Nate Silver: Ohio, Ohio, Ohio

[^_^ 5,021]

We are now running about 40,000 Electoral College simulations each day. In the simulations that we ran on Monday, the candidate who won Ohio won the election roughly 38,000 times, or in about 95 percent of the cases.

...

Were he to lose Ohio, Mr. Romney would have a number of undesirable, although not impossible, options.

The most favorable path, in the view of the model, would be for Mr. Romney to carry both Iowa and Nevada.

Of the two states, Iowa is the easier get. The polls there show a split between ties and leads for Mr. Obama, as opposed to Nevada, where they are mainly split between smaller leads for Mr. Obama and larger ones. In addition, in Nevada, Democrats have a significant voter-registration advantage and are building a large lead in early voting; the polls there have also tended to underestimate Democratic performance in recent years.

But Mr. Romney does not get to pick and choose if he loses Ohio; he would need to win both Iowa and Nevada under this plan. Furthermore, he would need to win New Hampshire to avert a 269-269 tie, where the polls have been inconsistent at best, but seem to show Mr. Obama slightly ahead, on average. On top of all that, he would need to win both Colorado and Virginia. The race is so close in both states that the model has fluctuated between showing them as blue states and red states with almost every new poll that comes in.

The major alternative would be for Mr. Romney to win Wisconsin, which would allow him to lose both Iowa and Nevada (although not Colorado or Virginia). But Republicans have had a number of seemingly favorable periods in Wisconsin — after Democrats’ failed attempt to recall the state’s governor, Scott Walker, after Mr. Romney named Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate, and during Mr. Romney’s overall surge in the polls recently — and have never quite pulled ahead in the average of polls there. Wisconsin is certainly a big factor in the election, but may also be the sort of state where Mr. Romney has a pretty easy path to 48 or 49 percent of the vote, and a hard one to 50 percent.

Or Mr. Romney could carry Pennsylvania, but this is less likely still, especially as Pennsylvania is highly demographically similar to Ohio but slightly more Democratic-leaning. In our simulations on Monday, Mr. Romney lost Pennsylvania 99.5 percent of the time when he also lost Ohio.

But if Ohio is almost a must-win for Mr. Romney, the same case could be argued for Mr. Obama. Were he to lose Ohio, Mr. Obama would then need to carry either Virginia or Colorado — along with holding Wisconsin, Iowa and Nevada.

In other words, Mr. Obama would need to carry at least one of the states where he is now tied in the forecast rather than leading. Thus, Mr. Obama’s narrow lead in Ohio accounts for the bulk of his overall advantage in the forecast right now. Were Ohio decreed to Mr. Romney by fiat, Mr. Obama’s chances of winning would decline to 57 percent from 70 percent in the forecast.

Alternatively, Mr. Obama could carry either Florida or North Carolina, but as in the case of Mr. Romney and Pennsylvania, these permutations are just not very likely. In the simulations on Monday, Mr. Obama won Florida just 0.4 percent of the time that he lost Ohio, and North Carolina only 0.2 percent of the time when he did so.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/oct-22-ohio-has-50-50-chance-of-deciding-election/

[SMR 368]

Romney has made up a lot of ground as it now appears he will take Florida, Colorado, and Virginia and likely that he will take New Hampshire. If he takes those, he only needs one of:

--Ohio

--Wisconsin

--Nevada and Iowa

Wisconsin seems the most likely.

However, Obama still seems to have an advantage when it comes to the electoral college. On the other hand, it seems likely that Romney will take the popular vote. That doesn't count for much but it will be another blow against the electoral college if it happens and Romney doesn't win.

[^_^ 5,021]

... it will be another blow against the electoral college if it happens and Romney doesn't win.

Why will that be a blow to the EC? If the Founders wanted a popular vote system, they would have instituted it. The EC exists for a reason.

[SMR 368]

[quote name=' timestamp='1351021229' post='5775090]

Why will that be a blow to the EC? If the Founders wanted a popular vote system, they would have instituted it. The EC exists for a reason.

Which is?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

On the other hand, it seems likely that Romney will take the popular vote. That doesn't count for much but it will be another blow against the electoral college if it happens and Romney doesn't win.

Why? That would just make things even. The clearly defined goal is to win more than 269 electoral votes. That's known. If a candidate plays to win the popular vote, the candidate has simply played to win the wrong game. There's no prize to be had for winning the popular vote. Ask Al Gore.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Which is?

