American Elections 2008

[CelticMuscle]

or "Has this poor limey not got a chance of understand how the thing works

I've been interested in the US elections since 1988 (and when the BBC showed the 1992 election I stayed up all night to watch it and can still rememeber them announcing Perot wins Maine and then saying Clinton wins Maine). Since then I have managed to find election information for the presidential / senate and house races going back to 1789 but wonder if coming from the UK (which has a house comprising of 650 members from 9 parties) is a good comparsion for the US?

One of the tools we use in the UK on election night is a swingometer (which despite it's name is not a tool used to determine how many people in the population swing) but if fact shows the effects of a swing in opinions.



In this example, there has been a swing of 9% (1 in every 11 people) to [COLOR="Red"]Labour[/COLOR] which produces a [COLOR="red"]Labour[/COLOR] majority of just under 100.

Working on that priniciple, I created a swingometer for the 2008 elections and figured out that to win the elections, [COLOR="Blue"]Senator Obama[/COLOR] needs a national swing of 1.05% in order to gain the majority in the electoral college. However, a friend of mine said:

Obama will never gain Ohio in a month of Sunday, now Nevada however is a different kettle of fish

The problem I have is that Nevada requires a 1.27% swing to go down (which is greater than the swing to take out Ohio). Could someone therefore explain if the USA operates on a national uniform swing or whether each state is a law unto itself?

[AS2000]

Wow. That's kind of complicated, lol.

Admittedly, my presidential elections class was a few years back. (Okay, before all the minutiae of the electoral college mattered, back in 2000...)

But basically, each state has electoral college votes. And it's 2+ the number of representatives they have, from what I recall. (Which is based on population, from the 2000 census.) So California has the most, with over 50 elec. college votes, and some very low population states have 3.

Most states are winner-take-all. If you win the state by even a small fraction of votes, you get all the electoral college votes. (There are one or two states that do it differently.) And then whoever has the most elec. college votes wins.

So in theory, a candidate could win overwhelming majorities in some states, but if the other candidate got very slim majorities in states with more electoral votes, it could go to the second candidate instead. We don't vote nationally, we vote on the state level, but in the national election.

So you need to look at each and every state. Because in most, the amount needed to win all the electoral votes is the same: 1 vote more than the other candidate. (Ignoring for a moment recounts, etc.) So in a sense, the amount of "swing" is irrelevant, because you just need to get one more vote in enough states. Whether you win by a hair or a landslide doesn't matter (the odd state.)

So I hope that helped just a little. :) Everyone else can feel free to add more. I tried to leave it uncomplicated, but may not have succeeded. :| (And I'm kind of guessing as to the exact mechanics of the magic swing pendulum, lol.)

(And note that none of this applies to the primaries that we just finished. That's nomination, and it's governed by party rules.)

[1bigwoof]

Good reply, AS2000. I was just looking at cnn.com and saw an electoral map with some predictions. It also shows how many electoral votes each state (and District of Columbia) has. Take a look: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/...map/index.html. I hope this helps.

[mlbjock]

I just wanted to point out that not all states operate this way. There is no Federal law or constitutional provision that electors from the state have to vote according to the popular vote in their state. There are 26 states that do have laws to that effect, but in the other 24 electors are essentially free to vote however they see fit, regardless of the outcome of the popular votes in their state. See http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...lege/laws.html for more details.

Also the magic number to win the Presidency is 270 electors which is a majority of the electoral college. The number of electors is determined by the number Senators(always 2) + the number of Representatives for an individual state. Plus Washington, DC. gets 3 electors.

This is process is actually the basis for (at least the Democratic) nomination process where a pledged delegate can change their vote after the first round of voting is complete, assuming there is no one with the magic number. This is what is called a floor fight.

Originally Posted by AS2000

Wow. That's kind of complicated, lol.

Admittedly, my presidential elections class was a few years back. (Okay, before all the minutiae of the electoral college mattered, back in 2000...)

But basically, each state has electoral college votes. And it's 2+ the number of representatives they have, from what I recall. (Which is based on population, from the 2000 census.) So California has the most, with over 50 elec. college votes, and some very low population states have 3.

Most states are winner-take-all. If you win the state by even a small fraction of votes, you get all the electoral college votes. (There are one or two states that do it differently.) And then whoever has the most elec. college votes wins.

