Redistricting ... Again!

I've not been blogging for a LONG time. I've just been too busy and I'm not sure I had anything particularly insightful to say. But gross mischaracterizations of what is happening in the political universe always tend to get me writing again. So ... thank you Chris Cillizza!

Cillizza posted some great charts on ideological polarization put together by the National Journal Vote Ratings.

Chris Cillizza argues that redistricting “plays a major role” in explaining this and implies this is the most important reason but then (grudgingly) says that “Self-sorting -- the growing tendency of people to live around like-minded people -- is also a major factor in the disappearance of the ideological middle in the House.”

Of course, then he shows the data from the Senate, where there is no redistricting, and the exact same thing has happened ... and the reason is “unknown.” That’s some pretty poor social science!

What he calls “self-sorting” is absolutely a big part of the story here though people not only move to where others like them live (remember, people are more mobile than they used to be) but people are more likely to think like others around them over time. In other words, we don’t just move; we tend to take on the ideological viewpoints of those near us over time.

But there are other reasons. The rise of 24-hour cable news and the rise of the internet have made compromise and deal-making more difficult. More speed and “sunshine” means less deliberation and wiggle-room for dealmakers. Changes to campaign finance rules (rise of soft money in the 80s followed by Super-PACs, etc.) and campaign finance practice (direct mail, rapid response, internet fundraising “moneybombs”) have also eroded the power of party leaders to shield members of Congress from primary challenges by more ideologically extreme members of their own party. At the same time, party leaders within the Congress (especially in the House but also in the Senate) have been given more power by their caucuses. This means more carrots and sticks these party leaders can use to punish members who defect on key votes.

Finally, liberal Republicans (particularly in the Northeast) found it harder and harder to win so as they retired or lost, they were replaced by liberal Democrats. Similarly, conservative Democrats (particularly in the South) also found it harder and harder to win so as they retired or lost (or, in a few cases, switched parties), they were replaced by conservative Republicans. Political scientists refer to this process as “replacement” as opposed to the argument that sitting members have become more conservative or more liberal over time because of the factors I discuss above (this is called “conversion”).

All of that is to say that Cillizza is just over-simplifying and lazy in his analysis on this at best and really just wrong at worst. Whether you believe this process has been caused more by conversion or replacement, redistricting is really just not a big part of this story.

Romney's Binder Is Full of Women

At least it is according to Chris Cillizza. I saw Cillizza's article yesterday and meant to write about it but didn't get the chance. I like Chris Cillizza and I think he generally has some smart and interesting things to say about electoral and legislative politics. But not this time.

He reviews data from the ABC/Washington Post poll and finds that Mitt Romney "doesn't have a woman problem." Cillizza finds that over the last 3 polls (a fair measure) Romney has been trailing the President among likely female voters by 7 points on average. Cillizza asks us to assume Romney loses among women by 7 ...

That would be a better showing among women than John McCain made in 2008 (lost women by 13), George Bush made in 2000 (lost women by 11) and Bob Dole made in 1996 (lost women by 16). It would be roughly equal to the eight-point margin that George H.W. Bush lost women to Bill Clinton in 1992.

So, for all of the chatter about Romney’s women problems, he is currently positioned to do as well or better than every Republican presidential candidate among female voters save one: George W. Bush in 2004 who lost among women by just three points to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

Cillizza is arguing that Romney "doesn't have a woman problem" because he's doing as well or better than ... the last 4 Republican nominees to lose the national popular vote. This is the literal equivalent of arguing that the Cubs are doing just fine this year because they're on pace to win more games than the Houston Astros ... who also had a miserable season.

There's another problem with this insane logic. Cillizza points out that McCain lost women by 13 and Romney's doing better than that so he "doesn't have a woman problem." But here's the problem. McCain lost nationally by 6.5. Romney is doing 6 points better among women by this metric so let's say he's doing 6 points better nationally. That leaves Obama ahead by 0.5 points. And given Obama's advantage in key swing states, a national popular vote win almost definitely means a win for Obama in the Electoral College.

But wait, there's more. Here's a different way to calculate what a 7-point deficit among women means. In 2008, the gender gap was 12 points. Barack Obama won by 13 among women and by 1 among men. If you assume a 7-point deficit among women and hold the gender gap constant, then Romney wins by 5 among men ... and loses the election by about 1 point. But the most recent ABC/Washington Post poll has Romney losing by 7 among women and winning by just 1 among men. In other words, Romney seems to have a "man problem" too! He's losing by 3 overall in that poll and it is because he's underperforming among men.