To give states with populations smaller than my county a voice. Nobody would campaign in - or care about - flyover country. The campaigns would play out along the east and west coast (and some metro areas in the Midwest) - simply because that's where most people happen to live.

[SMR 368]

To give states with populations smaller than my county a voice. Nobody would campaign in - or care about - flyover country. The campaigns would play out along the east and west coast (and some metro areas in the Midwest) - simply because that's where most people happen to live.

Maybe. But they do that anyway. It's just that the focus is in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia instead of somewhere else. I would guess that a strictly popular vote contest would actually make things much more wide open as to where the campaigning happens. It's also more expensive to campaign in large media markets and trying to win a home run state like Idaho or Rhode Island by a wider margin would suddenly have merit (or conversely trying to reduce the margin of victory in an opponent's home run state).

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Maybe. But they do that anyway. It's just that the focus is in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia instead of somewhere else. I would guess that a strictly popular vote contest would actually make things much more wide open as to where the campaigning happens. It's also more expensive to campaign in large media markets and trying to win a home run state like Idaho or Rhode Island by a wider margin would suddenly have merit (or conversely trying to reduce the margin of victory in an opponent's home run state).

There are three hotly contested battleground states with a population smaller than that of my metro area. These are fairly split down the middle right now - any gain there means nothing in the bigger picture of the national popular vote. Do you think anyone would give a ** about them if the popular vote was the deciding factor? They'd campaign like crazy to move the vote in California and Texas a percent or two because that would have a larger impact than moving the vote several points in states like Nevada, Iowa or NH.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Now you see why Tagg Romney wanted to own voting machines in Ohio. He's gonna show that Kenyan what happens when people accuse his Dad of lying.

[SMR 368]

There are three hotly contested battleground states with a population smaller than that of my metro area. These are fairly split down the middle right now - any gain there means nothing in the bigger picture of the national popular vote. Do you think anyone would give a ** about them if the popular vote was the deciding factor? They'd campaign like crazy to move the vote in California and Texas a percent or two because that would have a larger impact than moving the vote several points in states like Nevada, Iowa or NH.

But why is that better? I'm not saying that people in Chicago or LA or NYC are better, but they aren't worse. As it stands now, they are the ones being ignored. You're saying that a system where the campaigns cater to a couple percent of the population is favorable to a system where the campaigns cater to a majority of the population? Not only do I disagree, I also believe you don't understand the reasons for the EC, which are many but not satisfactory in my opinion.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But why is that better? I'm not saying that people in Chicago or LA or NYC are better, but they aren't worse. As it stands now, they are the ones being ignored. You're saying that a system where the campaigns cater to a couple percent of the population is favorable to a system where the campaigns cater to a majority of the population? Not only do I disagree, I also believe you don't understand the reasons for the EC, which are many but not satisfactory in my opinion.

You are preaching to the choir. I don't think that the way we elect a President is anywhere near ideal. One person, one vote of equal weight should apply. It surely doesn't. The only reason my vote counts is because I live in a state that matters. All those years I lived in TN, it made no damn difference whether I dragged my behind to the polls or not.

[Ban Hammer 13,567]

To give states with populations smaller than my county a voice. Nobody would campaign in - or care about - flyover country. The campaigns would play out along the east and west coast (and some metro areas in the Midwest) - simply because that's where most people happen to live.

Hillsborough County is a county located in the U.S. state of Florida. Its 2010 population was 1,229,226

you dislike Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming???

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hillsborough County is a county located in the U.S. state of Florida. Its 2010 population was 1,229,226

you dislike Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming???

When you look at the Tampa Bay Metro area, you have a population of 4.25 million - that's more folks than populate many more states than just the three named above. Including the one you live in.

[Ban Hammer 13,567]

When you look at the Tampa Bay Metro area, you have a population of 4.25 million - that's more folks than populate many more states than just the three named above. Including the one you live in.

you said county - now you're trying to revise your statement. did you borrow mitt's shoes today?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

you said county - now you're trying to revise your statement. did you borrow mitt's shoes today?

Well, I wanted to make sure that my fellow VJ Republicans understand what I'm saying. Seems that vague, non-committal inaccuracies work best with that crowd.