Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Where We're Going, We Do Need Roads
The last full month of the campaign is on, which made me want to double check where the candidates were on this day in the last few close races. Electoral-vote.com has the numbers for this day in 2004: Bush 276, Kerry 221. For the rest of the snapshots I went into Lexis-Nexis to check contemporarily electoral scorecards.
On October 1, 2000, the candidates were prepping for their first debate and Gore was in the lead.
Sixteen states plus the District of Columbia are leaning the vice president's way or solidly in his column, putting him at 226 electoral votes -- 44 short of the 270 needed to claim the presidency, and 25 votes closer to his goal than a month ago.
Another 21 states with 175 electoral votes would go to Republican George W. Bush. That leaves 13 toss-up states with 137 electoral votes.
On October 1, 1988, Mike Dukakis was campaigning in Texas (where he was down 10 points) and George H.W. Bush was in Massachusetts (where he was down 8). An AP analysis gave the edge to Bush, with reservations.
Despite steady late-summer advances by Bush - and Democratic talk of a Dukakis rebound - neither man has been able to seize an advantage in a string of states where the election will be decided. The list includes Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Connecticut, California and others, totaling over 150 electoral votes.
There was no state-by-state electoral analysis in 1980, when Carter and Reagan were basically tied, but Carter pollster Pat Caddell gave a briefing to reporters that now reads like doom.
He said Carter's "lead is expanding very steadily" in New York but is "a litle lagging" in Ohio. He said the president appears to have improved his position in Pennsylvania and such southern states as Mississippi, South Carolina and Louisiana. Texas is close but "still tough" for Carter, while "we have a real shot at Oregon and Washington," Caddell said.
On election day, Carter won... none of those states. So it's not unheard of for a Democrat to be leading in the polls as October starts and then suffer a monthlong melt. The differences this year: an economic crisis, worries about the Republican's running mate (comparable to 1988), cash parity (and maybe an advantage) for the Democrats, and, of course, a black candidate leading the Democratic ticket.
UPDATE: If I had to pick one reason for why Obama's outperforming Kerry, it's in this Pew poll. At this point in 2004 Kerry had a net positive favorability of 12 points (53-41) to Bush's 17 points. Obama has a net favorability of 35 points (66-31) to McCain's 25 points. Do Republicans expect, say, a Jeremiah Wright ad to knock 23 points off Obama's favorability?
|10.1.08 @ 11:05AM|#
Pollster.com has the national race graphic dark blue. It went
from tossup to leans Dem to solid Dem in a week.
Pollster.com is probably the most conservative - in terms of being
cautious about assigning races to one candidate or the other - of
all of the aggregators.
SIV|10.1.08 @ 11:10AM|#
The race has always been McCain's to lose.
His problem is that is what he is doing.
|10.1.08 @ 11:18AM|#
It went from tossup to leans Dem to solid Dem in a
week.
Yep. McCain screwed the pooch on the bailout. Probably cost him the
election.
If he had come out against it in broad terms, said some platitudes
about the free market and making sure taxpayers were protected in
any government intervention and then ignored the shameful
legislative antics this past week, I suspect he would be winning
now.
The Extispicator|10.1.08 @ 11:22AM|#
I have always that this theory that the more affable, likeable
candidate wins, regardless of party. It has been correct for my
entire lifetime, anyway. The non-ideological, uncommitted voter
(who always decides these things) tends to go with a gut feeling on
the more likeable candidate.
Therefore, it has always been Obama's to lose.
JP|10.1.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Dumb question:
The Intrade price of a wager that Dems will gain the presidency and
both houses in November has gone up quite a bit over the past three
days. The next highest priced wager in the president-plus-congress
category is Rep president + Dem Senate + Dem House, and it's been
going down in price.
So -- does that mean that people are thinking a Dem sweep is
becoming more likely?
BDB|10.1.08 @ 11:25AM|#
McCain has been running a campaign that has some how managed to combine the worst of Mondale and Dole--a "MonDole" campaign, if you will.
Guy Montag|10.1.08 @ 11:26AM|#
The differences this year: an economic crisis
Congress passed something and it got signed into law already?
Or are you talkin about this fake 'crisis' that is in all the
papers that we need to "do something" about?
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 11:30AM|#
I have always that this theory that the more affable,
likable candidate wins, regardless of party.
It also helps if he's tall.
|10.1.08 @ 11:33AM|#
I'm resigned to McCain losing the thing now. His ineptitude
(politically, at least) on the bailout has been simply astonishing.
At least this will finish him off politically so the Repubs might
actually be a small government party again (PFFT).
Obama has done pretty much nothing with it and handled it better.
Will be this passive as a president - the president who does, well,
nothing?