So in theory, a candidate could win overwhelming majorities in some states, but if the other candidate got very slim majorities in states with more electoral votes, it could go to the second candidate instead. We don't vote nationally, we vote on the state level, but in the national election.

So you need to look at each and every state. Because in most, the amount needed to win all the electoral votes is the same: 1 vote more than the other candidate. (Ignoring for a moment recounts, etc.) So in a sense, the amount of "swing" is irrelevant, because you just need to get one more vote in enough states. Whether you win by a hair or a landslide doesn't matter (the odd state.)

So I hope that helped just a little. Everyone else can feel free to add more. I tried to leave it uncomplicated, but may not have succeeded. :| (And I'm kind of guessing as to the exact mechanics of the magic swing pendulum, lol.)

(And note that none of this applies to the primaries that we just finished. That's nomination, and it's governed by party rules.)

[abbraxis]

CelticMuscle, I wish AMERICANS cared as much about our elections as you do.

I don't understand this "Swingometer" buisness, nor do I understand the population of UK all that well, so if I make incorrect statements, I'm sorry.

First of all, mlbjock is right. States don't have to vote with their populations, which is why Bush won in 2000, despite the fact that the popular vote went to Gore. The intervention of the Supreme Court is another story ENTIRELY. Despite all this, he won again in 2004... mostly because the Democrats put up a dead tree to run against an incumbant president.

Anyway, in America, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the population is on the extreme left and 1/4 to 1/3 of the population is to the extreme right (I use the terms "left" and "right" strictly through the US perspective - I know the UK is very different). Either way, these 2 groups usually cancel eachother out, which leaves the massive voting population undecided, some all the way up till election day.

For instance, the youth has recently clamped on to this election and the winner may be decided on how many come out to actually vote. This is my first election and I can't WAIT!

Anyway, this middle group is what each candidate is fighting for, which makes the percentage of how much a state has to "swing" irelevant because it's population doesn't always vote that way from year to year. The "swing vote" is very big here, which may be different from the UK?

Yes, there are some party "strongholds". Democrats get New York and California while the Republicans get Texas and usually Florida. There are others, of course.

But the other states are up for grabs, and this election has quite a few and not many of them can be predicted this far away from election day. I mean, even if either candidate doesn't self-destruct in some scandel between now and then, there are STILL a host of issues they can take an opinion on, which will slide states in and out of their respective corners.

Basically, what I'm saying is our country has 2 main parties (much to my dispeasure) and a rather uninterested and ignorant population which leaves us with a small amount of informed voters. This leads them to read news headlines and campaign slogans without actually moving into the deeper issue. This probably sounds a lot like the UK, but I'd be willing to bet this population is (per capita) larger then the one in the UK and therefore exerts A LOT more pressure on the US political system... usually to the country's detrement.




My opinion on the election?

Why... I'm so glad you asked !

Right now I'm voting for Obama, based strictly on my belief that he is the lesser of 2 evils.

I don't think Obama's the best choice (I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries) but I think of the 2, he's the better one. At least he doesn't want to indiscriminantly bomb Iran. I also think having someone less entrenched in the political process is a nice change from the career politicians that get elected.

I'm not going to pretend like Obama is "Change we can believe in". In the end, he's still a politician and has made mistakes that have thrown my original support into question... but I look at McCain and just can't respect ANY of his views.

This election will define our future foreign and domestic policy... and yet, we're choosing between the lesser of 2 evils. We're electing a man to be president of the United States, the single most powerful nation in the world... and we're choosing the guy who will fuck up the least. We're talking about a position that has been held by men like Washington and Lincoln... yet we're choosing between Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dumber.

I get so upset when I think about where this country is going sometimes...

I just hope we don't destroy the planet before my generation can come in and fuck it up for the next one...

[CelticMuscle]

and sounds as though it could be summarised thus:

• The US elections are similar to the UK elections (in that there are two main parties involved) with all other parties generally speaking locked out of the process
• America is a polarised nation with those committed to both GOP and Dem cancelling each other out, meaning that those registered as Independent will be the people who decide the election
• The actual electoral process doesn't depend on the number of votes cast, but on the number of electoral college votes garnered by each candidate (and is further complicated by the fact that some states need not follow the winning candidate in their state)
• And at this election, the youth vote will be courted like nothing else

Have I got that about right and if so, does this mean that those states won by a margin of less than 5% in 2004 will be the states that the candidates visit and campaign in the most?

