party here is still reeling. Redistricting got rid of Brad Miller; he declined to run against David Price.
There are no precedents in electoral politics. It all depends on persuasion over a long period of time. I remember when there was effectively no Republican Party in South Carolina and saw how it began in 1960 using John Kennedy’s Catholicism (under the table) as a wedge issue. South Carolina went for Eisenhower twice, but Ike was a sorta bipartisan figure. Nixon sought to make ticket-splitting a trend for him. Reagan sought to put the Republican Party on parity in the South. W sought to place the South irreversibly in Republican hands as part of Rove’s strategy for a permanent Republican majority. For Southern Republicans, the 2008 election has turned out to be a bump in the road.
it is far more likely that he will lose outright than that he will fail to build on his margins.
And that will be the result of reverse coattails one way or the other. Romney is depending on his down-ticket candidates to turn out the GOP base. Obama’s coattails are limited by the blatant racism in many parts of the country.
Romney is depending on Congressional momentum to propel him into the White House. Obama is hoping not to lose any more seats in Congress because of either a media barrage or less than sufficient turnout.
I find Nate’s analysis interesting because he has one of the better proven models.
Sounds about right to me just by pure logic. I’ve said VA is the most important state in this election cycle — most other Highly Paid Serious People kept harping about Colorado being the most important. After VA I’d have said OH. It’s why I was so confident he’d pick McDonnell. Though I’ve seen polling that shows adding the governor to the ticket doesn’t help, and it hurts just barely. For that reason — and because Ohio is pretty close in importance as well — Portman will probably be picked.
Also, it’s good it’ll come down to VA. We’re dependent on federal money, so our unemployment is low. For example, I take the Virginia Railway Express into work everyday. 65% of the riders are federal employees. My train ticket costs $268 a month, but the federal government gives me a $240 subsidy. That’s money the VA government doesn’t need to budget, and it’s just one tiny example in a slew of many.
Like you, I used to live in NoVa. In the ’70s I worked in Hyattsville and Crystal City commuting from Sterling Park.
NoVa and Charlottesville are blue islands in a red sea. There are a lot of rural areas being whipped up by the Tea Party. Those people are racist and Christian fanatics. The immigration policy changes announced will only hurt in Virginia.
If NoVa and Charlottesville are “blue islands”, isn’t it more accurate to think that the “red sea” is receding—at least demographically? Isn’t most/all the population growth in Virginia happening in the northern part of the commonwealth?
Demographically but I doubt geographically.
Then it’s a good thing we don’t let farmland vote.
Well in the Chicago the dead can vote. In the suburbs too, as long as they vote Republican. In DuPage county you need two photo ID’s and a birth certificate if you have a Hispanic surname. You just have to breathe if you are wearing a Brooks Brothers suit. The breathing is optional if you are wearing an Armani suit.
What, Richmond and its suburbs and Hampton Roads don’t count? Look at the state-level map from last time.
Sorry, I forgot them. It’s been nearly forty years.
Is Carroll County still the same?
Interesting forecast by Silver, and an interesting post. I sure hope you’re right about Obama adding new states, though I remain somewhat skeptical that given the state of the economy.
One minor quibble: Silver’s percentages are probabilities of getting 50% + 1 of the vote, not of the likely percentage of the vote Obama will receive, right?
Take Ohio and Pennsylvania for examples. Silver’s not projecting Obama will get 53.2% and 81.5% respectively of the popular vote in those states. He’s projecting that there’s a 53.2% and 81.5% probability (respectively) that Obama will get enough votes to win the electoral votes from those states.
(Unless I’ve thoroughly misunderstood what Silver is doing. In which case, please talk to me like I’m stupid.)
You are correct. Silver’s “probability of winning” is the probability of getting 50%+1 vote. He calculates a separate value for “projected vote share”. For example, in Pennsylvania, the probability of winning is 81% and the projected vote share is 52.8%.