Here's the bottom line. There are slightly more female voters than male (Thank God!). Romney doesn't want to be in a situation where he's losing in the high single digits among the larger group AND there is a smaller gender gap.

Cillizza is right about one thing. Romney is not in a worse position than the four most recent Republican nominees to lose the national popular vote. Like the Cubs, he will not come in last. But he ain't on track to make the playoffs either.

How Can Obama Be Doing So Well?

A lot of different pieces from a lot of different angles seem to be making similar arguments and asking a similar question.

The argument: Obama shouldn't be in good shape, yet he seems to be ahead.
The question: Why is Obama ahead?

I've been pointing out for some time that Obama seems to be in better shape than the national horserace polls suggest. For instance, almost two weeks ago, I pointed out that swing state polls seem to be better for Obama than his national polls. About a week ago, I highlighted a couple of electoral models, one put together by Nate Silver and one put together by Ezra Klein, John Sides, Lynn Vavreck, and Seth Hill that each suggested Obama was a favorite to win even with some mildly pessimistic assumptions about job approval and economic performance.

But there's more.

1) Two days ago, Nate Silver wrote a sophisticated piece looking at Obama's "magic number" on jobs. Three months earlier, Silver had written an article arguing that the President needed to average about 150,000 jobs created per month in order to win reelection. Now, Silver argues Obama's "magic number" seems slightly lower, closer to 125,000 jobs created per month. In effect, Obama seems to be doing better with less-than-robust jobs numbers than Silver had anticipated.

2) A couple of days before that, in a guest post by John Sides posted on Silver's blog, Sides asked "Is Obama More Popular Than He Should Be?" Sides finds that Obama is indeed more popular than he "should be" using a model of expected job approval based on a bunch of variables including economic performance, scandals, and other significant events that affect job approval. Sides speculates that Obama is "more popular" than he should be because of personal traits (he is likable) and because more voters continue to blame George W. Bush for the weak economy than Obama.

3) Yesterday, Mark Blumenthal posted an article pointing out that Obama seems to be running stronger in the key swing states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia today than he was at a similar juncture in 2008 when he ... ya know, won those swing states. This is true despite the fact that he is running behind his 2008 numbers in the national horserace polls.

4) Finally, a number of observers have pointed out that the Electoral College math seems to favor the President. Chris Cillizza made this argument well about a week ago. Today, Michael Cooper of the New York Times wrote about nine swing states deemed "critical" to the presidential race. If you put all 9 of these states in the "tossup" category, Obama would have 217 electoral votes that are fairly solidly his. Romney would have about 170. But, as Cooper points out, all 9 of these states are states Obama won in 2012. More importantly, polls currently show Obama with leads (some significant) in a number of these states including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, Virginia, and even Ohio. The inclusion of Pennsylvania strikes a particular nerve with me. Every four years, everyone talks about Pennsylvania being a "swing state." The problem with this argument is that it doesn't "swing." In 2008, Obama won Pennsylvania by 11 points while winning nationally by about 6.5 points. Pollster.com's current polling aggregator shows Obama ahead there by 7.6 points. The last Republican to win Pennsylvania was George H. W. Bush ... 24 years ago and he only beat Mike Dukakis by 2.3 points. So, if we just take Pennsylvania off the list of "swing" states and give it to Obama, he's just 33 electoral votes away from victory with a lot of different paths through the remaining 8 "swing" states to get to 270. Then, add in a couple of other states that are very competitive that Cooper doesn't mention (Arizona, North Carolina) and you see that ...

... Obama seems to be doing surprisingly well for someone with job approval numbers under 50%. Why is this?

One big reason was hit upon by John Sides in pointing out that the President seems more empathetic, etc. than Mitt Romney. While the President's job approval numbers are borderline for an incumbent, people seem to "like" the President, at least more than they "like" Mitt Romney. The President's favorability rating is 47.8%. Romney's is 37.0%. Here's an interesting mental exercise to demonstrate the importance of these numbers. Run back through the last 10 presidential elections and the two major party nominees in each one. Which seemed like the more likable personality? My answers would be Obama, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, 1988???, Reagan, Reagan, Carter, 1972??? I put question marks for 1988 and 1972 since both candidates "seem" equally unlikable to me in those elections but the winner in every other case is the more likable personality. The one who you can imagine smiling more, the one who you can bear having on your television screen for the next four years, the one you can stand. That's who tends to win. Is that Obama or Romney? I think it is Obama.