Guy Montag|10.1.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Obama has done pretty much nothing with it and handled it
better. Will be this passive as a president - the president who
does, well, nothing?
I hope he changes into that guy.
|10.1.08 @ 11:36AM|#
All you guys are gonna be laughing out of the other side of your mouths after Palin ices Biden tomorrow night. Red Tide! Red Victory!
Just Plain Brian|10.1.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Will be this passive as a president - the president who does, well, nothing?
I sure hope so, it would be a welcome change from the president who
does nothing well.
|10.1.08 @ 11:37AM|#
It's all in the shoes, baby.
A year ago I would have beleived any Dem prez candidate would
casually sweep the election. I didn't realize that the race would
need to be kept so close in the early episodes such that more
people watch the finale in November. I hate reality tv.
|10.1.08 @ 11:37AM|#
RC Dean,
Yep. McCain screwed the pooch on the bailout.
It's almost certain that his shennanigans regarding the bailout
have hurt him, but the trend actually began a little before Lehman
expired. The Monday after Palin's "Bush Doctrine" interview and the
Tina Fey SNL sketch is when McCain's numbers began to nosedive.
|10.1.08 @ 11:41AM|#
His ineptitude (politically, at least) on the bailout has
been simply astonishing.
McCain's little "I got the deal passed, and Barack Obama didn't"
speech a few hours before it was voted down was one of the dumbest
flubs I've ever seen. This guy is a professioanl politician?
It's like he spiked the football on the five yard line, then stood
there taunting the defensive back while a linebacker ran it back to
mid-field.
Guy Montag|10.1.08 @ 11:41AM|#
|10.1.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Checking the state-by-state polls on Real Clear Politics, it
looks like Obama is gaining significant ground in just about every
state that was close.
New polls over the past few days give the edge to Obama in
Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. If McCain doesn't seriously
make a move, this could be a landslide
|10.1.08 @ 11:42AM|#
It's almost certain that his shennanigans regarding the
bailout have hurt him, but the trend actually began a little before
Lehman expired.
I'm sure that's right, but the bailout trainwreck presented him
with an absolutely golden opportunity to get on the right side of
the voters, play to his mavericky persona, run against a hideously
unpopular and glaringly inept Congress, put some space between
himself and Bush, etc. It was tailor-made for him to take the
initiative (again), and he just completely blew it.
Guy Montag|10.1.08 @ 11:50AM|#
BDB,
No, it is not, but a simple click will reveal the 'latest' nonsense
that has been going on since the campaign began. Also sheds some
light on those under $200 contributions too.
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Let me guess, Guy--that link is about how ACORN will "steal"
the election?
No, this time Guy is pimping the FEC, that ol' free-speech crushing
organization, "which ought to do their jobs!!!" because [gasp!]
Obama is raising money and not everyone who donated to him is on a
list for government perusal!
Could it be that Obama is raising oodles of cash in small (under
the $200 limit) donations because his campaign has mastered the
online soft sell? No, it's because he *must* getting money from
foreigners (they took 'r jobs!) and Hollywood elites (they like
people who took 'r jobs!).
It's hilarious when libertarians abandon their (free speech)
principles to pimp a republican in a national election. No,
hilarious is not the word. Tragic. That's the word.
BDB|10.1.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Thanks for sparing me the trouble of clicking.
Is this a World Net Daily article?
BakedPenguin|10.1.08 @ 11:56AM|#
I have always that this theory that the more affable,
likeable candidate wins, regardless of party.
Don't try to retrofit your theory past 1976.
|10.1.08 @ 11:58AM|#
I think the worst thing about the election coverage is that sad, searching longing that comes over McCain's face when liberals don't laugh at his jokes like when he was their pet Republican.
SIV|10.1.08 @ 11:59AM|#
R C Dean nails it.
My theory is the candidate who wants to win more......wins.
McCain isn't acting like that anymore.
Just Plain Brian|10.1.08 @ 12:03PM|#
My theory is the candidate who wants to win more......wins.
Hillary
|10.1.08 @ 12:04PM|#
I think the worst thing about the election coverage is that
sad, searching longing that comes over McCain's face when liberals
don't laugh at his jokes like when he was their pet
Republican.
All he has to do is lose, NutraSweet. Then's he's back, baby!
Maverick, bitches! Yee haw!
|10.1.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Maybe that's why he's fucking it up so badly. Deep down, he just can't be hated.
|10.1.08 @ 12:09PM|#
At least this will finish him off politically so the Repubs
might actually be a small government party again (PFFT).
Like the last time McCain lost? I wouldn't hold your breath.
It's like he spiked the football on the five yard line, then
stood there taunting the defensive back while a linebacker ran it
back to mid-field.
John McCain is Deshawn Jackson? He may win Pennsylvania yet.