[monstermusclebe]

Well, yeah. What do you expect? People are human. There are NO true saints, only us "sinners" everywhere, some of us doing better than others. But we all screw up. We all make mistakes. And, if we are smart, we learn from them and do better the next time.

Even the so-called "saints" we hold up as being that aren't saintly, if you truly knew everything about their lives. Obama is one of the first to admit his imperfections. They are simply people who have stood out as doing a bit better than the rest, perhaps trying harder, or in some cases simply getting known for doing good deeds. Martin Luther King was an adulterer, and cheated on his wife, possibly many times. Does that mean that we shouldn't celebrate his accomplishments, and the change he help create in the United States?

It seems like you hope that some day someone perfect will step onto the political stage. No, won't happen. EVER. They don't exist! We only have the best of us flawed HUMANS to work with. Everything else is but a fairytale we like to tell ourselves. As if there were some savior out there, waiting for the right moment to come out and be perfect for all of us.

Roosevelt wasn't perfect. Lincoln wasn't perfect. Washington wasn't perfect. Yet those men led our nation through some of its most difficult, challenging times the United States ever faced.

I think Barack is our guy to lead us through THIS dark hour.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newstrategy

And yes, he's human. Very, very human.

Hey, aren't you? Aren't I? Aren't we all.

And thank God -- or the Universe, or whatever you want to call this divine creation we all seem to be a part of -- for that.

It makes it all a lot more fun that way.

[CelticMuscle]

(in order of marginality)

[COLOR="Blue"]Wisconsin: 11,384 vote lead over GOP (0.38%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Iowa: 10,059 vote lead over Dem (0.67%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR="red"]New Mexico: 5,988 vote lead over Dem (0.79%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]New Hampshire: 9,274 vote lead over GOP (1.37%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Ohio: 118,601 vote lead over Dem (2.11%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]Pennsylvania: 144,248 vote lead over GOP (2.50%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Nevada: 21,500 vote lead over Dem (2.59%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]Michigan: 165,437 vote lead over GOP (3.42%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR="blue"]Minnesota: 98,319 vote lead over GOP (3.48%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR="blue"]Oregon: 76,332 vote lead over GOP (4.16%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Colorado: 99,523 vote lead over Dem (4.67%)[/COLOR]

[AS2000]

Originally Posted by CelticMuscle

(in order of marginality)

[COLOR=Blue]Wisconsin: 11,384 vote lead over GOP (0.38%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Red]Iowa: 10,059 vote lead over Dem (0.67%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]New Mexico: 5,988 vote lead over Dem (0.79%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue]New Hampshire: 9,274 vote lead over GOP (1.37%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Red]Ohio: 118,601 vote lead over Dem (2.11%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue]Pennsylvania: 144,248 vote lead over GOP (2.50%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Red]Nevada: 21,500 vote lead over Dem (2.59%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue]Michigan: 165,437 vote lead over GOP (3.42%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=blue]Minnesota: 98,319 vote lead over GOP (3.48%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=blue]Oregon: 76,332 vote lead over GOP (4.16%)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Red]Colorado: 99,523 vote lead over Dem (4.67%)[/COLOR]

The thing is, all of those states are really too close to call. Even assuming that everything goes the way you say (or rather, whatever poll you're relying on says) it doesn't matter, in the end. If Obama takes Wisconsin by 10,000 votes or a million, he'll get the same number of electoral college votes from Wisconsin either way.

As for what states to watch, we're still not sure what will shake loose, in the end. The real interesting part of this election will be Nov. 5, the day after, when we all try to figure out what just happened.

YouTube - Time for Some Campaignin'

[abbraxis]

Originally Posted by CelticMuscle

and sounds as though it could be summarised thus:

• The US elections are similar to the UK elections (in that there are two main parties involved) with all other parties generally speaking locked out of the process
• America is a polarised nation with those committed to both GOP and Dem cancelling each other out, meaning that those registered as Independent will be the people who decide the election
• The actual electoral process doesn't depend on the number of votes cast, but on the number of electoral college votes garnered by each candidate (and is further complicated by the fact that some states need not follow the winning candidate in their state)
• And at this election, the youth vote will be courted like nothing else

Have I got that about right and if so, does this mean that those states won by a margin of less than 5% in 2004 will be the states that the candidates visit and campaign in the most?

Yeah... sorry I couldn't condense it .






