Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Seperates]

Mail. In. Voting. Seriously, Oregon uses it and it works fantastically. No polls. No lines. No waiting. Get your ballot weeks in advance, deposit at any of a gajillion places. ???? Profit.

Wow, it's the only method of voting? I'm not sure I like that.

Better than not getting a vote at all, honestly.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Mail. In. Voting. Seriously, Oregon uses it and it works fantastically. No polls. No lines. No waiting. Get your ballot weeks in advance, deposit at any of a gajillion places. ???? Profit.

Wow, it's the only method of voting? I'm not sure I like that.

Why not? You have your ballot well in advance. If you don't get one, you can show up to ANY post office and get another by filling out a form. There is literally no reason to not vote in my state.

[AiliailiA]

Wow, it's the only method of voting? I'm not sure I like that.

Why not? You have your ballot well in advance. If you don't get one, you can show up to ANY post office and get another by filling out a form. There is literally no reason to not vote in my state.

I've changed my mind. It's become more and more popular since first being tried. 80% of registered voters casting ballots is impressive. There's a paper trail in case the vote is disputed. And apparently it is even cheap to operate (shouldn't be a factor but obviously is since some states don't provide enough polling places for people to vote without queuing up).

[The Emerald Dawn]

Why not? You have your ballot well in advance. If you don't get one, you can show up to ANY post office and get another by filling out a form. There is literally no reason to not vote in my state.

I've changed my mind. It's become more and more popular since first being tried. 80% of registered voters casting ballots is impressive. There's a paper trail in case the vote is disputed. And apparently it is even cheap to operate (shouldn't be a factor but obviously is since some states don't provide enough polling places for people to vote without queuing up).

Exactly! Not only that, but the only two people who have been "major players" here in the state that are against it are against it because it supports ACCURACY.

[Cannot think of a name]

Fivethirtyeight.com has a fascinating headline read that's the current story on the site right now, explaining how to read Romney's current 7 point lead amongst likely voters, on the Gallup poll, when virtually every other poll shows a dead heat, with leads in swing states giving the lead to Obama.

The article basically boils down to "Gallup is very accurate, when it's in consensus with the rest of the polls, but Gallup has a history of being a weird outlier, and when it is an outlier, it's almost always wrong, so when Gallup is giving you data that's very different than the rest of the story, it's far more likely to be wrong than right"

It was interesting to see him on the Daily Show say people are too obsessed with polls...poll watching is that guy's bread and butter and even he was all, "yeah, people weird out about this shit when they shouldn't."

And yet, I am undettered as I compulsively check it waiting for the daily update.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Fivethirtyeight.com has a fascinating headline read that's the current story on the site right now, explaining how to read Romney's current 7 point lead amongst likely voters, on the Gallup poll, when virtually every other poll shows a dead heat, with leads in swing states giving the lead to Obama.

The article basically boils down to "Gallup is very accurate, when it's in consensus with the rest of the polls, but Gallup has a history of being a weird outlier, and when it is an outlier, it's almost always wrong, so when Gallup is giving you data that's very different than the rest of the story, it's far more likely to be wrong than right"

It was interesting to see him on the Daily Show say people are too obsessed with polls...poll watching is that guy's bread and butter and even he was all, "yeah, people weird out about this shit when they shouldn't."

And yet, I am undettered as I compulsively check it waiting for the daily update.

But there is a difference between saying "I want to see how things have changed, and what has factored into that change." and saying "OH GOD THE NUMBER DROPPED ALL IS LOST OBAMA IS GOING TO LOSE IN A LANDSLIDE"

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

Wow, it's the only method of voting? I'm not sure I like that.

Better than not getting a vote at all, honestly.

It's certainly better than everywhere else, from what I can tell. I've been snickering at all the voter suppression attempts over the last few months because the justifications for them would be totally irrelevant with our voting system.

[Wikkiwallana]

Holy shit, this is actually up to the governor's discretion?

