Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Greed and Death]

Atleast Obama won the Xbox live polling.
http://www.geekwire.com/2012/obama-trou ... xbox-live/

Too bad most are too young to vote, and too stoned to remember to vote.

A wretched hive of scum, villainy, racism and misogyny supports Obama?

Que.

It is why 4Chan supports Obama.

[Zaras]

A wretched hive of scum, villainy, racism and misogyny supports Obama?

Que.

It is why 4Chan supports Obama.

Vote Obama! He's endorsed by 4Chan!

paidforbymittromneyssuperpacthatsomehowknowswhattheinternetis

[Khadgar]

Don't forget the Hot Coffee fiasco where Hillary Clinton sided with Jack Thompson.

Actually Hillary went past Mr. Thompson, Mr Thompson wanted to ban the sale of video games to minors that the Miller Obscenity test found obscene. Hillary wanted to ban the sale of games to minors rated M, by a private video game eating group.

Hillary's rule was more broad and would have resulted in more effectively banned games.

I think it cost her the nomination in 08.

[The Emerald Dawn]

A wretched hive of scum, villainy, racism and misogyny supports Obama?

Que.

It is why 4Chan supports Obama.

4Chan supports Chairman Meow.

Back onto topic:

Delving deeper into the numbers, trying in vain to stave off the dumb, the electoral system elected Bush by the thinnest of margins. It seems to be the perfect storm of national consensus versus electoral plutocracy. And I'm starting to see Romney winning that way.

[Farnhamia]

It is why 4Chan supports Obama.

4Chan supports Chairman Meow.

Back onto topic:

Delving deeper into the numbers, trying in vain to stave off the dumb, the electoral system elected Bush by the thinnest of margins. It seems to be the perfect storm of national consensus versus electoral plutocracy. And I'm starting to see Romney winning that way.

I don't see him winning that way. ASB posted somewhere, here or in one of the other threads, that he sees Obama winning the Electoral College but not the popular vote.

[Khadgar]

4Chan supports Chairman Meow.

Back onto topic:

Delving deeper into the numbers, trying in vain to stave off the dumb, the electoral system elected Bush by the thinnest of margins. It seems to be the perfect storm of national consensus versus electoral plutocracy. And I'm starting to see Romney winning that way.

I don't see him winning that way. ASB posted somewhere, here or in one of the other threads, that he sees Obama winning the Electoral College but not the popular vote.

I think that's fairly unlikely, Romney had one good showing in a debate, which bumped him up, but such things are transitory at best. 538 gives it a 3.1% chance winning the popular vote but not the EC. The opposite scenario, wherein Obama wins the popular vote but loses the EC is at 2.7% there. Take Nate's numbers however you like, but I think it's probably right.

[The Emerald Dawn]

4Chan supports Chairman Meow.

Back onto topic:

Delving deeper into the numbers, trying in vain to stave off the dumb, the electoral system elected Bush by the thinnest of margins. It seems to be the perfect storm of national consensus versus electoral plutocracy. And I'm starting to see Romney winning that way.

I don't see him winning that way. ASB posted somewhere, here or in one of the other threads, that he sees Obama winning the Electoral College but not the popular vote.

But only if people get out and vote. That's where my concern comes from. Romney surged in polls after Obama fell asleep at the wheel. Yes, there are two debates, four weeks, and lots of lying to go, but if Democrats don't vote because "There's no way he can lose" and Republicans stay energized after Romney's Phallacious Fallacies, this race will be worryingly close.

[Khadgar]

I don't see him winning that way. ASB posted somewhere, here or in one of the other threads, that he sees Obama winning the Electoral College but not the popular vote.

But only if people get out and vote. That's where my concern comes from. Romney surged in polls after Obama fell asleep at the wheel. Yes, there are two debates, four weeks, and lots of lying to go, but if Democrats don't vote because "There's no way he can lose" and Republicans stay energized after Romney's Phallacious Fallacies, this race will be worryingly close.

I don't see how Romney's debate performance could energize the base, not if they were listening to what he was saying because he went from hyper-conservative to center-right.

[Farnhamia]

I don't see him winning that way. ASB posted somewhere, here or in one of the other threads, that he sees Obama winning the Electoral College but not the popular vote.

But only if people get out and vote. That's where my concern comes from. Romney surged in polls after Obama fell asleep at the wheel. Yes, there are two debates, four weeks, and lots of lying to go, but if Democrats don't vote because "There's no way he can lose" and Republicans stay energized after Romney's Phallacious Fallacies, this race will be worryingly close.