SIV|10.1.08 @ 12:11PM|#
Good point JPB
but I'm only saying that for the general election. Party primaries
are different animals.
BakedPenguin|10.1.08 @ 12:12PM|#
John McCain is Deshawn Jackson?
Considering his age and the way he's running things, Al Davis might
be a better analogy.
|10.1.08 @ 12:18PM|#
Let me guess, Guy--that link is about how ACORN will "steal"
the election?
No, no, furrners.
Seriously.
|10.1.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Is this a World Net Daily article?
NO, Mr. Smart Guy. It's...er...a blog entry ABOUT a World Net Daily
article.
One that's TOO HOT for Teh MSM!
|10.1.08 @ 12:22PM|#
I'm voting for Barr, damn it all to hell, but I have to say
this. I think McCain is going to win. I don't want him to
win anymore than I want Obama to win, but that's my judgment.
I firmly believe that either candidate will make a god-awful
president. I can't decide which will be worse, though. If McCain
were more conservative and likely to be at odds with a Democratic
Congress, I'd say Obama for sure. But McCain doesn't play that
way.
I'd like to call on the voters of America to do this one thing for
me. If you're voting for Obama, please vote for GOP for Congress.
If you're voting for McCain, vote for the Democrats for Congress.
It's our only hope. If you're voting LP for POTUS, vote Bull Moose
for Congress.
|10.1.08 @ 12:22PM|#
OMG, joe! Do you mean TheBrownMenace?
"When you eat a taco, you are saying 'I Hate America' with every
crunchy, delicious bite."
|10.1.08 @ 12:24PM|#
I think McCain is going to win. I don't want him to win
anymore than I want Obama to win, but that's my
judgment.
I have already staked out this position. Get your own long call! If
he wins, I had the brilliant foresight, not you. No
sharing!
David Weigel|10.1.08 @ 12:25PM|#
No, no, furrners.
I've poked into that article a little and boy howdy is it flawed.
For starters, this part.
More than 520 listed their "state" as "IR," often an
abbreviation for Iran.
It's the abbreviation for "Ireland."
|10.1.08 @ 12:25PM|#
RCP has another telling electoral map . . . without tossups, Obama leads 348-190. I think that's pretty much where it will end up. McCain loses Florida, Ohio, Michigan and PA in this scenario. I think that Obama will win 3 of those 4.
Just Plain Brian|10.1.08 @ 12:26PM|#
C'mon guys, this is a serious issue - Obama might be secretly
getting money from foreigners, and some of those foreigners might
also be secret muslims, too!
Do I have to spell it out - It's a Secret foreigner secret muslim
secret!
|10.1.08 @ 12:27PM|#
RC Dean,
The bailout was only a golden opportunity for McCain if he could
offer something better as a replacement. Even if that something was
simply to articulate convincingly the do-nothing option, he could
have benefitted from this, but it had to be something, because the
public actually is worried about the economy tanking.
He didn't do that, because he can't. John McCain doesn't know
enough about the economy to articulate much of anything, so he is
incapable of providing the kind of leadership on the issue that
might have helped him.
David Weigel|10.1.08 @ 12:28PM|#
McCain loses Florida, Ohio, Michigan and PA in this
scenario. I think that Obama will win 3 of those 4.
Give Obama the Kerry states plus Iowa and New Mexico, where he
leads comfortably. If McCain loses Florida but wins Michigan, Ohio,
and New Hampshire, he loses 270-268.
And at this point I'd expect North Carolina to go Obama before
Michigan goes Mac.
Guy Montag|10.1.08 @ 12:32PM|#
DW,
More than 520 listed their "state" as "IR," often an abbreviation for Iran.
It's the abbreviation for "Ireland."
You capitalized that as if it were a real country. Well, you did
put it in quotes . . .
|10.1.08 @ 12:41PM|#
D Weigel . . . I fully expect that Obama will win both Michigan and NC. Michigan ... an economic nightmare, even when compared with the rest of the country. Bad juju for McCain. NC ... large minority population will push Oboma over the top. The writing's been on the wall with that one for some time now.
|10.1.08 @ 1:33PM|#
I don't think Obama would be any worse than McCain vis a vis the
economy (duh), and I don't think he would be the terrorist enabler
than the righties are fearing - I think he's likely to be just as
interventionist as Clinton was, and if a really serious situation
comes up with Iran or something, he'd be likely to take military
action so as not to look weak.
But I'm very worried about the first and second amendments under
President Obama. Yes, really. And anyone who has been paying
attention to the thugs behind him - both those in his official
campaign and others who just support him - will know why. Threats
of criminal prosecution for "libel," threats of regulatory action
against media outlets running anti-Obama ads - Obama supporters
make Chavez look like a defender of independent media. Pelosi has
been salivating to regulate Internet content for a long time. And
then of course there's the Fairness Doctrine, AKA the We Can't Get
Anyone to Listen to Left Wing Radio, So We're Not Going to Let
Anyone Listen to Right Wing Radio Either Doctrine.