Voter suppression is becoming popular in Indiana too, but at least here keeping the polls open for everyone who's in line at the 6 PM deadline is required by statute.

Mail. In. Voting. Seriously, Oregon uses it and it works fantastically. No polls. No lines. No waiting. Get your ballot weeks in advance, deposit at any of a gajillion places. ???? Profit.

At least until the GOP finishes dismantling the postal system.

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of October 18th, 2012)



Obama 277, Romney 239 (22 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: SOME NEW POLLS DO NOT YET REFLECT REACTION TO THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

---

I'm still running behind. Thirteen new polls came out yesterday:

• In Florida (29 EV's), a new poll by Zogby dated October 16th shows Obama leading by 3%; averaging this poll with four others taken within a one-week look-back window (by PPP, ARG, Rasmussen, and Marist College) gives Governor Romney a net lead of 2%. The Sunshine State remains "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Ohio (18 EV's), a mew poll by SurveyUSA dated October 15th shows Obama up by 3%; averaging this poll with four others taken within a one-week look-back window (by PPP, Rasmussen, Marist College, and Zogby) gives the President a net lead of 4%. The Buckeye State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Nevada (6 EV's), two new polls (one by Rasmussen and one by SurveyUSA, both dated October 15th) show Obama leading by an average of 3%; averaging these two polls with Suffolk University's poll from October 9th gives the President a net lead of 4%. The Silver State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Wisconsin (10 EV's), a new poll by Marquette Law School dated October 14th shows Obama up by 1%; averaging this poll with three others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Pulse Opinion Research, Quinnipiac University, and Rasmussen) gives the President a net lead of 2%. The Badger State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In New Hampshire (4 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated October 15th shows Obama leading by 1%; averaging this poll with three others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Suffolk University, ARG, and Rasmussen) gives Governor Romney a net lead of 1%. The Granite State remains "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Connecticut (7 EV's), two new polls (one by Siena College, dated October 14th, and one by the University of Connecticut, dated October 16th) show Obama leading by an average of 14%; averaging these two polls with Rasmussen's poll from October 7th gives the President a net lead of 12%. The Constitution State shifts from "Likely Democratic" to "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Washington (12 EV's), two new polls (one by Rasmussen, dated October 14th, and one by PPP, dated October 16th) show Obama up by an average of 9%; averaging these two polls with SurveyUSA's poll from October 14th gives the President a net lead of 11%. The Evergreen State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Massachusetts (11 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated October 16th shows Obama up by 18%; averaging this poll with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by PPP and Rasmussen) gives the President a net lead of 15%. The Bay State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Montana (3 EV's), two new polls (one by Rasmussen, dated October 14th, and one by PPP, dated October 16th) show Romney leading by an average of 9%; averaging these two polls with PPP's poll from October 10th gives the former Massachusetts Governor a net lead of 10%. Big Sky Country remains "Strongly Republican".

With these polls, we begin to see the first signs of a "bounce" back towards the President. If the GOP has any rabbits left in their collective hat, this is the moment to yank them out.

[Free South Califas]

Well it was only a LITTLE war. Compared to the UK's past relations with most of its allies, that's positively friendly.

A little war, sort of like a little murder and a little rape.

Yeah, exactly like that. Some wars aren't World Wars. Some murders aren't genocides. Some rapes aren't systematic mass rapes. I don't think this should be particularly controversial. ETA: Nor does it diminish the horror of a single instance of any of the three, of course.

Also you leave out that the French used its puppet state imperial Mexico to support the confederacy.

Thankfully, the Mexican people rose up and cast off the yoke of their French masters, which had the knock-on effect of isolating the Confederacy during the Civil War. Yet, who thanks the Mexican people? Who gives aid and solidarity to their struggle for sovereignty in Chiapas and their nationwide protest movement?

Mail. In. Voting. Seriously, Oregon uses it and it works fantastically. No polls. No lines. No waiting. Get your ballot weeks in advance, deposit at any of a gajillion places. ???? Profit.