Of course, and that's why the Obama campaign has a staff and an organization and people out on there making sure people do vote. Come on, to you think it's Jim Messina, Dave Axelrod and a couple of girls to answer the phones?

[The Emerald Dawn]

But only if people get out and vote. That's where my concern comes from. Romney surged in polls after Obama fell asleep at the wheel. Yes, there are two debates, four weeks, and lots of lying to go, but if Democrats don't vote because "There's no way he can lose" and Republicans stay energized after Romney's Phallacious Fallacies, this race will be worryingly close.

I don't see how Romney's debate performance could energize the base, not if they were listening to what he was saying because he went from hyper-conservative to center-right.

They weren't listening to what he was saying, they were listening to how he was saying it. I'm about to do something foolhardy, but most Republicans aren't people who think issue to issue. These are people who trust the big guy on TV saying he's going to throw down with someone in a Cage Match. Fox is huge business, and all they do is trumpet wildly inconsistent views 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 85% of the 43% of Americans who are Republicans would vote for Rick Perry for President, and that man shouldn't have been in charge of a school, let alone the nation's Ego.

[Greed and Death]

But only if people get out and vote. That's where my concern comes from. Romney surged in polls after Obama fell asleep at the wheel. Yes, there are two debates, four weeks, and lots of lying to go, but if Democrats don't vote because "There's no way he can lose" and Republicans stay energized after Romney's Phallacious Fallacies, this race will be worryingly close.

I don't see how Romney's debate performance could energize the base, not if they were listening to what he was saying because he went from hyper-conservative to center-right.

You don't understand Republican voters, they don't listen to what their candidate says, just how he says it.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

Hey, ASB- Netanyahu just called early elections. Think this'll have any effect on the race back home?

[Zaras]

You don't understand Republican voters.

Not even science does.

[Vetalia]

Not even science does.

I'm a Republican...

Of course, I have far different views than many members of the party (i.e. those held by its current members' parents and grandparents) so I vote Democratic more often than not.

[Ardchoille]

You don't understand Republican voters, they don't listen to what their candidate says, just how he says it.

Not even science does.

You two are swimming in shark-infested waters. Let's stop trolling NSG's Republican voters and get back to the campaign nuts 'n' bolts.

[Zaras]

You don't understand Republican voters, they don't listen to what their candidate says, just how he says it.

Not even science does.

You two are swimming in shark-infested waters. Let's stop trolling NSG's Republican voters and get back to the campaign nuts 'n' bolts.

This is what happens when I'm stupid enough to overrule my brain thinking it'd be a bad idea to write that. Thanks, self.

[Alien Space Bats]

I think that's not particularly uncommon. Many people, in my experience, has founded their party identification on who they are going to vote regardless if they're technically registered for the other party. If there is a surge for a particular candidate then any poll trying to capture the mood of the country is going to have to show a surge in that candidate's party ID. Otherwise, polling will be forced to focus on the hyper-partisans who see their party identification as something significant... If that makes any sense?

For example, let's say there's 10 people and they're split 6-4 for Obama at the beginning and 7-4 Democrat. Chances are if they split 5-5 after the debate, that person in the middle who switched is going to reidentify as a Republican. A polling firm has to make the decision whether to throw that person's preference out, and pick another less-wishy-washy Democrat, or just go with the new ID breakdown.

It's not quite as simple as that. Democrats (as a general rule) are not at all reluctant about voting against their own Party when it suits them. Republicans, OTOH, will often re-identify as independents when crossing over. The process of actually changing one's identification to match one's vote is more something that self-styled independents do.

The best guide to whether a poll is on or off is in the demographic data: Look at the ethnic, religious, and gender data, and that will tell you more about a poll's accuracy than anything else.

[Cannot think of a name]

You two are swimming in shark-infested waters.

You're not supposed to make it sound all cool and Hemmingway-like...

[Wikkiwallana]

Don't forget the Hot Coffee fiasco where Hillary Clinton sided with Jack Thompson.

Actually Hillary went past Mr. Thompson, Mr Thompson wanted to ban the sale of video games to minors that the Miller Obscenity test found obscene. Hillary wanted to ban the sale of games to minors rated M, by a private video game eating group.

Hillary's rule was more broad and would have resulted in more effectively banned games.