This makes sense, if you think about it. If your best estimate for the vote percentage that Obama would get in PA is 52.8%, then you are saying that the probability that he will get AT LEAST 50%+1 if the vote is very high (in this case, 81%).
I think Obama is in trouble in Ohio.
He carried the state last time- by just 104,000 votes. that’s not huge.
I don’t see 53.2% probability now vs. 51.5% in 2008 as a “commanding” position- more like within margin of error.
Like several other rust belt states (WI, MI) Ohio went with a GOP governor in 2008- may be a trend.
Superpole, do you think the higher turnout for a presidential election and/or dissatisfaction with Ohio’s new Republican governor will have an impact on this election? If so, in what ways? If not, why?
Good question. Depends on– just how dissatisfied Ohio voters are with Kasich, and of course are those people going to show up on election day. Based on what we just saw in WI, I’m not so sure.
Again, is there a trend here with Obama having short coattails due to, as someone else here pointed out, the extreme racism in our nation. I have to wonder what is going on in the rust belt states WI, MI and OH, all flipping to GOP governors in 2010.
Walker’s supporting demographic in the recall was more or less exactly the same as in 2010: he won educated and uneducated white men and he won independents. he won huge in rural areas.
The demographic is similar in Ohio; there’s some urban areas obviously: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo.. and there’s alot of rural area around those cities that the GOP carries.
there a trend here with Obama having short coattails
Huh?
When Obama was on the ticket, the Democrats picked up 8 Senate seats and 21 House seats.
In the next election that didn’t have Obama on the ticket, the Democrats lost large numbers of seats in both houses.
I think you might be using “coat tails” wrong.
Given Ohio’s checkered history of vote fraud, I would worry about a margin of less than a million being Diebolded down to a Romney win.
OH? With fascist John in the Gov seat? Where an OVERWHELMING majority of the state rolled back 5?
It’s Obama’s to lose. I think he takes it.
Again, in Ohio, stumpy McCain got (rounding up a bit) 2,502,000 votes in 2008.
Think about it; this is after EIGHT suckass, corrupt GOP led years, two wars of choice, a gigantic recession. In spite of all that, McCain nearly won Ohio.
That tells us something about GOP turnout in Ohio.
It’s irrelevant how many names and stones you cast at Kasich; if GOP voters show a bit more in Ohio this time, Willard can win.
Gee, are you serious? You are telling me that if you get people to the polls, you can win?
I never knew that. Thanks for your timely information.
Having lived in OH from 1983 – 1997 (Columbus til 1989, Cleveland til 1997), I know the political situation there reasonably well. I still say that fascist John and his policies will push OH toward Obama. Same with MI, WI, IN, NJ, PA, and ME.
It’s all going to come down to turnout, dataguy.
(Nods sagely, strokes chin).
Uhhhhhh.
If you and other progressives are soooooooo brilliant regarding politics, then why do democrats continue to lose elections?
You’re aware democratic “experts” did nothing while the GOP put together a plan in 2009-2010 and flipped NINE of the ten key swing states they went after, from Dem to GOP governors? This includes the nightmare Walker, Snyder in MI and Kasich in OH. You think maybe this has any impact on redistricting going on in those key states?
You’ve conveniently forgotten the Dems couldn’t muster a decent candidate and a win in 2004– in spite of the fact the incumbent was one of the dumbest people to ever hold the office– and he more or less admitted he lied to get us into a war with Iraq?
Please, you’ve got to be kidding me. This demonstrates political power, credibility as a political party?
The democratic party is about as lame as it gets– they are finished as a credible political party.
Though certainly not a tipping point state, Oregon does have a substantial Hispanic population, both immigrant and legacy – like New Mexico folks whose families were here before the white-dogs showed up and took over.
