The Election's Best Bet

If you're a betting person, like I am, then you're probably wondering, what are the odds for each candidate in tomorrow's election?  Nate Silver, author, statistician and the person behind 538.com, gives President Obama a 92% chance of winning.  I like those odds. 

 

This past year has been a mishmash of polls and so called data pointing to a “dead heat” or a”late night” for the candidates in this year’s election.  While it makes for good internet blogs (ahem) and provides extra fodder for Fox news, the trends and data do not support this.  But, why should that get in the way of a good story?

The facts are thus: Obama leads in, in many cases comfortably, in 5 of the so-called “battleground states”. Also, according to real clear politics (one of the more definitive polling web sites) Obama has not trailed in many of the battleground states such as Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio  since polling began in June of this year.

Granted, Obama will most likely lose North Carolina, Virginia and even possibly the infamous state of Florida, which is probably why they haven’t spent much time lately in North Carolina and Virginia .  But, all Obama has to do is hold onto Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Iowa (all strongholds according to polling data) and hold on to the usual and predictably Democratic states such as New York, California, etc. and “pick up” Ohio.  Bam, that puts him over 270, even if he loses Colorado, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.  

Don’t like real Clear Politics data?  Well, then, Rasmussen has 237 electoral votes “safely” in Obama’s camp (he would need only 33 more electoral votes to win in this scenario).  Throw in Nevada (leaning Obama) , Wisconsin and Iowa (traditionally Democratic states) and you have 22 electoral votes heading to Obama leaving him at 259.  Romney would have to virtually run in the table in Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire (assuming we give him North Carolina and Virginia).  That’s no easy task.  One fun fact; no republican has won an election without carrying Ohio since Abraham Lincoln.  

The media would love to let everyone think the race is much closer than it really is.  In fact, it could be a decisive win for Obama and not the squeaker being predicted.  It won’t be a landslide (landslide elections  are a thing of the past due to the polarization of our red and blue states) but it could be a decisive victory for Obama.  In any event he should win comfortably with at least 300 electoral votes.

All that really matters is the electoral votes (would someone please retire the national polls?).  And, if Obama wins the ”swing states” even by 1 vote (recounts aside) he wins all of their electoral votes.  So, win Ohio by a sliver of votes and there are 18 real bankable votes.  Win Florida by  the smallest of margins and there are 29 votes.   There are just far too many scenarios that spell a Romney loss. 

But, the 2000 election aside, what really helps a candidate win elections is picking up the states with the smaller electoral votes, with the prerequisite solid party states,.  As the republicans can attest, the votes add up.  If you win all of New England, a distinct possibility for Obama, that is 33 electoral votes (29 if you give New Hampshire to Romney).  But, that is the key.  Ohio can’t be considered important and pivotal if Romney doesn’t pick up the lion’s share of the South and Midwest, which he should easily do.  But, should Colorado and/or Nevada go to Obama, then Romney’s job just got much more difficult.  

Bottom line, if I was in Vegas, I would double down on Team Obama.Of course, the best bet for tomorrow's election is that regardless of who wins or loses there is an almost 100% certainty that we will remain in pretty much the same situation that we started in.