What groups eats video games, and what would an "M" rating mean? Is it like school grades, and thus 7 worse than "F"? Or maybe it stands for something, "Mhmm" or "Mediocre", perhaps?

Edit: damned typos, I hate Skitt's Law

[Liuzzo]

I'm looking forward to the next debate. It's going to be interesting when "bullshit" actually gets called. Romney looked great in the last debate until you read the fact check. I don't think that will be allowed by Obama this time.

[Alien Space Bats]

This is where I show that I suffer from the dumb.

lolgoogle

Doesn't the Electoral defeat of Gore show that Bush won only because of the overwhelming support of a narrow segment of the population?

No, quite the opposite. Using the data found at the Wikipedia page you've cited, I've constructed a table looking at the 2000 Presidential race:

Group	States	Gore Popular Vote	Bush Popular Vote	Gore Percent	Bush Percent	Difference	Gore Share	Bush Share
Gore > 10%	D.C. Rhode Island Massachusetts New York Hawaii Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Delaware Illinois California	18,731,845	12,951,551	56.40%	39.00%	17.40%	36.73%	25.67%
Gore > 5%	Vermont Washington Michigan Maine	3,887,043	3,468,394	50.70%	45.24%	5.46%	7.62%	6.87%
Gore < 5%	Pennsylvania Minnesota Oregon Iowa Wisconsin New Mexico	6,542,862	6,262,432	48.83%	46.74%	2.09%	12.83%	12.41%
Bush < 5%	Florida New Hampshire Missouri Ohio Nevada Tennessee	7,737,627	8,091,006	47.52%	49.69%	-2.17%	15.17%	16.04%
Bush > 5%	Arkansas Arizona West Virginia Louisiana Virginia Colorado	4,151,467	4,840,176	44.41%	51.78%	-7.37%	8.14%	9.59%
Bush > 10%	Georgia North Carolina Alabama Kentucky Indiana South Carolina Mississippi Kansas Texas Oklahoma South Dakota Montana North Dakota Nebraska Alaska Idaho Wyoming Utah	9,949,053	14,842,443	39.02%	58.21%	-19.19%	19.51%	29.42%

Essentially, what we're doing here is breaking the States (and D.C.) up into six groups, three for each candidate: Those won by Gore by less than 5%, Gore by more than 5%, Gore by more than 10%, and the same three groups for Bush. Within each group, we determine the average percentage spread and - more importantly - the share of each candidate's total popular vote that group represents.

The first fact that leaps out at us is this: 36.73% of Gore's popular vote came from just 10 States and the District of Columbia. Granted, three of these States are among the largest in the Union; yet that still implies that a significant percentage of the Democrats' total vote came from a relatively small part of the country: These 11 States and districts cast 31.51% of America's popular vote, meaning that Gore's support levels ran 16.6% higher here than the population would indicate. Overall, winning this section of the country gave Gore 168 EV's, or 31.23% of the total EV's cast in the 2000 Presidential election.

In contrast, 29.42% of Bush's popular vote came from just 18 States. Only one of these (Texas) was a large State; most of the remaining States were much smaller. These 18 States cast only 24.19% of the Nation's popular vote, meaning that Bush's support ran 21.8% higher here than population would indicate. Compared to Gore's 11 States and districts above, these 18 States gave Bush 146 EV's, or 27.14% of the total EV's cast in the 2000 Presidential election.

That leaves 22 States in which one candidate or the other won by less than 10% of the popular vote. As it turns out, Bush and Gore split these 22 States by a 12-10 margin; collectively, however, Bush won them overall by a popular vote margin of 0.73% (i.e., just over 343,000 votes), and garnered 125 of their 224 EV's, which proved decisive.

We can narrow things down further, of course: There were 12 States in which one candidate or the other won by less that 5% of the popular vote. Here, too, while these 12 States were split 6-6, Bush won them overall by a popular vote margin of 0.25% (i.e., just under 73,000 votes), and garnered 76 of their 139 EV's, against 63 for Gore. Given that Bush's margin of victory in the Electoral College was only 4 EV's (or would have been, had a D.C. Elector not abstained as a protest statement in favor of D.C. Statehood), even this narrow margin of victory was enough to win the election for Bush.