Wow, it's the only method of voting? I'm not sure I like that.

EDIT: Wikipedia sez: "2000 Oregon becomes the first state in the nation to conduct a presidential election entirely by mail. About 80% of registered voters participated." That's the highest in the country (other than Wyoming but that's because they allow election-day registration). OK, I'm persuaded.

What are homeless voters supposed to do, exactly? Not everyone has a mailing address. Oregonians, is there a fee to get a ballot at the post office? What are the preconditions and what do you sign on the form?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Wow, it's the only method of voting? I'm not sure I like that.

EDIT: Wikipedia sez: "2000 Oregon becomes the first state in the nation to conduct a presidential election entirely by mail. About 80% of registered voters participated." That's the highest in the country (other than Wyoming but that's because they allow election-day registration). OK, I'm persuaded.

What are homeless voters supposed to do, exactly? Not everyone has a mailing address. Oregonians, is there a fee to get a ballot at the post office? What are the preconditions and what do you sign on the form?

Can I register to vote if I am homeless?
Yes, if you are a US citizen, an Oregon Resident and at least 17 years of age. Your residence address may be any place you sleep within the county. You must describe the physical location where you sleep. A homeless person may use the mailing address of the county elections official of the county in which the person is located.

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of October 19th, 2012)



Obama 286, Romney 239 (13 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: SOME NEW POLLS DO NOT YET REFLECT REACTION TO THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

---

Eleven new polls came out yesterday. Interestingly enough, I participated in one of them, and my wife participated in another:

• In Colorado (9 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated October 18th shows Obama leading by 3%. The Centennial State moves from "Exactly Tied" to "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Virginia (13 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated October 16th shows Obama up by 1%; averaging this poll with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by ARG and Rasmussen) leaves the candidates in a dead heat. Old Dominion remains "Exactly Tied".
  
  
• In Ohio (18 EV's), a mew poll by Rasmussen dated October 17th shows Obama up by 2%; averaging this poll with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by SurveyUSA and PPP) gives the President a net lead of 3%. The Buckeye State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In North Carolina (15 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated October 17th shows Romney up by 6%; this seems like a bit of an outlier, so we'll want to see if other polls confirm that wider lead for the former Massachusetts Governor. Avergaing this poll with PPP's poll from October 14th gives Governor Romney a net lead of 4%. The Tarheel State remains "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Iowa (6 EV's), a new Marist College poll dated October 17th shows Obama with an 8% lead; this also seems like a bot of an outlier, so we'll want to watch for other confirming polls here, as well. Averaging this poll with ARG's poll from October 14th gives President Obama a net lead of 4%. The Hawkeye State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Wisconsin (10 EV's), a new Marist College poll dated October 17th shows Obama leading by 6%; this, too, seems like a bit of an outlier, albeit not as much of one as the previous two polls above. Averaging this poll with the one taken by Marquette Law School on October 14th gives the President a net lead of 3%. The Badger State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Michigan (16 EV's), there are two new polls: one by Denno Research, dated October 10th, and one by EPIC-MRA, dated October 17th. The EPIC-MRA poll (in which my wife participated), which shows Obama up by 6%, is the more recent and thus establishes the usual one-week look-back window; the Denno Research poll (in which I participate), which shows Obama leading by only 3%, ends up being dropped from the picture as a consequence. Averaging the EPIC-MRA poll with the Rasmussen poll taken on October 11th (in which neither of us participated - what's up with that?!?) gives the President a net lead of 6%. The Great Lakes state slides from "Barely Democratic" to "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In Oregon (7 EV's), a new poll by SurveyUSA dated October 18th shows Obama up by 7%. The Beaver State remains "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In Washington (12 EV's), a new poll by the University of Washington dated October dated October 16th shows Obama leading by 9%. For some reason, Tanenbaum's map fails to include this poll even though it is listed on the page; the State continues to be shown with Obama up by 11% based on the strength of three polls (by PPP, Rasmussen, and SurveyUSA). If this poll were included in the average, the President would have a net lead of 10%. Either way, though, the Evergreen State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Connecticut (7 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated October 16th shows Obama up by 9%; averaging this poll with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Siena College and the University of Connecticut) leaves the President with a net lead of 12%. The Constitution State remains "Strongly Democratic".

