The Swing States That Weren't

I continue to be amazed by the collective delusion that gripped Republicans in the closing days of the election and am completely gobsmacked by the notion that the Romney people were shocked that they lost.  The available data overwhelmingly indicated that a Romney loss was highly likely despite a fairly evenly divided electorate.  Nonetheless, a kind of groupthink settled over right wing politicians and pundits alike, claiming that their momentum and greater enthusiasm were going to prove all of the collective polls wrong.  It's worth taking a look at the actual results.

Pennsylvania - The great white whale of Republican politics.  Every four years they claim it is going to be competitive.  Every four years they are proven wrong.  It is a state that they seem to be capable of getting to 47% and no more.  And that's exactly what Romney did, losing 52 - 47 and by nearly 300,000 votes.  That's not a landslide, but it's not really close either. Pennsylvania last went Republican in 1988, so it's not exactly like this was a new phenomenon.

Wisconsin - This, along with Pennsylvania, seemed to be the other great illusion.  Somehow Paul Ryan, who had never run statewide, was going to deliver a state that last went Republican in 1984.  And once again, not close at all, with Obama prevailing 53 - 46 and by 205,000 votes. 

Minnesota - George Will actually claimed that this state would go for Romney, despite the fact that Republicans last won it in 1972!  In other words, even through all of the Democratic electoral debacles of the 1980s, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis prevailed here.  Why would the strongest Democratic candidate in nearly a half a century fall short?  He didn't of course, winning 53 - 45 and by 220,000 votes.

Michigan - Why people thought the man who wrote the editorial entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" would prevail here is even more baffling than the Minnesota delusion.  These people do know what the major industry of this state is, right?  Obama won 54 - 45, with a margin of 400,000 votes. 

Other states that weren't close:  Iowa, which Obama took 52 - 46, Nevada, which he also took 52 - 46, New Mexico, where he won by 53 - 43 (and simply cannot be called a swing state anymore), and Oregon, where he prevailed 54 - 43, but about which some of the truly deluded got excited because of an outlier poll toward the end that showed the state within five points.

The bottom line is that wishful thinking and cherry picking polls are not really a winning strategy.  One poll aggregator whose reputation should be damaged by the results is Real Clear Politics, which went into the last day of the election characterizing Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania as toss ups, and Oregon and Minnesota as "leaning" Obama.  Five to nine point victories do not reflect "tossup" status and eight and eleven point wins hardly constitute simply "leaning" to a candidate.  Even their poll aggregators manage to be wishful thinkers. 

I will brag that I nailed the electoral vote precisely (calling Florida before Nate had shifted it) and I think when all of the votes are counted, my prediction on the popular vote of 51-48 will be correct.  If not, I think the reduction of about 1.5 million likely Obama votes in NY and NJ because of Sandy will likely prove the difference.   

 

Comments

[oddjob]

Why would the strongest Democratic candidate in nearly a half a century fall short?

Furthermore the reason Will offered for this embarrassing prediction of his was the ballot initiative to add a ban to marriage equality to the state constitution, and that lost as well.

The man really, really needs to retire.

[oddjob]

I ... am completely gobsmacked by the notion that the Romney people were shocked that they lost.

Romney campaign spent $25K for a celebratory fireworks display over Boston Harbor.

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

Obama's margin in PA was smaller than in Iowa. It's not a super-swingy state, but it's still competitive.

It's possible that between Sandy, the voter ID law, and a shitty state unemployment rate, the actual result should have been a little better and the state would have been safe. But no campaign can safely assume any of those things.

Winning PA-Gov is going to be _crucial_ in 2014.

[Mandos]

Via Brad DeLong, FEMA!!!. Did I not mention how important FEMA was in the mythos?

And shame to let a fireworks payment go to waste.

[Sir Charles]

Hey Nick!

It's not a landslide site by any means, but it was a state we took by 9% in 1992, 9% again in 1996, 5% in 2000, 3% in 2004, 11% in 2008, and 5% in 2012. It's a pretty meaningful pattern I would argue. Whereas at least Wisconsin was actually pretty razor tight in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

The problem with 2014 is that it is a non-presidential year and we have to do better getting our folks out in those off year elections.