So the moral of the story is that, just as Romney risks losing in the Electoral College this year because too much of his support is concentrated in too limited a segment of the country (i.e., the 22 "McCain" States), Gore lost in 2000 for much the same reason: Too much of his support was in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. In spite of winning the National popular vote by almost 544,000 votes, he lost the 22 closest States (when considered en bloc) by just over 343,000 votes, and lost the 12 closest States - the so-called "battleground" States - by almost 73,000 votes. Bush's support proved broader, because he did better in more States relative to Gore. The Electoral College system worked as designed, essentially choosing the candidate who was supported by a majority in more distinct places within the country, rather than allowing a geographically and/or ethnically narrow majority to overrule the rest of the country at large.

All we are seeing this year is the flip side of what happened in 2000: Just as we ended up choosing the President who had broad National support over the one who could build up impressive super-majorities in the dense urban centers of the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific Coast, this year the balance of power favors the candidate whose support is wider than just rural and suburban voters who's greatest voting strength lies in the South, the Great Plains, and the Rocky Mountain States.

I don't see him winning that way. ASB posted somewhere, here or in one of the other threads, that he sees Obama winning the Electoral College but not the popular vote.

I think that's fairly unlikely, Romney had one good showing in a debate, which bumped him up, but such things are transitory at best. 538 gives it a 3.1% chance winning the popular vote but not the EC. The opposite scenario, wherein Obama wins the popular vote but loses the EC is at 2.7% there. Take Nate's numbers however you like, but I think it's probably right.

Actually, what I said was not that Romney will win the popular vote, but that the concentration of Republican voting strength in the South and West means that Romney could very well lose the election in spite of winning the popular vote.

Over the summer, Obama's lead in the so-called "swing" States proved remarkably unresponsive to changes in the National polls; this suggests that most poll movement is occurring in States that are not at stake and among voters that, frankly speaking, don't matter. This is why I suggest that Romney may need a much larger surge in popular support to carry the day, even to the point of having to win the popular vote by as much as 4-5% - just so that enough of that lead will bleed over into the so-called "swing" States for him to win.

I still see the race that way: Just as Bush had a "built-in" Electoral College "lock" (really not so much a genuine "lock" as an advantage) in both 2000 and 2004, shifting demographic trends have altered the balance of power, such that now Barack Obama has such a "lock", just as he did in 2008. It will take a huge groundswell of support to overcome this advantage, and while such a surge is not impossible, we have yet to see if Romney can actually manage such a thing.

[Ardchoille]

You two are swimming in shark-infested waters.

You're not supposed to make it sound all cool and Hemmingway-like...

Remember, I'm Australian. In the language of my people, there is a word for one-who-swims-with-sharks. We call him "deadtourist".

[Farnhamia]

This is where I show that I suffer from the dumb.

lolgoogle

Doesn't the Electoral defeat of Gore show that Bush won only because of the overwhelming support of a narrow segment of the population?

No, quite the opposite. Using the data found at the Wikipedia page you've cited, I've constructed a table looking at the 2000 Presidential race:

Group	States	Gore Popular Vote	Bush Popular Vote	Gore Percent	Bush Percent	Difference	Gore Share	Bush Share
Gore > 10%	D.C. Rhode Island Massachusetts New York Hawaii Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Delaware Illinois California	18,731,845	12,951,551	56.40%	39.00%	17.40%	36.73%	25.67%
Gore > 5%	Vermont Washington Michigan Maine	3,887,043	3,468,394	50.70%	45.24%	5.46%	7.62%	6.87%
Gore < 5%	Pennsylvania Minnesota Oregon Iowa Wisconsin New Mexico	6,542,862	6,262,432	48.83%	46.74%	2.09%	12.83%	12.41%
Bush < 5%	Florida New Hampshire Missouri Ohio Nevada Tennessee	7,737,627	8,091,006	47.52%	49.69%	-2.17%	15.17%	16.04%
Bush > 5%	Arkansas Arizona West Virginia Louisiana Virginia Colorado	4,151,467	4,840,176	44.41%	51.78%	-7.37%	8.14%	9.59%
Bush > 10%	Georgia North Carolina Alabama Kentucky Indiana South Carolina Mississippi Kansas Texas Oklahoma South Dakota Montana North Dakota Nebraska Alaska Idaho Wyoming Utah	9,949,053	14,842,443	39.02%	58.21%	-19.19%	19.51%	29.42%

Essentially, what we're doing here is breaking the States (and D.C.) up into six groups, three for each candidate: Those won by Gore by less than 5%, Gore by more than 5%, Gore by more than 10%, and the same three groups for Bush. Within each group, we determine the average percentage spread and - more importantly - the share of each candidate's total popular vote that group represents.

