Presidential Election 2012: As Ohio Goes so Goes the Nation

As the Presidential race tightens and Hurricane Sandy whips the country into a frenzy only one week before the election, it's becoming very clear that the key state this year will be .... OHIO.     Both parties will pour many more millions into Ohio advertising over the coming week, but clearly the outcome will remain uncertain until election day.    Obama is currently showing a slight lead based on polling averages at RealClearPolitics.com, but some polls such as Rasmussen show Romney now leading  (though Rasmussen does tend to skew Republican).  

Without Ohio no Republican has won the white house, and it's unlikely that Romney could be the exception to this rule.   If Ohio goes Obama then Mitt Romney would have to win *every other battleground state* to win, and that outcome is very unlikely.

In fact current polling generally shows Obama winning the election by electoral votes while *losing* the popular vote.    This is a rare occurrence but as you recall it happened in 2000 when GW Bush beat Al Gore by electoral votes while losing the national popular vote by about 500,000.

Turnout will also be a critical factor.  Incredibly, it's entirely possible that a bright sunny Nov 6 in Ohio will give the election to Obama while a rainy cold day will push it to Mitt Romney.    

Convention Bounce for Obama puts him back in the lead

Although some media outlets are still reporting a "dead heat", it's pretty clear that Obama is enjoying a post-convention bounce and probably remains a few points ahead of Romney.   If the election were held today, Obama would be the very likely winner both in terms of total vote and, more importantly, the electoral vote.

2012 Electoral votes may come into play again, though at this time it appears Obama's likely to take both the popular and the electoral vote, the latter by a larger margin.

Many of us have our fingers crossed that we will not again see a fiasco like the Gore v Bush election.   Gore won the popular vote in that election by about 500,000 votes nationally, but lost in the electoral college when all of Florida's electoral votes went to GW Bush after a series of court challenges that wound up in the Supreme Court.    Many fail to note that the exit polls from that election were *very* accurate in suggesting that Gore "won" the election, but in addition to other less important errors, the ballots in Palm Beach county was so confusing that people who thought they voted for Gore wound up as "overvotes" and were discarded - most because they had a vote for both Gore and for Pat Buchanon.    

Electoral College Adventures - what if 269 to 269?

If you've played around with the RealClearPolitics Electoral map you'll know there are several scenarios where Obama and McCain might split the electoral vote right down the middle with 269 votes each. What you might NOT know is how this tie is broken. Yes, it's a congressional vote but not simply one vote per congressman which would almost certainly give an Electoral tie to Obama since the Democrats are unlikely to lose control of Congress. But wait... in this electoral tie scenario my understanding is that each *state* gets ONE vote per state congressional delegation and each Senator gets one vote. Making this even more unpredictable is the fact that it's not entirely clear if the old or incoming congress would vote though I think I read it would be the new congress as it's first act in office.

I haven't found a source yet that looks at all the current state congressional delegations to see if how they'd likely split in an electoral tie. Let's hope that piece of trivia remains ... largely irrelevant.

Rove: Watch Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado

Karl Rove penned a very interesting electoral analysis last month where he suggests that the race is likely to hinge on the outcome in four key states: Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. Since the decision is made on the basis of electoral votes and not popular vote, and since several states award all their votes rather than proportional distribution of electoral votes, certain states will matter where others are pretty much a given for either McCain (e.g. Texas) or Obama (e.g. New York).

I see Ohio as pretty much the key battleground state. Ohio was key in 2004 when GW Bush's narrow victory there gave him the win over John Kerry. Although the 2004 race there was not as close as Florida's (where the butterfly ballot fiasco created a super narrow win for Bush even though the intention of several thousand voters was to to vote for Gore but ballot design meant they voted for both Gore and Buchanon and thus had the ballot spoiled. As I've note before Florida 2000 is usually analyzed strangely and wrongly - either as a Supreme Court "coup" or as a real "win" by Bush. It was neither, rather it was a fluke of our terrible electoral system (which should award electors proportionally) and ballot irregularities (which are hard to fix but won't matter nearly as much if we use a national vote count).

So, Ohio probably holds the key to the election, and if you live there get ready to watch more TV ads than you've ever seen on a single topic in your entire life...

Aloha Mr. Kaine?

With Obama sitting in Hawaii deciding on a VP, and Tim Kaine standing to tip the hat in the closest of the "close states", it's looking good for Kaine as the new Obama VP.