And I'm not lookinf for "saints", monstermusclebe. I'm just looking for a good president... and neither seem up to challenge...

[glammaman2000]

After 8 years of a Republican administration; 6 of them with a Republican congress as well; things are SOOOO bad; that even the Republicans are running against the Republicans! {Sarah Palin's "rooting out corruption & vetoing pork barrel politics" was against a predominantly Republican state legislature.) Palin is to the right of McCain; and the Republican delegates are to the right of both of them. (The party platform is REALLY scary!) And these delegates are the hiring pool for any future appointments. I have no idea where the GOP gets the nerve to ask anybody to trust them.....

[Lucas88]

What's scary, glammaman, is that, unless there are enough independents to swing this vote, this person none of us has ever heard of outside the Republican Party and who is being isolated from the "liberal media" and being set up a victim of "unfair and sexist questions" when hear record is being questioned, could be the president...McCain's age scares the crap out of me!

[CelticMuscle]

State Winner
[COLOR="Blue"]District of Columbia Obama
Massachusetts Obama
Vermont Obama
Rhode Island Obama
New York Obama
Maryland Obama
Connecticut Obama
Illinois Obama
California Obama
Maine Obama
Hawaii Obama
Delaware Obama
Washington Obama
New Jersey Obama
Oregon Obama
Minnesota Obama
Michigan Obama
Pennsylvania Obama
New Hampshire Obama
Wisconsin Obama
Iowa Obama
New Mexico Obama
Ohio Obama[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Nevada McCain
Colorado McCain
Florida McCain
Missouri McCain
Virginia McCain
West Virginia McCain
Arkansas McCain
Arizona McCain
North Carolina McCain
Tennessee McCain
Louisiana McCain
Georgia McCain
South Carolina McCain
Mississippi McCain
Kentucky McCain
Montana McCain
Indiana McCain
South Dakota McCain
Texas McCain
Kansas McCain
Alaska McCain
Alabama McCain
North Dakota McCain
Oklahoma McCain
Nebraska McCain
Idaho McCain
Wyoming McCain
Utah McCain[/COLOR]

[COLOR="blue"]Obama 284[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]McCain 255[/COLOR]

[glammaman2000]

Regrettably; the Republicans' willingness to SAY anything; & their followers' willingness to believe it; still has me scared. The big ray of hope is the huge upsurge in voter registrations. Given that conservatives have always been very good about getting out the vote, we have to believe that most of the new voters will be Obama supporters. (Speaking of Palin, I'm surprised we haven't heard more about her firing a head librarian for her refusal to remove certain books from the shelves. While our evangelical brethren fully support this kind if thing, I think it would creep out the average American.)

[PROZAC]

oh my please. the world wants obama. please let him win the elections...

[CelticMuscle]

and this is what I have at at the moment:

Three Day Moving Average Poll
Source: Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll
[COLOR="Blue"]Obama 48%[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"]McCain 47%[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]Obama lead of 1%[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]Swing to Dems since 2004: 2%[/COLOR]

Forecast Electoral College Votes
[COLOR="Blue"]Obama 252 (217 solid, 35 leaning)[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]McCain 213 (189 solid, 24 leaning)[/COLOR]
[COLOR="DimGray"]Tossups 73[/COLOR]

[PROZAC]

im sorry celtic... but where u got ur sources from? there are not writtrn in any newspaper in germany....

[CelticMuscle]

Originally Posted by PROZAC

im sorry celtic... but where u got ur sources from? there are not writtrn in any newspaper in germany....

Rasmussen conduct a daily tracking poll which they report on their website. I then take that information (specfically the poll that contains leaners) and enter them into my spreadsheet that I have for the US elections. I then ask the computer to generate a three day moving average of those polls (which gives me the 48 - 47 split). I then apply the swing since 2004 generated by that poll to the results in 2004 with the following rules:

[COLOR="DimGray"]If the forecast majority is less than the margin of error (3%) the state is a tossup[/COLOR]
[COLOR="blue"]If the forecast majority is greater than the margin of error[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"]but less than 6% the state is leaning[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Navy"]If th majorty is greater than 6%[/COLOR] [COLOR="DarkRed"]the state is solid[/COLOR]

In the last two weeks of the campaign I will average the last five polls in the tossup states to try and generate a definitive forecast. By the way, does anyone know of an electoral college map you can fill in with your projections and then post as a picture?

[PROZAC]

.