The first fact that leaps out at us is this: 36.73% of Gore's popular vote came from just 10 States and the District of Columbia. Granted, three of these States are among the largest in the Union; yet that still implies that a significant percentage of the Democrats' total vote came from a relatively small part of the country: These 11 States and districts cast 31.51% of America's popular vote, meaning that Gore's support levels ran 16.6% higher here than the population would indicate. Overall, winning this section of the country gave Gore 168 EV's, or 31.23% of the total EV's cast in the 2000 Presidential election.

In contrast, 29.42% of Bush's popular vote came from just 18 States. Only one of these (Texas) was a large State; most of the remaining States were much smaller. These 18 States cast only 24.19% of the Nation's popular vote, meaning that Bush's support ran 21.8% higher here than population would indicate. Compared to Gore's 11 States and districts above, these 18 States gave Bush 146 EV's, or 27.14% of the total EV's cast in the 2000 Presidential election.

That leaves 22 States in which one candidate or the other won by less than 10% of the popular vote. As it turns out, Bush and Gore split these 22 States by a 12-10 margin; collectively, however, Bush won them overall by a popular vote margin of 0.73% (i.e., just over 343,000 votes), and garnered 125 of their 224 EV's, which proved decisive.

We can narrow things down further, of course: There were 12 States in which one candidate or the other won by less that 5% of the popular vote. Here, too, while these 12 States were split 6-6, Bush won them overall by a popular vote margin of 0.25% (i.e., just under 73,000 votes), and garnered 76 of their 139 EV's, against 63 for Gore. Given that Bush's margin of victory in the Electoral College was only 4 EV's (or would have been, had a D.C. Elector not abstained as a protest statement in favor of D.C. Statehood), even this narrow margin of victory was enough to win the election for Bush.

So the moral of the story is that, just as Romney risks losing in the Electoral College this year because too much of his support is concentrated in too limited a segment of the country (i.e., the 22 "McCain" States), Gore lost in 2000 for much the same reason: Too much of his support was in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. In spite of winning the National popular vote by almost 544,000 votes, he lost the 22 closest States (when considered en bloc) by just over 343,000 votes, and lost the 12 closest States - the so-called "battleground" States - by almost 73,000 votes. Bush's support proved broader, because he did better in more States relative to Gore. The Electoral College system worked as designed, essentially choosing the candidate who was supported by a majority in more distinct places within the country, rather than allowing a geographically and/or ethnically narrow majority to overrule the rest of the country at large.

All we are seeing this year is the flip side of what happened in 2000: Just as we ended up choosing the President who had broad National support over the one who could build up impressive super-majorities in the dense urban centers of the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific Coast, this year the balance of power favors the candidate whose support is wider than just rural and suburban voters who's greatest voting strength lies in the South, the Great Plains, and the Rocky Mountain States.

I think that's fairly unlikely, Romney had one good showing in a debate, which bumped him up, but such things are transitory at best. 538 gives it a 3.1% chance winning the popular vote but not the EC. The opposite scenario, wherein Obama wins the popular vote but loses the EC is at 2.7% there. Take Nate's numbers however you like, but I think it's probably right.

Actually, what I said was not that Romney will win the popular vote, but that the concentration of Republican voting strength in the South and West means that Romney could very well lose the election in spite of winning the popular vote.

Over the summer, Obama's lead in the so-called "swing" States proved remarkably unresponsive to changes in the National polls; this suggests that most poll movement is occurring in States that are not at stake and among voters that, frankly speaking, don't matter. This is why I suggest that Romney may need a much larger surge in popular support to carry the day, even to the point of having to win the popular vote by as much as 4-5% - just so that enough of that lead will bleed over into the so-called "swing" States for him to win.

I still see the race that way: Just as Bush had a "built-in" Electoral College "lock" (really not so much a genuine "lock" as an advantage) in both 2000 and 2004, shifting demographic trends have altered the balance of power, such that now Barack Obama has such a "lock", just as he did in 2008. It will take a huge groundswell of support to overcome this advantage, and while such a surge is not impossible, we have yet to see if Romney can actually manage such a thing.

My apologies, I was ... imprecise in saying what ASB posted. "Could" is the right word.

