2008 State by State Electoral Predictions Compared

The 2008 election is over and Obama solidly trounced McCain. Several sites kept a running total of polling results by state, including pollster.com and RealClearPolitics. Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com went a step further, analyzing the polling data and explicitly making predictions of the voting totals by state. I also found RJ Elliot who gives a state by state prediction of the voting percentages for Obama and McCain. There are no doubt other sites with predictions. I found one, but they wanted money to view their predictions, so they are omitted from this comparison.

I took the final estimates from these four sites to compare to the actual vote totals. A caveat should be kept in mind: Silver was making an explicit prediction about the election, while RealClearPolitics and pollster.com are aggregating and summarizing polling data, though presumably with the purpose of predicting the election. RJ Elliot also was making predictions, though I didn't see any explanation of his methodology. For actual results, I took data from Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. I didn't try other sources, this was the first that I found.

Final cavil: I collected fivethirtyeight.com and RealClearPolitics' predictions on the day after the election. The pollster.com and RJ Elliot predictions were collected later, on Thanksgiving or the day after. While I don't think have any suggestion that any of these predictions were changed after the election, there certainly is the possibility of that happening.

Results
Herewith the results. I took the predictions for Obama and McCain's state by state percentage, subtracted from the actual percentage, squared the difference, averaged across states, and took the square root. This gives a root mean square error (RMSE) of prediction difference from truth for both the Obama side and the McCain side of the estimates. The results are in the image. Hopefully the image shows up in the right place.


For each site there are two results, for Obama and for McCain. For each row there are two numbers. It turns out that RealClearPolitics (RCP) only predicted results for 38 states out of the 50 states plus DC. The others predicted for all 51. The first column (starts 3.0, 2.9) includes all 51 states plus DC plus the national vote treated as a 52nd state. The second column is the predictions only on the 38 states where RCP made predictions. So the first column you can compare 538, pollster and Elliot. In the second column you can compare all 4 sites.

The states where RCP did not make predictions were the very partisan and small states where the winner was very clear throughout the entire election (think Utah and DC) and where there were very few polls. Both 538 and pollster do much better in the accuracy of their predictions for the subset where RCP was making predictions. On the 38 states where RCP made predictions, we see that 538 had the smallest RMSE followed by pollster then Elliot with RCP having the worst predictions.

Across the 52 predictions (50 states + DC + national), Elliot edges 538 perhaps barely, both of which definitely beats pollster. The RCP result in the first column is not comparable to the other numbers. I inspected the individual residuals (differences prediction minus reality) in the states where RCP did not make predictions. These residuals were often very large. The largest residuals for 538 were from the states (Alaska, Arkansas, DC, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, Vermont, Wyoming), defined as being in error by more than 4% on either Obama's or McCain's vote total. DC, Hawaii, Louisiana Vermont and Wyoming were not predicted by RCP.

Cindy McCain federal tax rate is around 27 to 29%

Cindy McCain released her taxes yesterday, Friday Oct 18, 2008. In 2007, she paid 1,138,189 in taxes on 4,197,028 in income. In 2006, she paid 1,746,445 in taxes on 6,066,431 in income. That's all US Dollars.

She made more than I do both years. In fact, in 2006 she made more than I will likely make in my lifetime.

Not adjusted for inflation, natch.

Her marginal tax rates were 27.1% and 28.8% in 2007 and 2006 respectively.

Her marginal tax rates are lower than her husband's, which according to his press release were 32.6% and 33.8% respectively. Here's the direct quote about his taxes:

For 2006, Senator McCain paid $72,771 in federal income, alternative minimum, and self-employment taxes (LINES 57 and 58) on taxable income of $215,304 (LINE 43), which is a 33.8% tax rate.

For 2007, Senator McCain paid $84,460 in federal income, alternative minimum, and self-employment taxes (LINES 57 and 58) on taxable income of $258,800 (LINE 43), which is a 32.6% tax rate.

It's kind of crazy that John pays taxes at a higher rate than his wife.

What do you suppose will happen to Cindy's taxes under John McCain's tax plan? She'll pay even less taxes than she's paying now. John might pay more or less taxes under Obama's plan, depending on the year.

I couldn't find the exact figures for McCain's tax plan, but I did find this link suggesting that Cindy will get a 4.4% decrease in taxes under John's plan, while she will see a 11.5% increase under Obama's.