[Sir Charles]

Mandos,

I've already got my application into FEMA. Running one of those camps -- served no doubt by high-speed electrical trains -- would be the culmination of my life's ambitions.

[low-tech cyclist]

As down as I have been on George Will over the past few years, his capacity for self-delusion seems to have moved into uncharted waters lately.

FWIW, the 'tossup' range on RCP was simply quite wide, so the other categories were pushed out even further. A week ago, they had 11 Senate races listed as tossups, including some clear favorites for each side.

Meanwhile, TPM was just bizarre, putting Pennsylvania in the tossup category for the entire week before last, then once PA was 'lean Obama' again, Michigan became a tossup, then either Sunday or Monday, Ohio was a tossup. And Josh Marshall is patting himself on the back because TPM allegedly did a better job of calling things than anybody besides Nate Silver.

I'm a big fan of Josh's going back to his print media days with the Washington Monthly. But he's delusional if he thinks TPM's PollTracker is ready for prime time, let alone better than everybody but Nate. They really need to do some serious work on it before 2014.

FWIW, Sam Wang & Co. nailed the Senate with their 54-56 Dems prediction. If anyone else was going with a median over 53 (besides me), I missed it.

[low-tech cyclist]

On the swing states: not only are Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Mexico not swing states, but neither is Nevada anymore, at least at the Presidential level: it seems to have really solidified as a Democratic state in ways that the polls don't catch.

I'm not ready to say the same thing about NH and IA, but they look to me like heavily Dem-leaning swing states at this point.

I don't know how true this is, but someone said the problem with PA for Republicans was that while it always looks within reach, there really aren't that many persuadable voters in PA. Barring a national landslide, it's going to keep on going Dem, but only by a few points more than the national average.

Rumor has it that the GOP is now in the "if only we'd had a better candidate" stage. But they did their damnedest to find a not-Romney who could at least look like a believable President, and none was to be found. I don't see that changing in 2016. Besides, anyone who can satisfy the base will be too far out for the median voter.

Speaking of 2016, TPM has a header today: "Clinton, Christie Lead First Polls Of 2016 N.H. Primaries." Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[oddjob]

As long as the GOP remains heavily identified with fundamentalist Christianity it will win big in central Pennsylvania but lose the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia suburbs. As long as it loses there no Republican presidential candidate will win Pennsylvania.

[paula]

Oj-I think that holds true in other states as well. Suburbs and rural areas do not support enough population to outweigh a couple of big cities. And, of course, there is no correlation between the number of trees growing in a particular locale, and number of Republican voters, contrary what the GOP may believe. Look at western Mass and VT. No rocket science here...

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

On Real Clear Politics, it seems to me that their approach is a total cop out. And one that doesn't reflect much reality -- if the median poll gives a lead of 4.8% the day before an election, it has ceased to be a tossup.

I picked 54 Democratic seats with a shot at 55. I just thought the 55th seat was more likely Nevada (for the reasons you suggest) than North Dakota. Heitkamp really got an amazing amount of ticket splitters.

I believe that Chris Christie has zero chance of getting the 2016 nomination now.

oddjob,

My in-laws were classic examples of what you described. They were Rockefeller Republicans who lived in the Philly suburbs. The last time that they voted Republican was in 1988 when Bush 41 was on the ticket. He had enough of that patrician air to get past them the first time. After that they never pulled the GOP lever again. The hater stuff was just beyond them and my father in law, who had grown up dirt poor, just couldn't abid by their mean-spiritedness.

[oddjob]

That was also the last time I voted for the Republican nominee (& I was living in Bucks County then).

By '92 Poppy Bush was in thrall to the haters. I was disgusted by his submissive behavior towards them.

Patrick Buchanan plays to the hater crowd really well. I still haven't gotten over his keynote speech at the '92 Republican National Convention.

