Fifty percent is considered a magical threshold in politics. Above 50%, and a president is generally considered to have a "mandate". At least Bush sure claimed one in 2004, though I suspect that the Republicans will have a different opinion this year. Anyway, more importantly for our purposes, if Obama is polling above 50% in a state, it means that the undecideds can't swing the state. Even if every single undecided went to McCain, the state would still go to Obama. Of course, 'decideds' can changes their minds, but that is much less likely barring a significant external event.
So with that in mind, I decided to crunch the numbers to see just where Obama stands in that regard. Thankfully, the downloadable data that
Electoral-Vote.com provides makes this sort of thing easy.
| If Obama Takes... | | He'll have... |
| all states above 52% | | 268 EVs |
| all states above 51% | | 278 EVs |
| all states above 50% | | 313 EVs |
Note that Rhode Island is currently only polling at 48% for Obama, even though he has a 22% lead there. Because it doesn't cross the threshold, it's not included in any of the totals above, but it's probably safe to add 4 EVs to those totals above. In other words, If Obama can win only the states where he is currently polling above 52% plus Rhode Island, then he will be our next President.
(For poll data in spreadsheet form, see
Electoral-Vote.com)
UPDATE: For perspective, here's where things stood nine days before the 2004 election:
| If Bush Takes... | | He'll have... |
| all states above 52% | | 173 EVs |
| all states above 51% | | 185 EVs |
| all states above 50% | | 208 EVs |
(For poll data in spreadsheet form, see Electoral-Vote.com)
10 comments:
Nice table! I find myself wishing for a running total of EVs, though, so I can see where the tipping point is.
This may almost be convertible into the pre-election vs official returns comparison table diogenes was talking about -- but it's still too early.
Another way of thinking about it is that your chart represents a kind of linear seating chart for the 538 members of the Electoral College. The 3 DC Electoral College members are at the extreme blue end and the UTah 5 are seated at the other. MT's 3 and ND's 3 are assigned to the white seats today. Sometimes they get new seating assignments, such as AZ, which will be sitting in the Barely McCain pink seats soon.
BTW; Your spellcheck hasn't learned "Rhode" yet. Lucky it didn't autocorrect to Rogue Island.
Thanks. In case you missed it, be sure to note the update.
Other than the sorting and the addition of the margin column, that table is taken directly from the downloadable spreadsheet that EV.com provides.
Come election day, I'll try to remember to post an updated version of this table but sorted by margin rather than just Obama's polling numbers. FWIW, if sorted by margin, RI jumps from 28th to 6th on the list. Not sure why they can't muster those extra two points.
I was looking for a
history of the national popular vote by percentage
finally found this, also this.
Note LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, and Hoover among the top 6. Popularity gives us a President who makes really big mistakes.
Yet another poll aggregation site--
http://presidentforecast.andreamoro.net/
--hadn't seen that one before.
True, but the top seven include both FDR and Eisenhower. And LBJ was before my time, but if it hadn't been for that little misadventure in Vietnam, he might well be considered one of our best modern presidents. He did a good job on civil rights, Medicare, Medicaid, and lots more.
Oh, and LBJ doesn't deserve all the credit for his margin of victory. Remember, he was running against Goldwater.
Yes, but from the bottom: Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, Clinton, all between 30.9 to 43.2%. There doesn't seem to be much correlation between popular vote percentage support and presidential greatness, or perhaps a weak negative correlation.
Historically critical and divisive times may mean you win weakly among a divided, confused populace but then become great by resolving the deep problems. Conversely, if everyone thinks you're great, you might think so too, and do something monumentally stupid.
Whoa, was Eisenhower a great president??
The late 1960s and early 1970s were relatively much farther left than now in many ways. Some people have claimed that Nixon would have to run as a Green now, the Democratic-Republican duplocracy is so far to the right of him now. I point that out to say that LBJ was being dragged along by the protests of the people. Nixon also had to steer to the left of today's politics. In contrast, Obama today is OK with the death penalty, which was for a time banned in the United States.
I think, as many people do, that Obama may be more centrist than some suppose, or that he will at least try to get majority support for anything he tries, not go out on a limb.
I still expect great things from an Obama presidency, I just can't enjoy saying something like, "He's as popular as Hoover!/Reagan!"
Actually, forget Republicans and Whigs. For Democrats, if we toss out things over a century ago such as Andrew Jackson's 56.0%, LBJ & FDR bring it down to 53.3. (!?!) If he can beat Carter's 50.8%, he will be the third most popular Democrat vote-getter after LBJ & FDR.
There is an interesting statistic in there somewhere fighting to come out. "The third highest popular support of any Democrat in the past century," that sounds pretty good.
Well, I'm hoping McCain IS the new Goldwater.
I'm late, so I gotta run, bnut just this quickie: Remember that in order to win with less than 50% of the vote, there is necessarily a third party candidate involved. The years where the winner had a showing much under 50% are simply years where there was a strong third party candidate (or several as was the case when Lincoln was first elected).
Blues: Can you expand on your commment "I find myself wishing for a running total of EVs, though, so I can see where the tipping point is." If I can make such a thing, I'm happy to try.
I was suggesting a running total so that after HI 3 and DC 4, the running total would show 7. NY with 31 is next, making the running total 38 from these three states. VT 3 brings it to 41, IL adds 21 for 62, and so on all the way to the bottom. Basically take them in rank order according to their Democratic lean and then create a column of "Obama would have this many votes if he adds this state" Running Total column.
Then I guess I'd do the same thing for McCain (running one of them from the bottom up). UTah 5 + ID 4=9. AL adds another 9 for 18 and so on. As your eye runs along the running total column you can see where your candidate gets to 270, the tipping point states. (Each dandidate would have a column.)
The states' positions might jump around a little from day to day and the numbers are very close or tied for some of them.
It's almost like re-textualizing your graphicalization. Actually, adding color to the Row or to the background of the state might be interesting --so the UT and ID end of the table would have a red background and the DC HI pole would have a blue background. Then, in a way, you get the best of both worlds, visual cues plus all the alphanumeric details altho the table wouldn't show proportions visually as the chart does.
re LBJ
I think LBJ was in part getting a sympathy vote in the 1964 election, less than a year after the Kennedy assassination.
Post a Comment