Nate Silver's posting today (the 10th) that Romney's erased Obama's post-convention bounce. I swear, if a bad 90 minutes last week undoes the hard-won accomplishments of the last four years I will not be happy.

[New England and The Maritimes]

No, quite the opposite. Using the data found at the Wikipedia page you've cited, I've constructed a table looking at the 2000 Presidential race:

Group	States	Gore Popular Vote	Bush Popular Vote	Gore Percent	Bush Percent	Difference	Gore Share	Bush Share
Gore > 10%	D.C. Rhode Island Massachusetts New York Hawaii Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Delaware Illinois California	18,731,845	12,951,551	56.40%	39.00%	17.40%	36.73%	25.67%
Gore > 5%	Vermont Washington Michigan Maine	3,887,043	3,468,394	50.70%	45.24%	5.46%	7.62%	6.87%
Gore < 5%	Pennsylvania Minnesota Oregon Iowa Wisconsin New Mexico	6,542,862	6,262,432	48.83%	46.74%	2.09%	12.83%	12.41%
Bush < 5%	Florida New Hampshire Missouri Ohio Nevada Tennessee	7,737,627	8,091,006	47.52%	49.69%	-2.17%	15.17%	16.04%
Bush > 5%	Arkansas Arizona West Virginia Louisiana Virginia Colorado	4,151,467	4,840,176	44.41%	51.78%	-7.37%	8.14%	9.59%
Bush > 10%	Georgia North Carolina Alabama Kentucky Indiana South Carolina Mississippi Kansas Texas Oklahoma South Dakota Montana North Dakota Nebraska Alaska Idaho Wyoming Utah	9,949,053	14,842,443	39.02%	58.21%	-19.19%	19.51%	29.42%

Essentially, what we're doing here is breaking the States (and D.C.) up into six groups, three for each candidate: Those won by Gore by less than 5%, Gore by more than 5%, Gore by more than 10%, and the same three groups for Bush. Within each group, we determine the average percentage spread and - more importantly - the share of each candidate's total popular vote that group represents.

The first fact that leaps out at us is this: 36.73% of Gore's popular vote came from just 10 States and the District of Columbia. Granted, three of these States are among the largest in the Union; yet that still implies that a significant percentage of the Democrats' total vote came from a relatively small part of the country: These 11 States and districts cast 31.51% of America's popular vote, meaning that Gore's support levels ran 16.6% higher here than the population would indicate. Overall, winning this section of the country gave Gore 168 EV's, or 31.23% of the total EV's cast in the 2000 Presidential election.

In contrast, 29.42% of Bush's popular vote came from just 18 States. Only one of these (Texas) was a large State; most of the remaining States were much smaller. These 18 States cast only 24.19% of the Nation's popular vote, meaning that Bush's support ran 21.8% higher here than population would indicate. Compared to Gore's 11 States and districts above, these 18 States gave Bush 146 EV's, or 27.14% of the total EV's cast in the 2000 Presidential election.

That leaves 22 States in which one candidate or the other won by less than 10% of the popular vote. As it turns out, Bush and Gore split these 22 States by a 12-10 margin; collectively, however, Bush won them overall by a popular vote margin of 0.73% (i.e., just over 343,000 votes), and garnered 125 of their 224 EV's, which proved decisive.

We can narrow things down further, of course: There were 12 States in which one candidate or the other won by less that 5% of the popular vote. Here, too, while these 12 States were split 6-6, Bush won them overall by a popular vote margin of 0.25% (i.e., just under 73,000 votes), and garnered 76 of their 139 EV's, against 63 for Gore. Given that Bush's margin of victory in the Electoral College was only 4 EV's (or would have been, had a D.C. Elector not abstained as a protest statement in favor of D.C. Statehood), even this narrow margin of victory was enough to win the election for Bush.

So the moral of the story is that, just as Romney risks losing in the Electoral College this year because too much of his support is concentrated in too limited a segment of the country (i.e., the 22 "McCain" States), Gore lost in 2000 for much the same reason: Too much of his support was in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. In spite of winning the National popular vote by almost 544,000 votes, he lost the 22 closest States (when considered en bloc) by just over 343,000 votes, and lost the 12 closest States - the so-called "battleground" States - by almost 73,000 votes. Bush's support proved broader, because he did better in more States relative to Gore. The Electoral College system worked as designed, essentially choosing the candidate who was supported by a majority in more distinct places within the country, rather than allowing a geographically and/or ethnically narrow majority to overrule the rest of the country at large.

