PLANK AUGUST 26, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

2012 is shaping up as an election in which the winner may earn victory not by virtue of winning the most votes, but on account of the Electoral College. If one candidate enjoys a popular vote edge of 2 percentage points or more, there’s virtually no chance that the other candidate will achieve a majority of the electoral votes. But given how close the election seems this year—average the six national surveys conducted since mid-August, and you get 46.5 percent for Obama and 45.5 percent for Romney—the final results may not be so clean cut.
If the Electoral College does come into play, on what will the outcome hinge? As we head toward to Republican convention, here’s a late-summer assessment—not so much a prediction as a viewer’s guide to the fall contest.
Let’s begin with the Electoral College foundation on which each candidate will build. A very conservative assessment gives Obama a base of 201 electoral votes, and Romney 181. These numbers exclude one state—Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes—that most observers are putting in Obama’s column, and one state—Missouri (10)—that is likely to go for Romney. Factoring in these probable outcomes, Obama’s base rises to 221 electoral votes, Romney’s to 191.
The next tier contains three states that Romney must win and two more that Obama must hold. The Romney 3 are Florida (29), North Carolina (15), and Ohio (18), in each of which Obama’s share of the popular vote in 2008 was well below his national share. No Republican has ever won the presidency without Ohio, and Romney is unlikely to be the first. There’s no road to 270 electoral votes for the Republican ticket that doesn’t run through Florida. And losing North Carolina, which Obama won by only 0.3 percent, would force Romney to flip a major Midwestern state where Obama won by a much greater margin.
Let’s look more closely at Ohio. During the past five presidential elections, the Democratic candidate’s share of the state’s vote has trailed his national share by an average of 1.3 percentage points. 2008 was no exception: Obama received 52.9 percent of the national vote, versus only 51.4 percent in Ohio. But so far, 2012 looks different: the six most recent Ohio surveys give Obama an average of 47.2 percent of the vote—0.7 points more than his national share. Relative to the historical benchmark, then, Obama is outperforming in Ohio by two percentage points—enough to win the state even if the national vote is very closely divided.
Memo to the Romney campaign: whatever you’re doing in Ohio isn’t working. And if you don’t turn it around, your only chance is to make history in the upper Midwest.
This is where things get interesting. The Obama 2 are Wisconsin (10 EVs), which Obama won by 14 points in 2008, and Michigan (16 EVs), where he prevailed by more than 16. Polling this year has long indicated much closer races in these states, and the selection of Paul Ryan seems to have contributed to the statistical ties shown in the most recent surveys. Winning either of these states would be a game-changer, broadening Romney’s options for reaching 270 electoral votes and narrowing Obama’s.
But for simplicity’s sake, assume that each candidate does what he must, with Romney taking Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio while Obama turns back the Republican assault in the upper Midwest. If so, Obama would have 247 electoral votes; Romney, 253. And five states would be left to decide the contest: Virginia (13), New Hampshire (4), Iowa (6), Colorado (9), and Nevada (6). Obama won all five in 2008, four by margins exceeding his national margin, the fifth (Virginia) with slightly less.
To understand the options, let’s start on the east coast and move west.
If Romney were to win Virginia and New Hampshire, he’d be on track for 270 EVs and could afford to lose Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada. If he took Virginia but lost New Hampshire, any one of the remaining three states would put him over the top. If he took New Hampshire while losing Virginia, he’d need Colorado plus either Iowa or Nevada. If he lost both, he’d need all three.
It’s a little different for Obama. Assuming that Obama had 247 EVs from the 45 states already accounted for, Virginia and New Hampshire together would bring him to 264, so he’d need one of the remaining three. If he took Virginia but not New Hampshire, he’d need two of the three. If he took New Hampshire but not Virginia, he’d need all three. If he lost both, even winning Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada would leave him with only 268 EVs, two short of a majority.
All of this is speculation, of course, but not unfounded speculation. My allocation of the initial 45 states between the two candidates is consistent both with current survey findings and with the contours of Obama’s performance in 2008.
This scenario means that we’re likely to know quite a bit about the outcome fairly early on election night. If Romney loses Florida, the contest is over. If Obama loses Virginia, he needs to run the table. And if he goes down to defeat in both Virginia and New Hampshire, he’d be on track to lose the election—unless he could replace their electoral votes by hanging onto North Carolina. If not, Obama’s reelection would hinge on the most traditional of all pivots—the Buckeye state. This year, we may well know the name of the next president before we cross the Mississippi.