No wonder Cindy is so in the tank for John! That's a 15.9% swing! Taking those numbers at strictly face value (which is unlikely to be a true picture of things, let's be honest here), Cindy is going to pay $277,685 and $180,972 more in taxes under an Obama plan than under a John plan.

Election 2008: Tie Ball Game

At pollster.com, they have their own calling of the presidential race based on current state polling. Their count has 208 electoral votes for McCain, 202 for Obama and 128 electoral votes in toss-up states. If you go through the toss-up states, there are 61 votes for McCain and 67 for Obama, leading to an exact electoral college tie.

Here are who is ahead in each of the 128-electoral-vote-totaling toss-up states:
JM
MT - 3
NV -5
IN - 11
OH-20
WV - 5
VA - 13
NH - 4

BO
CO - 9
MN - 10
WI - 10
MI - 17
PA - 21

Total: 67 Barack Obama, 61 John McCain
Added to 202 BO and 208 JM
gives us a 269-269 tie.

Update: Was still tied yesterday using the same mechanism, though the strong and leaning Obama and McCain states had shifted quite a bit. And I did a little editing above.

Red Meat and How Obama Needs to Run Against McCain

I've been feeling that Obama's campaign has been missing the red meat of attacks at Bush. Tonight Tuesday at the Democratic convention, we've been getting some well placed licks in, but there needs to be more.

When people complain that they don't know what Obama stands for, I think they really mean, lay out what Bush stands for and why you are different. Not just who you are for, but what you are for, what you will do and most importantly how that is different from who Bush is for, what Bush has done and what Bush wants for the country.

TalkingPointsMemo has an excellent further discussion that they need to really explain that McCain is worse than Bush. Not the same as, but much much worse. As a marketing gimmick, 'the same as' is bland and boring. The Democrats need to explain what Bush is for, what McCain is for and why that will be even worse for the country than Bush. Not just as bad as, but much much worse.

Why McCain is dangling Pro-Choice Ridge & Lieberman

Why is McCain dangling pro-choice veep prospects Ridge and Lieberman in front of the hard right anti-choice crowd? Mark Halperin on CNN was saying that he thought McCain was softening up the wing-nuts to more easily accept Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty or former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Romney was pro-choice until he switched to run for president as a Republican.

Whether this is true or not, I propose a second benefit from this major dangle: it speaks to the uncommitted electorate McCain is a `maverick' and `independent' in that he could support a pro-choice running mate. It makes a play for voters for whom being anti-choice is a deal breaker. I believe that McCain's anti-choice position is not widely known. Even during his interview with Warren at the Saddleback church, people could overlook what his beliefs on choice will do to abortion availability in this country.

This is all about politics. It is a play for voters, and not a true tell on his feelings about abortion.

Leaking His Lead Away: Obama Versus McCain

I imagine the Republican party, while not happy about the state of Senatorial, Gubernatorial, Congressional etc races, can't be unhappy in the slightest about the presidential race.

McCain has kept it close against Obama. Obama has had a modest lead for some time since he clinched the nomination, but the lead has slowly been leaking away. Pollster.com has Obama at +2% or so at the moment over McCain. Suppose we have a continued leakage away.

Coming up, we can expect the conventions to lead to a slight McCain bounce. There is usually a bounce for each candidate after the conventions, but the Republicans always hold their convention second so as to squash the Democratic bounce. I predict that will happen again.

We have the usual Republican right-wingnut parade of ridiculous charges against Obama. We'll see if that has any effect on the race. It seems to me that the best the democrats can hope for is for no effect. I don't see how this can be a positive effect for Obama. Obama has been fighting this quite strongly, but who knows if it can be strong enough. There are a 1-2% (at least) of voters likely to be swayed by all this.

We have the possibility (probability?) of racial effects on voting versus preference. This has variously been called the Bradley effect among other things in American politics. This will be unmeasureable even after the election, though it may get blamed for any Obama loss.

This analysis implies that Obama needs something to lead a move back towards himself. The democrats will do fine at all lower levels of the voting.

Team Obama is investing heavily in GOTV (get out the vote) efforts, more so than in all previous elections. That should match the Republicans in their GOTV, but the Repubs have a lot more experience. This is one of the key blessings of Obama's background as a community organizer, the realization that individual actions can be put together to create a large movement.