And as for the media being of any use in reporting on an Obama
administration - please. The media will have helped get him elected
- as someone else said, political reporters are now basically
sports writers, and they're all rooting for Team Obama - so the
chances of us knowing what's going on will be vanishingly
small.
Will dissent be patriotic under an Obama administration? No, it
won't.
On the other hand, I predict an Obama administration will lead to a
Republican majority in both houses in 2010. Yes, really.
Xanthippas|10.1.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Great post. I had been wondering where past races were at this point in the campaign; thanks for the history lesson.
susan|10.1.08 @ 3:25PM|#
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do
state-by-state, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and
spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state
should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And,
every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote
for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who
gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to
the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states
(and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in
identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral
vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270
of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes
from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate
who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and
DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all
awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited
funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely
divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and
money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of
the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and
people have been merely spectators to the presidential
election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can
win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes
nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative
chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North
Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii,
Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and
Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey,
and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes-- 19% of
the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Elemenope|10.1.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Thanks for the PSA, susan.
I lukewarmly agree with a national popular vote idea. But, damn it,
I hate the masses!
|10.1.08 @ 3:47PM|#
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a
candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular
votes nationwide.
I still think this is more of a feature than a bug.
In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just
six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16
states.
A national popular vote will probably result in continued
concentration on limited audiences, only with the focus being on
urban/major media markets rather than battleground states.
|10.1.08 @ 3:50PM|#
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical
form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that
is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When
the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those
states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives
the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
As described, this sounds like a violation of one-man/one-vote. It
dilutes the votes of people living in the states who participate in
this scheme by pooling them with the national vote to award
electors, and will certainly result in some states awarding their
electors to candidates who lost the vote in their state. Meanwhile,
people living in states not participating get to have their vote
count toward their own electors and electors from the NPV
states.
|10.1.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Damned if you do . . . not to too closely echo the statements
above, but I am only mildly interested in the idea of a pure
popular vote. In an ideal world, sure. However, we live in a
dizzingly complex world of competing and overlapping interest
groups that settle and and then mix and transmute in various places
across the country (hey! maybe that's not too far from
ideal!)
At least this much can be said for the electoral system: A state
like New hampshire can be relevant.
|10.1.08 @ 4:08PM|#
National popular vote blows. who wants to have Florida 2000 on
the national level?
Also, I figure that you would need a Constitutional Amendment
because the states have the power to choose electors "as they
direct", or whatever.
Maybe someone can explain this "pooling" thing to me in more clear
terms than susan's spam post did.
|10.1.08 @ 4:18PM|#
On second thought, never mind. the idea of NPV.com is just dumb
on its face and WAY too complicated for most people to understand.
Also, I want my state to vote for whom my state wants, not
contractually obligate itself to give its EVs to whomever the urban
centers of the U.S. choose.
Bah.
|10.1.08 @ 5:58PM|#
National popular vote blows. who wants to have Florida 2000
on the national level?
Couldn't happen. The national voting pool is just too large for the
outcome to be that close. 0.1% of the national vote is over 100,000
people.
|10.1.08 @ 10:36PM|#
Also, I figure that you would need a Constitutional
Amendment because the states have the power to choose electors "as
they direct", or whatever.
Why do you need an amendment? If the states choose to direct them
to the person with the most popular votes, then that's how they
choose.
not contractually obligate itself to give its EVs to whomever
the urban centers of the U.S. choose.
The urban centers chose Kerry and he didn't win. I'm pretty sure
the urban centers chose Dukakis and he didn't win. You can't win
without rural votes. Personally, I don't think that the presidency
should be obliged to whoever Floridians or Ohioans decide to vote
for.
As described, this sounds like a violation of one-man/one-vote.
It dilutes the votes of people living in the states who participate
in this scheme by pooling them with the national vote to award
electors, and will certainly result in some states awarding their
electors to candidates who lost the vote in their state.
How is the current system fair? A vote from a person in Wyoming or
Alaska is far more valuable than one in California, New York or
Texas. We don't have a one man, one vote system. If anything, NPV
is far closer to one man, one vote than the electoral system.
I'm not necessarily certain that NPV is the way to go (maybe use
the Nebraska system nationwide). However, I think there's something
wrong with the current system because under it, the three most
populous states, representing almost 80 million people (over 25%),
are completely ignored during presidential elections. At the same
time, 3 million ethanol welfare queens* get their asses kissed
every 4 years.
* Thank God my Iowan girlfriend doesn't come to this site.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245