All we are seeing this year is the flip side of what happened in 2000: Just as we ended up choosing the President who had broad National support over the one who could build up impressive super-majorities in the dense urban centers of the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific Coast, this year the balance of power favors the candidate whose support is wider than just rural and suburban voters who's greatest voting strength lies in the South, the Great Plains, and the Rocky Mountain States.

Actually, what I said was not that Romney will win the popular vote, but that the concentration of Republican voting strength in the South and West means that Romney could very well lose the election in spite of winning the popular vote.

Over the summer, Obama's lead in the so-called "swing" States proved remarkably unresponsive to changes in the National polls; this suggests that most poll movement is occurring in States that are not at stake and among voters that, frankly speaking, don't matter. This is why I suggest that Romney may need a much larger surge in popular support to carry the day, even to the point of having to win the popular vote by as much as 4-5% - just so that enough of that lead will bleed over into the so-called "swing" States for him to win.

I still see the race that way: Just as Bush had a "built-in" Electoral College "lock" (really not so much a genuine "lock" as an advantage) in both 2000 and 2004, shifting demographic trends have altered the balance of power, such that now Barack Obama has such a "lock", just as he did in 2008. It will take a huge groundswell of support to overcome this advantage, and while such a surge is not impossible, we have yet to see if Romney can actually manage such a thing.

My apologies, I was ... imprecise in saying what ASB posted. "Could" is the right word.

Nate Silver's posting today (the 10th) that Romney's erased Obama's post-convention bounce. I swear, if a bad 90 minutes last week undoes the hard-won accomplishments of the last four years I will not be happy.

If this is really what it takes, Romney and the Republicans have basically destroyed American politics single-handedly. If the "winning approach" to debates is to literally walk onto the stage, tell more than 50 overt, intentional lies in an hour and a half, then walk off, we're in no shape to call ourselves a respectable nation. Politics seems to be literally transforming into every 14 year old Ron Paul devotee's dream land, where "POLITICIANS R BAD" and the only vote is no vote. I'd say this could impact turnout by disillusioning voters, but it seems to me that, outside of a narrow band of the population, nobody cares. That's pretty disturbing to me, personally.

If this is what is going to happen, and all it took was an hour and a half of uninterrupted, bald-faced lying, then it is genuinely possible to buy the election using cash as a megaphone for your lies. If that's the case, anyone who isn't out first and foremost to glorify and promote corporate interests seems to be in for a lot of trouble.

[Not Safe For Work]

No, quite the opposite. Using the data found at the Wikipedia page you've cited, I've constructed a table looking at the 2000 Presidential race:

Group	States	Gore Popular Vote	Bush Popular Vote	Gore Percent	Bush Percent	Difference	Gore Share	Bush Share
Gore > 10%	D.C. Rhode Island Massachusetts New York Hawaii Connecticut Maryland New Jersey Delaware Illinois California	18,731,845	12,951,551	56.40%	39.00%	17.40%	36.73%	25.67%
Gore > 5%	Vermont Washington Michigan Maine	3,887,043	3,468,394	50.70%	45.24%	5.46%	7.62%	6.87%
Gore < 5%	Pennsylvania Minnesota Oregon Iowa Wisconsin New Mexico	6,542,862	6,262,432	48.83%	46.74%	2.09%	12.83%	12.41%
Bush < 5%	Florida New Hampshire Missouri Ohio Nevada Tennessee	7,737,627	8,091,006	47.52%	49.69%	-2.17%	15.17%	16.04%
Bush > 5%	Arkansas Arizona West Virginia Louisiana Virginia Colorado	4,151,467	4,840,176	44.41%	51.78%	-7.37%	8.14%	9.59%
Bush > 10%	Georgia North Carolina Alabama Kentucky Indiana South Carolina Mississippi Kansas Texas Oklahoma South Dakota Montana North Dakota Nebraska Alaska Idaho Wyoming Utah	9,949,053	14,842,443	39.02%	58.21%	-19.19%	19.51%	29.42%

Essentially, what we're doing here is breaking the States (and D.C.) up into six groups, three for each candidate: Those won by Gore by less than 5%, Gore by more than 5%, Gore by more than 10%, and the same three groups for Bush. Within each group, we determine the average percentage spread and - more importantly - the share of each candidate's total popular vote that group represents.

