Archive for November 3rd, 2012

The election’s “Rosetta Stone” … really!

November 3, 2012

The polls have been bouncing all over the place, and pundits are broadly whining that the reason is difference in “turnout models”.

That is, how many more (or less) Democrats will show up to vote for Obama.

To understand the issue, I framed a related – but inverted — analysis by asking the question: by how much does Dem turnout (in swing states particularly) have to exceed GOP turnout for Obama to win?

The answer: Dem turnout has to be more than about 4 percentage points higher than GOP turnout for Obama to win.

Here’s my summary chart … below it are the assumptions and analytical logic.

From the chart: if Dem turnout is about 8 percentage points more than GOP turnout (as it was in 2008), Obama wins by about 4%;  if Dem turnout is less than 4 percentage points greater than the GOP’s, Obama loses.

It’s as simple as that … especially on a swing state by swing state basis.

image

= = = = =
Assumptions & Analysis

While there has been a lot of bounce in the numbers, a couple of things appear to be pretty stable.

First, both Romney and Obama capture over 90% of their party’s votes.

Second, independents are generally about 1/3 of the total voting base … and, independents seem to be breaking towards Romney 55% to 45%.

In a nutshell, that means that Obama has to overcome a 3.3% Romney vote advantage with over-performance in Dem turnout.

  • 10 percentage point independent vote differential times 1/3 of the voting population equals 3.3%

Let’s run through a couple of examples:

1) Assume that the turnout is evenly split among Dems, GOP, and independents; that Obama & Romney each get 95% of their party’s votes; and that independents vote Romney 55% to 45%.

Under these assumptions, Dems have no turnout advantage (because that’s what we assumed) … and Obama loses by 3.3%.

image

= = = = =

2) Same assumptions as example #1, except assume that the Dem turnout is 8 percentage points greater than the GOP’s … roughly comparable to 2008 voting patterns.

Under these assumptions,  Obama wins by almost 4%.

image

= = = = =

3) Same assumptions as example #1, except assume that the Dem turnout is 3.7 percentage points less than the GOP’s.

Under these assumptions, the race is tied … we’ve found the sweet spot … if the Dems turnout advantage is more than 3.7 percentage points, Obama wins; less than that and he loses.

image

= = = = =
Final Notes

1) It’s simply math magic that the relationship works out to be linear … as displayed on the summary chart.

2) If you don’t like my assumptions, plug in your own … my conclusion: the numbers are pretty robust to changes in the assumptions

3) Nobody seems to be predicting Dem turnout comparable to 2008 … In fact, some are predicting that GOP will have a turnout advantage,

4) You haven’t seen an analysis like this anywhere else, right?  Only in the Homa Files …

* * * * * *

250,000 and counting … Thank You!

November 3, 2012

The Homa Files reached a milestone this morning

… more than 250,000 all-time views.

Thanks,  loyal readers for your support … it’s what keeps me going.

image

P.S. Look at the recent trend … and  keep visiting.

>> Latest Posts

Strategy Lesson: The fight for Pennsylvania

November 3, 2012

I think the unfolding political fight is Pennsylvania will certainly be interesting to watch … and, possibly will be enshrined as a strategy “teaching moment”.

First, a disclaimer … the underlying logic for this case comes from Dick Morris … he’s a hard right partisan with a grudge against the Clintons and a penchant for newsworthy predictions – many of which are airballs.  So, I usually take him with a grain of salt.

That said, I think he may have something here:

Obama’s Pennsylvania Blunder

There are many reasons why Obama will lose this election — by a lot — on Tuesday.

But when the history of this contest is written, it will be especially important to probe why Obama blundered by virtually ignoring Pennsylvania.

Team Obama was so focused on the swing states that they ignored the semi-swing states which could come into play.  Ohio, Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada loomed so large in their calculations that they forgot about Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota.

Adopting an all-or-nothing approach, Obama advertised heavily in the swing states and not at all in the semi-swing states of the Midwest. 

The Detroit, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis media markets — and all the smaller cities in between got no Obama advertising.

Obama took care to irradiate the swing states with his negative attacks on Romney. 

When the voters in those states saw that Mitt was not a Halloween monster but a pretty nice and reasonable guy, his negative stopped working and the states started falling to Romney.

But in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, the negatives on Romney never ran. 

The only Romney they saw in these states was the very presentable and attractive one who showed up in the debates.  So there was no obstacle to hold them back from voting for Mitt.

Obama’s static dependence on the swing states to constitute a firewall backfired. 

The firewall became like the French Maginot Line of 1940, easily outflanked

When Romney began to buy ads in the semi-swing states, Obama was slow to respond.

Initially, his campaign dismissed Romney’s ads in Pennsylvania as a bluff intended to draw Obama’s resources away from Ohio.

But it was no bluff.  Romney’s people realized that 20 votes in Pennsylvania were as good as 18 in Ohio.

And, in this final week, Romney’s campaign and its allied groups are spending $11 million on Pennsylvania ads as opposed to only $2 million for Obama.

Most polls show Obama leading in PA by at least a couple of points.

But, Romney’s internal campaign polls show the race well within the margin of error.

And, they’ve got a couple of strong targeted messages (coal, gun rights) … without the burden of the auto bailout debate.

That’s why Mitt is doing a closing campaign event in Philly on Sunday.

No way, Team Obama could have expected that.

Whereas Mitt has plenty of $$$ to throw at PA, Obama is more limited … each dollar that goes to PA comes out of a swing state.  in the vernacular, Team O blew their wad early in the campaign … not much dry powder left.

And, add Hurricane Sandy to the mix.

Conventional wisdom is that Dems are more fair-weather voters that Republicans.

If folks in Philly’s center city don’t get to the polls, Romney’s gambit may play out.

We’ll see.

>> Latest Posts