Nate Silver: No, the Democrats don’t have a lock on an Electoral College majority

Hot Air ^ | May 12, 2015 | Noah Rothman

[2ndDivisionVet]

Like the proverbial general waging the last war, America’s pundit class has dug in around a Maginot Line of conventional wisdom erected around President Barack Obama’s electoral coalition in preparation for the next engagement.

In a May article for Politico Magazine, the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics crew took an admittedly early look at the electoral map ahead of the 2016 contest and came up with some disappointing conclusions for Republicans. While it’s true that it’s too early to make any concrete assumptions about how the race for the White House will develop, it’s fair to note that the seven tossup states will give readers a sense of “déjà vu.”

“It’s effectively the same map we featured for much of the 2012 cycle, and it unmistakably suggests the Democratic nominee should start the election as at least a marginal Electoral College favorite over his or (probably) her Republican rival,” they wrote. “However, at the starting gate it is wiser to argue that the next election is basically a 50-50 proposition.”

Politico’s Dylan Byers chose to ignore that last sentence. “Let’s be honest with ourselves for a second: This is Hillary Clinton’s election to lose,” he declared.

On Nov. 8, 2016, Clinton will start — start — with a minimum 247 of the 270 electoral votes she needs to win. If you give her Colorado and Virginia — which many political strategists would, given the Hispanic population in one and the rising influence of the northern-centered population in the other — she’ll start with 269. That means Clinton doesn’t need Ohio or Florida. She just needs one small state like Iowa, Nevada or New Hampshire to put her over the edge. And because she’s got a boatload of money and no viable primary challenger, she’ll have plenty of time and resources to lock up at least one of those states.

Sure, Florida and Ohio are, as they have been for the better part of a half-century, must-win states for Republicans if they hope to secure 270 Electoral College votes. But Democrats have seen their firewall states in the Upper Midwest teeter over the course of the Obama presidency. What’s more, Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado – three states in which the “coalition of the ascendant” were supposed to deliver a generation of unbroken Democratic governance – are pure tossups or GOP-favored states at this early stage of the race.

Byers’ fatalism is not sitting well with statistics guru and FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver. In his latest piece, Silver took a dive into the historical data from 1992 to today and determined that electoral “locks” are made to be broken.

“[W]hen commentators talk about the Democrats’ ‘blue wall,’ all they’re really pointing out is that Democrats have had a pretty good run in presidential elections lately,” Silver wrote. “And they have, if you conveniently draw the line at 1992 (it doesn’t sound so impressive to instead say Democrats have won five of the 12 elections since 1968).”

He performed a series of tests to see how the Electoral College would swing with relatively minor shifts in the popular vote. A universally applied 5-point swing in popular vote results in a number of states shifting from one camp to the other and an Electoral College landslide. It’s a pretty fascinating dive into recent electoral history and fully worth the read.

Hey, look: I can get carried away, too. If the 2016 election turns out to be close, we’ll be sweating the small stuff by October and November. The difference between a 50 percent and a 55 percent chance of victory for Clinton or Marco Rubio or whomever because of Electoral College dynamics will seem like a pretty big deal.

But for now? The Electoral College just isn’t worth worrying about much. If you see analysts talking about the “blue wall,” all they’re really saying is that Democrats have won a bunch of presidential elections lately — an obvious fact that probably doesn’t have much predictive power for what will happen this time around.

I’m not saying Clinton is doomed. Rather, I think the “fundamentals” point toward her chances being about 50-50, and I wouldn’t argue vigorously if you claimed the chances were more like 60-40 in one or the other direction. But Clinton is no sort of lock, and if she loses the popular vote by even a few percentage points, the “blue wall” will seem as archaic as talk of a permanent Republican majority.

If there is smart money on the 2016 election, it’s still in the bright gamblers’ pockets. It’s far too early to begin making pronouncements about either party’s viability based solely on either the Democratic Party’s advantage with minority voters or the historical headwinds that will hinder Democratic prospects and benefit Republicans in 2016. It’s foolish to ignore the lessons of the last war, but no one ever has the fortune of being able to refight the battles of the past.

[Sasparilla]

If a state registers people to vote when they get drivers licences, then illegals in states that grant drivers licences to illegals will get registered while they are there.
The question asked at the in “motor voter” states at the license office is “ Want to get registered to vote today too?”

[Sasparilla]

If a state registers people to vote when they get drivers licences, then illegals in states that grant drivers licences to illegals will get registered while they are there.
The question asked at the in “motor voter” states at the license office is “ Want to get registered to vote today too?”