[paula]

this is interesting on many levels:
http://bit.ly/YZtm0Q

[Joe S]

Sir C, the Great Plains (and the Midwest generally) have a tradition of lots of ticket splitters. The Dakotas and Montana have been red states for a long time, but often have had all-Democratic congressional delegations. Moreover, there are some actual progressives in the bunch (George McGovern, Byron Dorgan, Tom Daschle).

[oddjob]

the Great Plains (and the Midwest generally) have a tradition of lots of ticket splitters

A century ago the Progressive Party was strong out there. I wonder if that's symptomatic of an ongoing facet of the area's political culture where neither major party is necessarily regarded as very appealing?

[kathy a.]

TNC on romney getting sucker-punched because he surrounded himself with delusional yes-men.

oddjob -- how sad, about the fireworks. i mean, that's kind of weird, isn't it, to set up fireworks for your own precious self? especially when it is not clear the party will be, like, happy? ah, well. maybe they can send the unused fireworks to victims of hurricane sandy -- sure, it's not heat or electricity, but it's WOW!

i'm pretty mystified at all the "oh, maybe we should appeal to those hispanical people" musings in gop-land. really? you think it would make all the difference if you gestured at immigration reform and maybe passed out tacos? what's the plan for all the disgruntled ladies?

[oddjob]

How Ridiculous Gerrymanders Saved the House Republican Majority

It's from Slate, but this is an interesting post.

[oddjob]

(And having grown up in Pennsylvania I can attest to the correctness of the assertion that this congressional district map is just nuts.)

[nancy]

Let the retaliations begin. Obama's conducting a *war* on coal, so fire the coal workers. I believe we're back to Dickens again.

[oddjob]

what's the plan for all the disgruntled ladies?

According to Amanda Marcotte, more slut shaming.

[nancy]

Best part of the layoff communique from CEO Murray:

Chief Executive Officer Robert Murray read a prayer to workers asking God’s forgiveness for “decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build,” the Washington Post reported.

WWJD? Make a pointless point at the expense of a few in the wake of an election I guess.

[low-tech cyclist]

oddjob - the gerrymandering made a huge difference, no question about it. I don't think what gerrymandering the Dems did in IL and MD helped them that much: it gained them maybe 1 seat in MD, and given how blue IL has become in recent years, a 12-6 lean is hardly out of whack.

But Ohio and Pennsylvania are typically just a couple points off the national mean in opposite directions. Taken together, their combined Congressional delegations should have about 17 Representatives from each party. But it looks like the balance is going to be more like 25-9 in favor of the GOP. That's incredibly antidemocratic.

I still think we could have done considerably better on the Congressional front if Obama hadn't blown the first debate. Gerrymandering can usually hold up against a small wave, but can be swamped by even a medium-sized one.

We lost 18 races by 53-47 or less, and several more by 53-46 or 54-46. If there'd been more room for everyone from Obama and the DNC on down to people like us to start focusing on the House a month ago, I think the House would have been a tossup. You really need a generic Congressional ballot that's D+6 or better to overcome gerrymandering like we have now, but if Obama had maintained the ~6% edge he'd had going into the first debate, that would have been achievable.

[low-tech cyclist]

WWJD? Make a pointless point at the expense of a few in the wake of an election I guess.

I'm convinced that the Jesus of the right wing is a special Corporate Asshole Jesus. You've got to twist the Bible into a pretzel to find evidence of him, but they're good at that.

[oddjob]

I still think we could have done considerably better on the Congressional front if Obama hadn't blown the first debate.

I'm not sure it would've helped much in Pennsylvania. Based on the little I know and my own guesstimating about that district map I think at best a better debate might have picked up 2-3 more seats and very possibly 0 additional seats.

The map is really an insanely partisan thing.

[oddjob]

I'm convinced that the Jesus of the right wing is a special Corporate Asshole Jesus. You've got to twist the Bible into a pretzel to find evidence of him, but they're good at that.

John Calvin pointed the way back in Switzerland in the early 1500's and his teachings have had their corrosive effects in the USA since pretty much the beginning.