Another reason Obama is doing well is that he has paid a lot of attention to key swing states like Ohio since he was elected in 2008. Last November, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that Obama has visited swing states more than any of his predecessors did as president. Yesterday, the President kicked off his campaign officially with stops in two states - Ohio and Virginia. From this perspective, the 2008 campaign never ended for Obama in these states.

Whatever the reason, the President is currently ahead by a variety of measures. Political pundits and journalists appear baffled by this for two reasons: 1) They want it to be a close race and 2) It makes no sense to them that the President could be ahead given that the economy is as weak as it is and given that the 2010 election was as bad as it was for the President and his party.

The election will be close. At a minimum, it will be close in the national horserace numbers. But it is also the case that the President has some built-in advantages described above and I'd rather be holding his cards than Governor Romney's. My one plea to everyone is just this ... can we stop calling Pennsylvania a swing state? Please?

Forecasting the Election

John Sides, Lynn Vavreck, Seth Hill, and Ezra Klein created a model for Klein's Washington Post blog to forecast the election outcome based on just 3 variables - incumbency, economic growth, and presidential approval. Since incumbency won't really "vary" for the 2012 election, there's effectively only 2 variables here. The model is similar to others like the one put together by Alan Abramowitz in advance of the 2008 election and the one put together by Nate Silver last November.

This new model is a bit more simple than Silver's model (the main difference is that it leaves Romney's ideology out of the equation) and it is quite a bit more simple than Abramowitz's model (insert math here).

The other interesting difference is the conclusions to be drawn from the Klein model. To put it most simply, Klein's model yields some pretty happy results from the Obama campaign's perspective. This is because Klein's model seems to count incumbency as more of an advantage than the other two. Just to give a sense of this, if we plug in some conservative (or even pessimistic) assumptions about the state of the economy (say 1.6% growth) and the President's job approval (say 46%), the President is a 78.4% bet to be reelected. Even at 0% growth and a 44% approval rating, the President has a 45.6% shot at re-election in the Klein model. The comparable numbers from Silver's model are 40% and 19%. Obviously, more optimistic scenarios (say, 3% growth and a 51% approval rating) make the President a very solid bet to win in either model (95.3% in Klein's model and 71% in Silver's model).

Are these models useful and, if so, which is likely more accurate? If you're having trouble sleeping at night because you have to know the outcome of the November election right now, these models are not going to help you. Even if they are done perfectly, they are only probabilities. And as someone who drafted Albert Pujols with the second overall pick in my fantasy baseball draft because he was a "very good bet" to be a fantasy monster, I would like to remind everyone that an event that has a 5% likelihood of happening like say, Albert Pujols hitting no homers in April, does happen ... roughly 5% of the time. But these models can tell us something useful. One useful piece of information is that, even though the models don't totally agree on the absolute likelihood of Obama being reelected under various circumstances, they do vary in roughly the same way. In other words, presidential approval and economic growth seem to have the same effect across these models as they move up and down.

As for which of them is most accurate, we really won't even know that after the election because (as these models demonstrate by providing probabilities) there are other variables that can and will affect the outcome. But I will say that Klein's model seems slightly closer to reality to me. One reason Klein's model seems like a better forecast is that Obama has some built in advantages in some of the key swing states like Ohio. I discussed this in more detail a couple of weeks ago and Chris Cillizza wrote about the problems Romney faces in the electoral math just yesterday. In addition, the incumbency effect that seems to be weighted more heavily in Klein's model really does matter. The President is, after all, the President. He has a really cool backdrop (the White House, the presidential seal, Air Force One, etc.) everywhere he goes and he has real presidential kind of accomplishments he can point to. As Mel Brooks would say, it's good to be the king.

Right now, Obama is ahead and Romney needs something to change whether it is the economy, some other intervening variable, or maybe a "game changing" VP pick. And since I have yet to see a single historical example of a VP pick delivering victory to a presidential candidate, I'm gonna rule that third option out.