There will be the debates. Obama was never seen as doing as well as Hillary, but McCain is a verbally skillful fellow and will quite possibly more than hold his own in the debates. Obama likes to be nuanced - McCain will be blunt. And blunt often sells well in politics, even idiotic bluntness.

Other possible game changers: seems unlikely. Any verbal gaff by Obama will be leaped on by the Repubs. In contrast, McCain gaffs have been routinely ignored by the media. I guess team Obama needs to start spreading the McCain news around more -er- liberally.

McCain could have a Dole-type moment showing his age. Recall that Dole fell off a small stage in Chico California. This is possible, but there isn't much time left for this. And you can't plan for it.

Money-wise, McCain may seem to be raising less money than Obama, but the Republican party will be spending most of their cash hoard to support McCain, and money-wise the race currently seems about even. Even if Obama manages to edge ahead by 70million or so, that won't be enough to generate anything close to a land slide. Could it turn in to a substantial edge? I don't know. Small edge? Maybe.

General conclusion: the presidential race is a toss up.

Ask a Trashy Question

The ABC silly-debate discussion is still reverberating around the blogosphere. I hope the echo deafens Gibson and Stephanopoulos.

The next time a moderator asks a stupid gotcha question, the candidate should turn the question around and accuse the moderator of promoting that repugnant point of view. If you ask gotcha questions, you are promulgating those canards. Moderator asks: You know someone who said something mean. (Implying therefore you're mean). How do you respond senator? (Or more likely, disavow this person Senator!)

Senator: Well Mr. Moderator, you should not be bringing up nasty bits of meanness unless you seriously endorse it. You are directly promoting the position of those people who are bringing this issue up over and over. Is that your intention? The people banging this issue like a drum are not interested in the answer to your question. They are interested in occupying my time with inanities and filling the voters ears with fear mongering hate messages. They are interested in obscuring the profound policy differences between me and my opponents. They and you are not interested in any answer to any foul canard posed as a question. They are solely interested in sliming me so as to steal from the American people an otherwise easily won on the merits of my positions election. (ok, so not that last in so many words).

By raising the issue you are lowering the quality of our national debate. You should be asking us important questions about Iraq and international policy, global warming and the environment, how I will run my White House, what goals I will set for my administration. Why are you asking about the nasty remarks made by that person? Do you ask John McCain about Reverend Hagee? Will you? Would you? If not, and I doubt you will, then you are engaging in partisan politics, under the false guise of non-partisan-pretense.

You should be ashamed of your self Mr. Moderator. Slimy attacks do not make America a better country and your pretense that these attacks go to my electibility are not obscuring your partisanship to the American people.

Hillary's political ads support John McCain's candidacy more than her own!

The link is to one of the latest of Hillary Clinton's political ads trying to argue that she has more experience than Barack Obama and therefore that voters should support her in her candidacy for president.

The argument is that she has much more experience than Barack. He is 46 at this point, and he will have been in the national Senate for 4 years when he is elected. In contrast, she will have been in the Senate for 8 years if she were to be elected.

The problem with this argument about experience is that McCain has been in national office since 1982 and in the US Senate since 1986. Thus he will have 26 years of national experience by the time of the inauguration. He trumps Hillary on the experience issue by a factor of more than 3 times.

It can be argued that Hillary should be allowed to count her years as first lady in her experience. I'm ok with that, she was busy, including trying her hand at policy issues while there. But this is not true in general of first ladies. Would anyone wish to argue that Laura Bush has 8 years of valuable experience such that we should elect her to national office? Barbara Bush? Maybe, maybe not. Nancy Reagan? Rosalynn Carter? Betty Ford? Some of these are very sharp people, and I suspect a number of them would be easy to underestimate if they had ever gotten into an election.

The two years Hillary spent running for Senate, after being first lady, that certainly counts as political experience. But for someone arguing from the anti-Hillary side of this argument, they could argue that that was two years of fallowness for Hillary.

McCain in contrast, before he was in the House of Representatives, he was in the military. McCain is likely to get a free pass from the national media and from voters on whether his military experience counts as valuable experience for the presidency. Thus he will get credit for over 50 years of experience before becoming president.

Hillary will only hurt herself for the national election by having run on the experience card in the primary. She will have dug herself a hole to start from when competing against John McCain, rather than from a level playing field.

Neither Democrat can compete successfully against McCain straight up using experience as an argument.