The latest "close state" polls at RealClearPolitics.com show a dead heat (as in a real tie, not the silly "statistical tie" the media often refers to in very misleading fashion when results lie within error bounds):

Colorado	47.3	45.7	Obama +1.6
Virginia	46.7	46.7	Tie
Missouri	45.0	47.3	McCain +2.3
Michigan	46.0	42.8	Obama +3.2
Ohio	46.0	45.5	Obama +0.5
Florida	45.8	47.0	McCain +1.2

Obama's looking pretty strong in this comparison, though it's important to note that flipping a few of the current electoral state results by a few percentages quickly gives the election to McCain. Our crazy Electoral college system, as we (failed to learn) from the 2000 Florida fiasco, puts an enormous amount of value on states that are close. This distorts the campaigns, forcing them to focus attention on swing voters in swing states a lot more than the rest of the population.

The founders intent was to balance things out, but it is unlikely they'd approve of the current situation because state's autonomy is of far less importance in the modern context than it was in the founding days of the USA.

US History

Florida voters disenfranchised ... again

The extremely poor coverage of the big story of this election has been a disgrace of mainstream media incompetence more than bias but I think both are a problem in this election. Party insider politics rather than voting are determining the outcome of the election. Most in the press are fretting that it will be Clinton who would pull a backroom play while they fail to talk much about the most significant aspect of the Democrat primary so far - the disenfranchisement of *every voter* in Florida and Michigan.

The first problem is that the popular vote should be determining things rather than state by state voting. The idea is to mimic our seriously problematic electoral college system which determines the national election, but with all the superdelegate and back room disenfranchisements it's not having that effect anyway. The people - not the party hacks - should control all the elections and America is dangerously close to failing in that area ... yet again.

Did the voters make the decision to hold these primaries early? NO! Did Florida and Michigan voters decide to delete their votes? NO! Party hacks determined this outcome though I don't understand how or why. Presumably both the Obama and Clinton campaigns saw strategic advantages to this or they would have bitched louder. But that is not particularly relevant. The key question regarding teh nominee should be simply this: Who do Democrats want to represent them? Party insiders have made it hard to determine this with clarity. The race is extremely close and a huge number of delegates may not be seated. The superdelegate process is an anti-Democracy outrage, clearly designed to take control away from voters and give enough control to party insiders to determine the outcome.

Florida voters must be getting used to being disenfranchised - in 2000 the butterfly ballots of Palm Beach County were seriously flawed (they were designed by Democratic Party officials). Ballot spoilage threw the entire state - and the presidency - to George Bush. The focus was all on the chads which would *not* have affected the outcome had a recount been allowed. However the Palm Beach Butterfly ballots - Designed by a democrat - almost certainly threw the election to Bush.

Yet the Democratic Party had few qualms about the decision to delete the Florida vote from the current primary.

It is certainly true that rules should matter, both campaigns agreed to these rules (why?!), and Obama supporters are right to say that it's not "fair" to allocate to Clinton votes that might have gone to Obama if Florida party hacks and national party hacks had not mangled this process, but it's *even more unfair* to disenfranchise the Florida voters - again.

However if they did allocate the delegates according to votes in Michigan and Florida here are some scenarios:

Michigan popular vote: 55% to Clinton, 40% Uncommitted to Obama -
Clinton gains 23 delegates.

Michigan split the uncommitted vote: 75% to Clinton, 20% Obama -
Clinton gains 85 delegates

Florida: 50% to Clinton, 33% to Obama. Clinton net gain of 36 delegates.

Thus if we count these states Clinton would gain a net of either 59 delegates or 121 delegates depending on how you allocate the Michigan uncommitted vote.

As of today 1884-1718 = 166 votes separate Obama and Clinton so even the rosiest picture for Clinton would still have her trailing Obama by some 55 delegates, throwing the election squarely to the superdelegates and more party hack back room wheeling and dealing.

A solution to this mess? Clearly, new elections are needed in Florida and Michigan. Party hacks decided against this earlier in the year, but they were wrong to discard the only fair option. However this is very unlikely to happen. Welcome to our new Banana Republic voting system.

Gamesmanship is deciding the outcome of the election. Ironically this is likely to lead to an Obama victory as his strategists have more masterfully played their cards than Clinton's have and Obama really does seem to have a kind of groundswell support sorely lacking in Clinton voters.

Historically there has always been gamesmanship and strategy - but the extent to which that trumps the pure and unadulterated Democracy we all should seek is the extent to which we have a good vs a bad system. What shoud be clear to all after the elections debacle of 2000 and the questionable backroom politics of 2008 is that we have a bad system that is subject to uncertainty and manipulation.

The solution is simple - one vote to one person and no electoral college.