The first fact that leaps out at us is this: 36.73% of Gore's popular vote came from just 10 States and the District of Columbia. Granted, three of these States are among the largest in the Union; yet that still implies that a significant percentage of the Democrats' total vote came from a relatively small part of the country: These 11 States and districts cast 31.51% of America's popular vote, meaning that Gore's support levels ran 16.6% higher here than the population would indicate. Overall, winning this section of the country gave Gore 168 EV's, or 31.23% of the total EV's cast in the 2000 Presidential election.

In contrast, 29.42% of Bush's popular vote came from just 18 States. Only one of these (Texas) was a large State; most of the remaining States were much smaller. These 18 States cast only 24.19% of the Nation's popular vote, meaning that Bush's support ran 21.8% higher here than population would indicate. Compared to Gore's 11 States and districts above, these 18 States gave Bush 146 EV's, or 27.14% of the total EV's cast in the 2000 Presidential election.

That leaves 22 States in which one candidate or the other won by less than 10% of the popular vote. As it turns out, Bush and Gore split these 22 States by a 12-10 margin; collectively, however, Bush won them overall by a popular vote margin of 0.73% (i.e., just over 343,000 votes), and garnered 125 of their 224 EV's, which proved decisive.

We can narrow things down further, of course: There were 12 States in which one candidate or the other won by less that 5% of the popular vote. Here, too, while these 12 States were split 6-6, Bush won them overall by a popular vote margin of 0.25% (i.e., just under 73,000 votes), and garnered 76 of their 139 EV's, against 63 for Gore. Given that Bush's margin of victory in the Electoral College was only 4 EV's (or would have been, had a D.C. Elector not abstained as a protest statement in favor of D.C. Statehood), even this narrow margin of victory was enough to win the election for Bush.

So the moral of the story is that, just as Romney risks losing in the Electoral College this year because too much of his support is concentrated in too limited a segment of the country (i.e., the 22 "McCain" States), Gore lost in 2000 for much the same reason: Too much of his support was in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. In spite of winning the National popular vote by almost 544,000 votes, he lost the 22 closest States (when considered en bloc) by just over 343,000 votes, and lost the 12 closest States - the so-called "battleground" States - by almost 73,000 votes. Bush's support proved broader, because he did better in more States relative to Gore. The Electoral College system worked as designed, essentially choosing the candidate who was supported by a majority in more distinct places within the country, rather than allowing a geographically and/or ethnically narrow majority to overrule the rest of the country at large.

All we are seeing this year is the flip side of what happened in 2000: Just as we ended up choosing the President who had broad National support over the one who could build up impressive super-majorities in the dense urban centers of the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific Coast, this year the balance of power favors the candidate whose support is wider than just rural and suburban voters who's greatest voting strength lies in the South, the Great Plains, and the Rocky Mountain States.

Actually, what I said was not that Romney will win the popular vote, but that the concentration of Republican voting strength in the South and West means that Romney could very well lose the election in spite of winning the popular vote.

Over the summer, Obama's lead in the so-called "swing" States proved remarkably unresponsive to changes in the National polls; this suggests that most poll movement is occurring in States that are not at stake and among voters that, frankly speaking, don't matter. This is why I suggest that Romney may need a much larger surge in popular support to carry the day, even to the point of having to win the popular vote by as much as 4-5% - just so that enough of that lead will bleed over into the so-called "swing" States for him to win.

I still see the race that way: Just as Bush had a "built-in" Electoral College "lock" (really not so much a genuine "lock" as an advantage) in both 2000 and 2004, shifting demographic trends have altered the balance of power, such that now Barack Obama has such a "lock", just as he did in 2008. It will take a huge groundswell of support to overcome this advantage, and while such a surge is not impossible, we have yet to see if Romney can actually manage such a thing.

My apologies, I was ... imprecise in saying what ASB posted. "Could" is the right word.

Nate Silver's posting today (the 10th) that Romney's erased Obama's post-convention bounce. I swear, if a bad 90 minutes last week undoes the hard-won accomplishments of the last four years I will not be happy.

Realistically, we've known for the last year that this race was Obama's race to lose. Since the numbers have been coming out this year, it's been pretty obvious that Obama was defaulting high, and it wasn't that he was doing wonderfully well - but that Romney was just so hated.

If Romney has actually come across as slightly less unelectable to a small proportion of the population (at last), it'[s not that much of a surprise.