[MrB]

Their explanation of that was that people give the pollsters politically correct answers and then when the secret ballot comes up, they vote differently.

Now, the left’s solution, obviously, is to apply the same politically correct pressures in the ballot as apply in the pollsters’ questions.

[Comment Not Approved]

Always enjoy reading your posts. This one is spot on.

Amnesty kills the GOP off for good ... and maybe that’s not such a bad thing if it gets us closer to resetting the system. Because the political system as it exists today is beyond repair, the infection runs too deep.

[nathanbedford]

Thanks

[Din Maker]

Here's where we can get the 5 percent popular vote increase we need to change the EV count in 2016. I'm relatively certain that at least 5 percent of Blacks who voted for B. Hussein Obama in 2008 and 2012 will NOT be voting in 2016. They have had their Black President. The new has worn off and the novelty is gone. Not to mention that many in the Black community feel that the Brotha did nothing for them during his time in the White House. The Dems will NOT have a Black candidate in 2016. They will not empty out the jail houses, crack houses and HO houses on Election Day for Hillary like they did for Obozo in '08 and '12. And, that could be the 5 percent swing we need to change the EV count. Somebody give me some input on this. Am I right or wrong?

[Hawthorn]

>> Vermont is California with cows and maple syrup <<

And no state gun laws.

And a U. S. Senator (Sanders) who — unlike Boxer and her CA Dhimmi colleagues — is honest enough to declare OPENLY that he is a Socialist.

And no state taxes on trust fund incomes, which means the state has been overrun with filthy rich trust-fund kids from Beacon Hill MA and Manhattan NY.

And rural poverty that sometimes looks like the poorest parts of West Virginia and SE Kentucky.

In other words, as Howell Heflin might say, “Lotsa contradictions goin’ on!”

[Din Maker]

Plz give me your opinion of my Post #46. Thanks.

Din Maker

[MrB]

Sure sounds reasonable.

[max americana]

Where he can predict with the rest of leftard obama ass kissers on BSPN and teach Klownie the kenyan to spell “SYCACUSE”.

[nathanbedford]

I accept your premise that a 5% swing in the popular vote is needed to change electoral college vote count. And that raises the question, where will the change occur because geography is so important? It doesn't much matter what happens to the vote in California or Massachusetts but what happens in Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Florida and a few more swing states means everything.

This brings us to the question of ground game and the ability of an elitist, top-heavy, detached, elitist Republican party to match the proven abilities of the Democrat party to mobilize their voters. The Democrats have institutional advantages built-in, they have union power, both private and public unions, they have the unchallenged control of the African-American voting demographic which they have turned into a block and which they might be able to mobilize enough. I agree with you that the air has gone out of the balloon, but I simply do not know how efficient and thoroughgoing is their machine in the battleground states.

The African-American voting demographic is being eclipsed now by the Hispanic vote and the same question arises, how thoroughgoing and efficient will the Democrat ground game prove to be? I am skeptical that either Ted Cruz (whom I support) or Marco Rubio can make serious inroads into the Hispanic vote because they are of Cuban origin and there is evidence that that does not play out with Mexican-American and other South American voters.

My feeling is that the Hispanic voting block offers greater opportunity than the African-American demographic but either one of these groups should it be approached with a sound conservative message, one that speaks to middle-class aspirations. In other words, appealing to middle-class aspirations is not in any way inconsistent with a sound conservative message.

For example, immigration should be argued as a threat to middle-class jobs, jobs sought by Hispanics and African-Americans and being lost to an endless supply of illegal immigrants. There is no reason why conservatism and populism cannot be combined. Another example, crony capitalism can be attacked and they're sending jobs abroad while importing cheap labor can be a centerpiece of any conservative campaign.

There is utterly no chance that this approach will be taken by the likes of Jeb Bush or any other Rino because they have sold out to Wall Street. Marco Rubio has clearly forfeited any chance to seize this issue. But a real and serious fight on this level can win a generation of Hispanic voters to conservatism.

[Din Maker]

Thanks for your input. Very informative. I agree with you except on one point: I think that Rubio can redeem himself on the “Immigration” thing; but, time will tell. If we have a non-Hispanic nominee, I’d like to see Gov. Susana Martinez of NM be in the VP slot. She IS Conservative and would neuter the Dems “War on Women” strategy and would dilute Hillary’s appeal just because she is a female.

[MSF BU]

I’ve often thought that if Walker keeps making life tougher for the parasites then they would leave Wisconsin for greener pastures.