# Is it too early to say Romney has lost? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 18, 2012, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066 "2012-09-18T13:26:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 62
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1222 "2012-10-31T15:29:17Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > My understanding is just the opposite: that Democrats have a baked-in EV advantage. The largest states (CA, NY, IL) are solid-blue Democrat, only countered by solid-red TX. I think it is generally correct that there are more Republicans in the blue states than Democrats in the red states, but this distribution actually supports my claim and not yours. The notion you express here is that more Republican votes are cancelled out by a winner-takes-all EC system than Democratic votes. But cancelled out votes are still counted by pollsters in the current framework. If I vote in Texas as a Democrat, I am still counted by the pollsters as a likely voter and so the current popular vote totals account for me. And we know that the current distribution of popular vote is basically split 50/50. The variable we don’t know about is what will happen if Texas and California become competitive. If they move from 60% participation to 80%, what will their totals look like? People have examined this more comprehensively, but to summarize, what we know is that the stay-homes who would vote in a competitive election tend to be disproportionately of the party that is destined to win. Thus, in red states the people staying home are disproportionately Republicans and in blue states its the opposite. Thus, when every vote suddenly matters, you get more Democrats than Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1223 "2012-10-31T15:30:24Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > My understanding is just the opposite: that Democrats have a baked-in EV advantage. The largest states (CA, NY, IL) are solid-blue Democrat, only countered by solid-red TX. Well, yes and no. Democrats have an advantage in that they get more “free” votes that they don’t really have to campaign for. But GOP voters definitely have an out-sized EC-per-vote share. The reason I think the Tea Party wing of the GOP is likely to still support the EC even if Romney loses a split is because a non-EC world likely generates a more moderate GOP, one that can get large shares of Northeast and West Coast voters that they currently don’t really care much about. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1224 "2012-10-31T15:31:38Z")
Take a look at the map of solid red states - they tend to be smaller in population (except for Texas) and thus have more electoral votes per person than the bigger states. A pure popular vote system would reduce the influence of those small, low population states. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1225 "2012-10-31T15:41:25Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Some very good polls for Obama today. > +5 in OH, IA and WI, +1 in FL, +2 in VA > > I am not calling it for Obama quite yet but the race is close to being over. 538 will probably go above 80%. That’s quite easy to do when you either: (1) Assume Democrats will, at least, double their turnout from 2008 or (2) Assume Republican turnout will be depressed in 2012 more than it was in 2008 Neither of which are quite likely to happen. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1226 "2012-10-31T15:46:33Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > _The Washington Post_ has Obama up by four in Virginia. While that’s fun, and allows various election analysis sites to shade Virginia light blue today or tomorrow, I \*know \*that ain’t right. I hope he wins Virginia, but I’d lay money Obama won’t take it by 4%. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1227 "2012-10-31T15:46:45Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Take a look at the map of solid red states - they tend to be smaller in population (except for Texas) and thus have more electoral votes per person than the bigger states. A pure popular vote system would reduce the influence of those small, low population states. Just to be clear…are you referring to the fact that the EV count is based on number of representatives (wholly proportional to population, except maybe in Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska), PLUS number of senators? That is, it’s the addition 2 extra EV votes in each state which causes the skew of which you speak? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1228 "2012-10-31T15:47:56Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > That’s quite easy to do when you either: > > (1) Assume Democrats will, at least, double their turnout from 2008 or > (2) Assume Republican turnout will be depressed in 2012 more than it was in 2008 > > Neither of which are quite likely to happen. I vaguely recall that CBS NYTimes might be on the few pollsters that actually does weight by party ID, but I can’t seem to find that information in their release. Do you have it handy, or are you just assuming they do so? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1229 "2012-10-31T15:48:25Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Just to be clear…are you referring to the fact that the EV count is based on number of representatives (wholly proportional to population, except maybe in Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska), PLUS number of senators? That is, it’s the addition 2 extra EV votes in each state which causes the skew of which you speak? I’m not him, but yes. That’s why smaller states get over-represented. A person in a 3 or 4 EV state has their vote count much more than a person in a 15+ EV state. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1230 "2012-10-31T15:50:07Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > If Obama were to win electoral votes while losing the popular vote, you can be absolutely certain that there will be an immediate “grass roots” [wholly funded and widely covered by Fox News] movement to eliminate the Electoral College, that will dominate political conversations for the next 4 years. How much would you like to bet on that? ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1231 "2012-10-31T15:51:06Z")
> [@bup](#): > > I’m not him, but yes. That’s why smaller states get over-represented. A person in a 3 or 4 EV state has their vote count much more than a person in a 15+ EV state. Got it, thanks. I wonder if anyone has seriously proposed changing the EV system to eliminate the extra two votes per state. It seems like a relatively easy fix, at least compared to the politically/procedurally daunting task of eliminating the EV system altogether. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1232 "2012-10-31T15:51:26Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > That’s quite easy to do when you either: > > (1) Assume Democrats will, at least, double their turnout from 2008 or > (2) Assume Republican turnout will be depressed in 2012 more than it was in 2008 > > Neither of which are quite likely to happen. And you know Nate Silver is doing this because…? Oh wait, he isn’t. From his latest post: > [@](#): > > Suppose, for example, that you take the consensus forecast in each state. (By “consensus” I just mean: the average of the different forecasts.) Then you weigh it based on what each state’s share of the overall turnout was in 2008, in order to produce an estimate of the national popular vote. > > Do the math, and you’ll find that this implies that Mr. Obama leads nationally by 1.9 percentage points — by no means a safe advantage, but still a better result for him than what the national polls suggest. > > What if turnout doesn’t look like it did in 2008? Instead, what if the share of the votes that each state contributed was the same as in 2004, a better Republican year? > > That doesn’t help to break the discord between state and national polls, unfortunately. Mr. Obama would lead by two percentage points in the consensus forecast weighing the states by their 2004 turnout. > > Or we can weigh the states by their turnout in 2010, a very good Republican year. But that doesn’t help, either: instead, Mr. Obama leads by 2.1 percentage points based on this method. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1233 "2012-10-31T15:54:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How much would you like to bet on that? Hey, I’m just an anonymous blowhard with an internet account. You don’t actually expect me to put real money behind my opinions, do you? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1234 "2012-10-31T15:57:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How much would you like to bet on that? Funded by FOX News is silly overstatement, but it would be an absolute utter shock if the conservative blogosphere didn’t erupt over this. People on the left still bring up Gore’s loss, and the left’s blogosphere is far more individualistic than the right’s. What exactly are you objecting to with this statement? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1235 "2012-10-31T16:00:16Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I vaguely recall that CBS NYTimes might be on the few pollsters that actually does weight by party ID, but I can’t seem to find that information in their release. Do you have it handy, or are you just assuming they do so? FWIW, here’s the unweighted frequency from NYTimes/CBS/Quinnipiac for Ohio: 343 GOP 396 Dems 334 Indies That’s a 53-response gap in the partisans. Assuming the independents split 55/45 Romney (which I think is generous), you still have Obama winning by about 2% without any weighing at all. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1236 "2012-10-31T16:00:54Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > That’s quite easy to do when you either: > > (1) Assume Democrats will, at least, double their turnout from 2008 or > (2) Assume Republican turnout will be depressed in 2012 more than it was in 2008 > > Neither of which are quite likely to happen. Says you. It’s also possible that demographic changes (as well as opinions of the parties) have led to more Democrats and fewer Republicans, relative to population, in the electorate, or some other explanation. But the vast majority of the polling for any particular state is saying the same thing. It’s a lot more likely that those polls, as a whole, are pretty close to the truth, then that they’re all way off. If the polls said Romney was ahead, I doubt you’d brush them off. But they don’t, so you do. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1237 "2012-10-31T16:01:10Z")
Conservatives, especially far-right Tea Party types, support the EC. They will even if it’s their ox that is gored (to the extent that Romney can even be called their ox). They know that, by and large, it is good for them that our system gives outsized weight to rural states, and extremely outsized weight to middle-right swing states. The folks that would push for a national popular vote are more likely to be big-city conservatives (maybe a Will or Brooks), not Tea Party types. Hell, browse freerepublic for a day and you’ll find folks that want to do away with popular election of Senators. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1238 "2012-10-31T16:03:12Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Funded by FOX News is silly overstatement, but it would be an absolute utter shock if the conservative blogosphere didn’t erupt over this. People on the left still bring up Gore’s loss, and the left’s blogosphere is far more individualistic than the right’s. > > What exactly are you objecting to with this statement? Does “the right” lobby to get rid of the Senate when the Democrats are in control? I’m sure there will be many who will challenge the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency if he loses the popular vote, or they’ll challenge the idea that Congress should cooperate with him (as if they don’t already do that), but they won’t try and get rid of the EC. That concept of federalism is firmly rooted in “the right’s” ideology. And yes, I think the idea that FoxNews would get behind such a movement is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1239 "2012-10-31T16:10:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And yes, I think the idea that FoxNews would get behind such a movement is absurd. And yet the Tea Party is pretty much a creation of Fox News. Why would this be any more absurd? ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1240 "2012-10-31T16:20:13Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I vaguely recall that CBS NYTimes might be on the few pollsters that actually does weight by party ID, but I can’t seem to find that information in their release. Do you have it handy, or are you just assuming they do so? No idea about weighting, because it’s not important to what I said, but crosstabs are here. FL is D+7 at 37D/30R/29I OH is D+8 at 37D/29R/30I VA is D+8 at 35R/27R/35I To compare to 2008: FL was D+3 at 37D/34R/29I OH was D+8 at 39D/31R/30I VA was D+6 at 39D/33R/27I Unless you want to argue that Obama is going to get, or exceed, his 2008 turnout, good luck defending that. (And that’s without getting into the enthusiasm gap or the double digit swing in Independents.) > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Says you. It’s also possible that demographic changes (as well as opinions of the parties) have led to more Democrats and fewer Republicans, relative to population, in the electorate, or some other explanation. Almost anything is possible; that doesn’t mean it has a good chance of happening. Swing states are deemed as such for a reason. It’s highly unlikely they would buck national trends and see a sudden and rapid increase in Democratic affiliation whereas the exact opposite has occurred outside of the country. I’ve been over this before, but data tells us that Democratic affiliation across the U.S. is down whereas Republican affiliation has shown minimal change or, in some cases, large increases. (Looking at Florida alone tells me there’s no way in hell there will be a D+7 split in the electorate this year.) > [@](#): > > But the vast majority of the polling for any particular state is saying the same thing. It’s a lot more likely that those polls, as a whole, are pretty close to the truth, then that they’re all way off. Unless, of course, they’re based on a faulty assumption. > [@](#): > > If the polls said Romney was ahead, I doubt you’d brush them off. But they don’t, so you do. Unluckily for you I’m pretty consistent, where I’ve said I expect something closer to a D+3 or so split nationally and state turnout which is somewhere between 2008 and 2010 turnout. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1241 "2012-10-31T16:20:37Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > And yet the Tea Party is pretty much a creation of Fox News. I don’t agree with that. > [@](#): > > Why would this be any more absurd? Because it goes against conservative principles. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066.md?page=61) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066.md?page=63)