Recent discussion has focused on Democratic efforts to build a "firewall" against "Team Romney" in Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. If the foregoing map (and other data I will discuss below) is to be believed, the effort is working: President Obama holds 3-4% leads in each of these States except for New Hampshire (which is needed for insurance against the possible loss of Wisconsin).

---

Last week I linked to an article claiming that 18% of Ohioans had already voted early, and that the President held a commanding (63-37) lead among these early voters; I then went on to point out that - if these numbers (which are from Marist College) are correct, then Romney would have to win the remaining vite in Ohio by 6% or more to take the State - something that seems increasingly less likely with each passing day. While I'm not yet ready to call Ohio for "Team Obama", I'm inclined to think that - between early voting and the strength of the Democratic ground game in the Buckeye State - the odds of a win by Obama in Ohio are way up over 90% at this point.

Well, now the other shoe has dropped: Marist now reports that a whopping 34% of Iowans have voted early - and that these early voters are favoring Obama by an equally incredible 67-32 margin. Worse (for Mitt Romney), another 11% say they're planning to vote early, and this group favors by a 55-39 margin.

If the first fact alone is true, Romney will need to win the remaining Iowa vote by 18 points; if the second fact is also true, Romney will need to win Iowa's Election Day vote by an incredible 25 point margin to carry the State. Currently, Marist shows him leading by likely Election Day voters by a fairly impressive 15 point margin (54-39), but that would still leave him short of the mark in the Hawkeye State; indeed, with the numbers he's looking at right now, he stands to lose Iowa by 5%.

This ties back into "Team Obama's" current strategy of building a "firewall" against a late Romney surge in Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin. I've been over the math repeatedly, but it's worth reviewing one more time. The so-called "Kerry" States (Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, and the District of Columbia) are worth 242 Electoral Votes; deduct Wisconsin - Paul Ryan's home State, where his presence on the ballot has kept the GOP competitive - and add New Mexico - where Democrats have enjoyed a significant lead all year - and you end up with 237 EV's. Ohio adds another 18 EV's and would thus bring the President's total to 255 EV's, a stone's throw away from the 270 EV's he needs for re-election. Iowa (with 6 EV's), Nevada (with 6 EV's), and New Hampshire (with 4 EV's) would bring in another 16 EV's, taking the President to 271 EV's and guaranteeing him a win; alternately, Wisconsin (with 10 EV's of its own) would bring Obama to 265 EV's and allow him to win with either Iowa or Nevada alone (and no need to consider what happens in New Hampshire).

Many on the right are interpreting this shift as indicative of a certain Romney victory in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and North Carolina. While North Carolina is probably lost to Obama, Florida, Virginia and Colorado are not; I interpret the "firewall" strategy as part of a defensive strategy aimed at ensuring that Romney cannot win as the race goes into the final stretch. In essence, it's not the desperation srategy FOX News and the right-wing infosphere are making it out to be; it's an attempt to nail the final stake through Romney's heart and put this race beyond his reach by making certain he can't break through at the 11th hour.

So the success of Democratic efforts to turn out their base in Ohio and Iowa is big: It means that the Democrats are quite possibly looking at a solid bloc of 261 EV's at this point (the "Kerry" States less Wisconsin, but now with New Mexico, Ohio, and Iowa added in) and only need one more State (or, in the case of Nevada and New Hampshire, a pair of States) to lock down in order to guarantee a win.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I've seen posters and ads here in Oregon saying that "Our vote isn't being heard", and that we need to "petition our leaders to move towards a popular vote system". Seems like the Republicans are aware that this state isn't moving Red any time soon.