What’s interesting about Oregon is it can serve as a micros’ of the ideological divide overall, with the smaller land based more heavily populated “liberal” west-side and the sparsely populated “conservative” rural east, enjoying seventeen to twenty percent official unemployment (those collecting unemployment) perhaps of the hardest hit by the recent “economic downturn”. We here paying attention are noting the dis-satisfaction with our single “representative”, a trust-funder punk, Oregon’s own Willard Romney, who has never done a day’s real work – ranching, logging, millwork – in its life and the clear indication that he and his cronies are deliberately tanking an already tanked economy for their personal and political gain. Oregon may swing from purple to blue this cycle.
Your comments on Oregon are interesting and highly appreciated.
However, this is at least the second time that you have used the racial epithet “white dog”. I do not care to be called a dog and I’m asking you for an apology. I’m quite sure that you don’t like being called “redskin” or worse.
So, in every likely tipping point state, Obama is doing better than he did nationally (52.9%) four years ago.
I don’t think you can switch between “chance of winning a state” and “popular vote %.”
Silver probably gives Obama somewhere over a 95% chance of winning Hawaii; that doesn’t mean Obama is running at 95-5 in Hawaii.
Key words in sentence: “likely tipping point state”
Most like tipping point state is Virginia, with a probability of 27.8% of being the tipping point. Projected vote share +/- 6.3%: Obama 50.5% Romney 48.5%
Obama range of error: 44.2% – 56.8%
Romney range of error: 42.2% – 54.8%
From Leip’s Atlas:
Obama 2008: 52.63%
McCain 2008: 46.33%
QED: In the most likely tipping point state, Obama is not doing better than he did nationally in 2008. He is doing 52.9% – 50.5% = 2.4% worse. But the prediction for 2012 for Virginia includes the national vote percentage in its current margin of error. And Virginia did 0.3% worse in 2008 than the national average.
I understood how tipping point states work fine the first time, when BooMan explained it.
My comment was about treating Silver’s % chance of winning number as if it was a % of the popular vote number.
Apples and oranges. Oklahoma is going to go for Romney (as of the current run of the model) with 100% certainty. It is not going to have 100% of the voters voting for Romney.
In 2008, Oklahoma went for McCain 65.65% to Obama’s 34.35%. This year is likely to be close to the same numbers.
Apples and oranges.
That was my point.
And also, I think that BooMan either has it wrong or explained it wrong.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-20/obama-leads-in-poll-as-voters-view-romney-as-out-of-touch.h
tml
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-20/americans-say-they-re-better-off-since-obama-took-office.ht
ml
I’ve been saying for months and months and months now that I think the election will be 55-45, a similar margin of victory to ’96, and nothing I’ve seen changes that.
The President is thoroughly in command of his reelection. If you can afford to lose Ohio and Indiana and North Carolina and Florida and still get reelected comfortably, you’re in the catbird seat.
Third party money would be more wisely spent on electing Republicans to the senate in places like Montana and Missouri.
Look at the crosstabs. That poll vastly over-sampled non-whites. Turnout is going to look like that, especially with the Republican voter suppression and vote stealing tactics.
The election is too close to call, and it looks like the Republicans are going to do their best to steal it.
Uh huh. How very “progressive” of you to be churlish in the face of one of the most liberal presidents ever about to be reelected without hardly having to break a sweat.
What a devastating day for progress in this country indeed!
Obama is to the right of Richard Nixon.
No, the median member of Congress is to the right of the median member of yesteryear’s Congress.
But I wouldn’t expect you to understand that.
Quote: “Another interesting tidbit is that Nate currently has Obama winning Pennsylvania with a 81.5% probability, Nevada with a 68.2% probability, Virginia with a 62.8% probability, Iowa with a 61.2% probability, Colorado with a 56.9% probability, and Ohio with a 53.2% probability.”
Nate’s probability of taking a state is not his projection of what the vote count will be. So you can’t compare it to how Obama did in 2008.
But you can compare it to Nate’s probabilities at a similar point in 2008 if you can get to those archives.