10 comments
A lot of "ifs" in this article. And there's usually a November Surprise. I don't go much for these types of musings. I just look at the election map on TV on election night. And check out the CBS Evening News poll the night before.
- magboy47.
August 27, 2012 at 1:50am
"2012 is shaping up as an election in which the winner may earn victory not by virtue of winning the most votes, but on account of the Electoral College." Um, isn't every presidential election determined by the EC and not the popular vote?
- AaronW
August 27, 2012 at 8:24am
The entire map could hinge on the Senate contests. Surprised no mention of that.
- K2K
August 27, 2012 at 8:26am
"Memo to the Romney campaign: whatever you’re doing in Ohio isn’t working. And if you don’t turn it around, your only chance is to make history in the upper Midwest." Memo to Bill Galston, what the Romney campaign is doing in Ohio is giving its best impression of a deer in headlights in response to the Obama attack ads that he, Galston, repeatedly characterized as counterproductive.
- AaronW
August 27, 2012 at 8:32am
It's an odd situation. In Ohio, a state rescued by the GM and Chrysler Government loans, a state with less than 8% unemployment, a state demonstrating the wisdom of Obama's Keynesian stimulus, Romney keeps saying everything Obama did is a failure. While standing in the middle of a state rescued by everything Romney says failed. You'd think he'd wake up and at least quit crowing about how nothing Obama has done has worked -- at least in Ohio, where Obama's policies have succeeded, he'd focus on something else to criticize Obama with. I guess Romney lacks that level of insight. It's just as well, since a lot of the policies he advocates suffer from a similar level of blindness.
- AllanL5
August 27, 2012 at 10:29am
This analysis isn't quite right, because New Hampshire is unlikely to be a linchpin. Polling there puts Obama up by 3-4 points, and above 48 percent. Michigan's polls are closer than New Hampshire's. It's better to think about it this way. There are three regions to think about, loosely speaking: the midwest (Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio), the Atlantic (Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida), and the southwest (Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada) Paul Ryan's selection puts pressure on Obama in the upper midwest (Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, plus Ohio) but also undercuts Romney in Florida (seniors), Virginia (the government suburbs), and the southwest (no Hispanic vice-president). So what we should be looking for is whether Romney can effectively compete in multiple regions. I doubt it--there are too many internal GOP contradictions, and too many personal contradictions, for Romney to pull it off. It's not just demography (e.g. seniors in Florida or Hispanic voters in the Atlantic states and the southwest), but also economics: Romney is pushing a contradictory message about stimulus in the midwest, as noted, which is going to cause him trouble and embarrassment.
- polcereal
August 27, 2012 at 11:17am
If I do the math correctly: Assuming BHO holds all the states and Cong. districts he carried by more than his national average; he wins the election 272 to 266. WMR needs to pick up something above the line as well as holding all the McCain states and picking up everything below the line. Hard to see how he can win w/o Virginia, Ohio, or Florida.
- stanmvp48
August 27, 2012 at 11:32am
It all depends on how many folks think that they would rather be screwed by a white guy than given a helping hand by a black guy. If the former is a higher number than the latter, it's Romney's by a nose.
- ironyroad
August 27, 2012 at 12:50pm
I was kind of wondering how the heck they came up with the Electoral map pictured here. (South Carolina and Texas to the Dems? Maine and Vermont to the GOP?) I figured out it's from the West Wing's last season Presidential Election. It made even less sense at the time...
- Crock1701
August 27, 2012 at 1:10pm
Also, we won't neccesarily know early if the race is done, even if Romney loses Florida or Obama Virginia and New Hampshire, because those states will probably be close. In 2008, Obama ended up winning Virginia 52.6-46.6, a pretty big margin for the swing state, but it wasn't announced until about 10:50: after Pennsylvania and Ohio, among other swing states, and about 5 minutes before the election was officially called because Obama'd won the West Coast and put him above 270. Florida went for Obama 51.03-48.22, a narrower margin and it wasn't called until much later that night. So, if the election is close in these states, all we'll know "early" on election night is that these and other swing states are "Too Close to Call."
- Crock1701
August 28, 2012 at 11:41am