[ALMF]

It was interesting to see him on the Daily Show say people are too obsessed with polls...poll watching is that guy's bread and butter and even he was all, "yeah, people weird out about this shit when they shouldn't."

And yet, I am undettered as I compulsively check it waiting for the daily update.

But there is a difference between saying "I want to see how things have changed, and what has factored into that change." and saying "OH GOD THE NUMBER DROPPED ALL IS LOST OBAMA IS GOING TO LOSE IN A LANDSLIDE"

That it true: this puts rominy back in the game.

[Farnhamia]

But there is a difference between saying "I want to see how things have changed, and what has factored into that change." and saying "OH GOD THE NUMBER DROPPED ALL IS LOST OBAMA IS GOING TO LOSE IN A LANDSLIDE"

That it true: this puts rominy back in the game.

I don't know, you think?

[New Chalcedon]

But there is a difference between saying "I want to see how things have changed, and what has factored into that change." and saying "OH GOD THE NUMBER DROPPED ALL IS LOST OBAMA IS GOING TO LOSE IN A LANDSLIDE"

That it true: this puts rominy back in the game.

It's funny how Republicans love to appeal to the popular vote the moment their guy looks like he *might* be ahead in it, but the moment the Democrat wins the popular vote, out comes the solemn "We must respect the Electoral College" face.

Or should I say "farce"?

[Farnhamia]

That it true: this puts rominy back in the game.

It's funny how Republicans love to appeal to the popular vote the moment their guy looks like he *might* be ahead in it, but the moment the Democrat wins the popular vote, out comes the solemn "We must respect the Electoral College" face.

Or should I say "farce"?

"Farce," I think. The GOP has been putting one on since 2009, if not earlier. As soon as people wearing tea bags on three-cornered hats showed up on the political scene. Tea bags were first marketed around 1910, I believe.

[The Emerald Dawn]

It's funny how Republicans love to appeal to the popular vote the moment their guy looks like he *might* be ahead in it, but the moment the Democrat wins the popular vote, out comes the solemn "We must respect the Electoral College" face.

Or should I say "farce"?

"Farce," I think. The GOP has been putting one on since 2009, if not earlier. As soon as people wearing tea bags on three-cornered hats showed up on the political scene. Tea bags were first marketed around 1910, I believe.

Tea-Bagging is a time honored tradition, hailing all the way back to the Mayflower, when Christopher Jones proved his alpha male dominance over Stephen Hopkins for calling him a "lost bugger".

[Farnhamia]

"Farce," I think. The GOP has been putting one on since 2009, if not earlier. As soon as people wearing tea bags on three-cornered hats showed up on the political scene. Tea bags were first marketed around 1910, I believe.

Tea-Bagging is a time honored tradition, hailing all the way back to the Mayflower, when Christopher Jones proved his alpha male dominance over Stephen Hopkins for calling him a "lost bugger".

I had a bad feeling about mentioning tea bags.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Tea-Bagging is a time honored tradition, hailing all the way back to the Mayflower, when Christopher Jones proved his alpha male dominance over Stephen Hopkins for calling him a "lost bugger".

I had a bad feeling about mentioning tea bags.

And here we are.

[Farnhamia]

I had a bad feeling about mentioning tea bags.

And here we are.

And here we are, indeed. Time for lunch, I think.

[Alien Space Bats]

That it true: this puts rominy back in the game.

It's funny how Republicans love to appeal to the popular vote the moment their guy looks like he *might* be ahead in it, but the moment the Democrat wins the popular vote, out comes the solemn "We must respect the Electoral College" face.

Or should I say "farce"?

From this year's GOP Platform:

The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College

We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose “national popular vote” would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.

So... another flip-flop?

<pause>

I guess we liberals were wrong when we called them "Party of No"; they're really the "Party of No/Yes/Maybe/Whatever Works For Us".

---

FOR THE RECORD: Everybody here who knows me knows that I actually like the Electoral College, and always have.

[Alien Space Bats]

... And so while we're on the subject...

