Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Scenarios for a Romney Electoral College Win

 The above image is the Real Clear Politics "No Tossups" Map as of Monday, October 15th.  (The only adjustment that has been made is a color change to Nevada, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and New Hampshire as they are officially "tossups.")  What I did last week on the Biblical Conservatism Facebook Page is show a few scenarios to show Mitt Romney's path to victory.

Scenario One: Romney wins a few small states plus Virginia. While the RCP average has Obama still winning in Virginia but it includes a Quinnipiac poll that includes a +3% Democrat sample in a state with a +3% Republican registration advantage and a PPP Poll that uses a +6% Democrat sample. Throw those two polls out you get Romney winning by 2% in Virginia. Combine that with the fact that Suffolk University has decided VA is over and expects Romney to win, we'll call Virginia safe for Romney. Combine that with three small statesL Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada (all three of which the Obama lead is within the margin for error) and Romney wins.

In this scenario, Mitt wins Virgina (which we've established already is likely) and Ohio. That's all he would need to win the Electoral College. Anything else is gravy that helps build a mandate. 

What if Mitt Romney doesn't win Ohio? Then what? Some are continually reminding us, no Republican in recent memory has won the White House without Ohio. However, there is a simple scenario where Romney can win without Ohio. Simply put, if Mitt wins Virginia (which we've established is likely) and then wins Wisconsin (or Michigan, or Pennsylvania) and either Nevada or Iowa.

Now we look at a very likely scenario. Many voters remain undecided a mere three weeks from Election Day.  History has shown that undecided voters break for the challenger and break hard. The above scenario involves a 3:1 break in Romney's favor. The result is a huge win for Governor Romney.  It's not an unrealistic scenario, friends. In fact it's a highly realistic scenario. In these states the Real Clear Politics average has only one of these states with Obama at 50%, and that's Wisconsin (he's at exactly 50% by the way, and there's a margin for error.) In this case, Mitt gains Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia by winning 75% of undecided voters.

Even using the Real Clear Politics average (which we've discussed is not exactly the most reliable way to judge the race) it becomes clear Mitt Romney has a path to victory that is easy to see. President Obama has less options. Despite the narrative being attempted bythe Left recently, the Romney path to victory is clear.


  1. Too bad for you guys, the economy is looking better and better.


    Unemployment dips further. Amazing.

  2. Too bad for you guys that this "dip" in unemployment is due to people dropping out of the labor force and not a genuine improvement. It's as well known as anything: If the same number of people were in the workforce unemployment would be over 10%.

  3. 1) There is no difference in the way they count unemployment under the Obama administration. Stop saying "if blah blah blha, then blah blah blah". It is calculated the same way every time.

    2) You have no unbiased source at all that states that the drop is due to people leaving the labor force. As it has been shown, time and time again, people are indeed getting jobs and starting new businesses. The report the BLS put out a few weeks ago showed this: 140k people got jobs at existing companies, but 400k people actually went out and started their own businesses and became self employed.

    I've never understood why conservatives get angry when people start their own business.

  4. 1) Let's just concede this point for the heck of it. It does not change the fact that this number was only achieved through a shrinking workforce. Period.

    2) Typical liberal. The facts are biased. Stupid facts for being conservatively biased! Look, this is simple math. In September more actual, real people lost jobs then found jobs. Yet the unemployment # dropped dramatically because...ummm...well we're not sure but it's true. Even with the 140k jobs found, which I'll grant you, that is not enough to move the number by .3%. AT ALL. Nobody believes this number. Even Time Magazine conceded it wasn't real.


    400k people did not start their own businesses in one month. Contrary to my usual policy, I even went and googled that data. There is nothing to support this. Not even a record of Obama saying it, and that man LOVES to invent stats on the fly.

    "I've never understood why conservatives get angry when people start their own business."

    Straw man argument. Nobody does that. Argue reality.

  5. 1) Uh, not exactly.

    2) Your Time magazine source is an editorial, not a report, and it does not conclude, at all, that the improving job numbers (even the GALLUP poll I just linked you too shows that people are actually finding jobs, and not just leaving the job market) are do to people becoming discouraged and leaving the market. Your claim is not supported, at all. Do you even read your links?


    "But the government said the total number of workers employed surged by **873,000**"

    "The total labor force grew by 418,000, possibly accounting for the relatively modest net level of job growth compared to the total employed. The labor force participation rate, which reflects those working as well as looking for work, edged higher to 63.6"

    See.. actual numbers! Amazing.

    "Economist Peter Morici of the University of Maryland noted in his commentary that “the unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent, because the number of self-employed jumped dramatically.” How much? He told Business and Media Institute he put the ballpark number at 700,000 newly self-employed. "


  6. 1. Brilliant retort, really.

    2. Facts aren't facts if they're in an editorial. Got it. The Labor participation rate going up a tenth doesn't doesn't comment on the reduction in the labor participation rate for 3 years.

    From your article: "The US economy created just 114,000 new jobs last month."

    Also from your article: "The U-6 unemployment number, which accounts for the underemployed and those who have given up looking for jobs, held steady at 14.7 percent."

    From your Gallup link - the number of people wanting full time work but finding part time work went up .4% (this is a chart so I can't quote it - 2nd chart from top).

    Also from your gallup link: "The decline in unemployment but uptick in the number of Americans working part time but looking for full-time work is likely the result of seasonal hiring, which picks up in the fall for Halloween and continues through the end of the holiday season."

    One sentence before this quote: ""But the government said the total number of workers employed surged by **873,000**"" is this: "The falling jobless rate had been a function as much of the continued shrinking in the labor force as it was an increase in new positions."

    Also from your CNBC article:

    "Economists were expecting 113,000 more jobs and the rate to rise to 8.2 percent. Last month saw 142,000 new jobs as the rate dropped from 8.3 percent in July."

    So wait a second. IF 113k jobs would cause the rate to rise .1% but a rise of 29k more jobs that expected equals an unemployment drop .4% instead?

    Who doesn't read their articles? What this number says is a) The unemployment didn't really drop at and the numbers are baloney (per your articles) b) basically all of the jobs created, even if we accept the number, were part time jobs found by those who want to work full time.


All posts will be reviewed subject to the Rules for Commenting. Any post that does not abide by these rules will not be posted, entirely at the discretion of the blog editor.

Commenters who repeatedly violate these rules will be permanently banned from commenting, and thus none of their comments, regardless of content, will be posted.