Yesterday Andrew Tanenbaum had an interesting table on his page:

Region	Obama	Romney	Margin
East	52%	48%	Obama +4%
Midwest	52%	48%	Obama +4%
South	39%	61%	Romney +22%
West	53%	47%	Obama +6%

This table goes a long way towards explaining something I've been talking about for months: Romney's voting strength is too concentrated; this concentration puts him at a disadvantage when it comes to the Electoral College.

Let's look at the foregoing table again, adding the Electoral College splits:

Region	Obama	Romney	Margin	Electoral College
East	52%	48%	Obama +4%	Obama 108-9
Midwest	52%	48%	Obama +4%	Obama 80-38
South	39%	61%	Romney +22%	Romney 162-0-13
West	53%	47%	Obama +6%	Obama 98-30

The data for these tables comes from Gallup; I can't find the weights Gallup assigns to each region, but in its 2008 exit poll summary, the New York Times assigns these four regions the following relative weights:

East - 21%
Midwest - 24%
South - 32%
West - 23%

So here's the thought experiment I want you all to consider: What if Romney's support in the South rose by 10% (to 71-29). Such an increase would probably tip the last Southern State (Virginia) into Romney's camp, and it would raise his National popular vote total by roughly 6.4%.

But would it be enough to make him President? No, it would not: He'd still end up losing 286-252 in the Electoral College in spite of the increase in popular support.

And that, in turn, begs the question: Should it be enough to make him President? My gut says "no", which is why I like the Electoral College; simply put, I don't think that the South, as the Nation's most populous region, ought to be in a position to dominate and dictate policy to the rest of the country. It should need much stronger support elsewhere than a mere 47-48% of the popular vote in order to exercise National rule.

[The Emerald Dawn]

No, and for the same reason that England shouldn't be allowed to dictate to Wales, Scotland, North Ireland, and the Isle of Man what they do. Social and political "norms" change and vary wildly between regions. While the Pacific Northwest and North East are both largely considered "Liberal Hellholes", we couldn't agree on anything between each other except for the fact that we don't want Romney as president.

I hate to admit it, but I'm starting to see the real good in having the Electoral college, despite 2000.

[Farnhamia]

... And so while we're on the subject...

Yesterday Andrew Tanenbaum had an interesting table on his page:

Region	Obama	Romney	Margin
East	52%	48%	Obama +4%
Midwest	52%	48%	Obama +4%
South	39%	61%	Romney +22%
West	53%	47%	Obama +6%

This table goes a long way towards explaining something I've been talking about for months: Romney's voting strength is too concentrated; this concentration puts him at a disadvantage when it comes to the Electoral College.

Let's look at the foregoing table again, adding the Electoral College splits:

Region	Obama	Romney	Margin	Electoral College
East	52%	48%	Obama +4%	Obama 108-9
Midwest	52%	48%	Obama +4%	Obama 80-38
South	39%	61%	Romney +22%	Romney 162-0-13
West	53%	47%	Obama +6%	Obama 98-30

The data for these tables comes from Gallup; I can't find the weights Gallup assigns to each region, but in its 2008 exit poll summary, the New York Times assigns these four regions the following relative weights:

East - 21%
Midwest - 24%
South - 32%
West - 23%

So here's the thought experiment I want you all to consider: What if Romney's support in the South rose by 10% (to 71-29). Such an increase would probably tip the last Southern State (Virginia) into Romney's camp, and it would raise his National popular vote total by roughly 6.4%.

But would it be enough to make him President? No, it would not: He'd still end up losing 286-252 in the Electoral College in spite of the increase in popular support.

And that, in turn, begs the question: Should it be enough to make him President? My gut says "no", which is why I like the Electoral College; simply put, I don't think that the South, as the Nation's most populous region, ought to be in a position to dominate and dictate policy to the rest of the country. It should need much stronger support elsewhere than a mere 47-48% of the popular vote in order to exercise National rule.

Remember the last time the South thought they were losing their dominance over national policy?