IV. RE-ALIGNMENT ELECTION?
It had been suggested and argued for months before the election that this election would be a so-called “re-alignment election”, where the country would take a sharp turn away from it's current political direction and move in the opposite political direction. Re-alignment elections are decisive elections that redraw the electoral map, generally according to the following criteria:
a.) the party in power loses ground in many states, resulting in a number of states “flipping”.
b.) the party out of power gains ground in many states, flips states, and wins with a solid mandate.
c.) The losing party suffers double digit margin losses in its own “territory”.
d.) The winning party achieves double digit margin gains in its own “territory”, resulting in a net trend for the winning party nationwide.
e) The winning party surpasses the end-polling projections in most states.
f.) The electoral map is redrawn into a radically new configuration that has not been seen before.
g.) the reduced impact of third parties makes spoilers unlikely.
I argue that there is sufficient statistical evidence that exactly this happened on November 4th, 2008: a “re-alignment” election. Along the line there were a lot of 1sts in this year, so I will be listing them as well.
Point a: the Republican party posted negative margin shifts in 46 of 51 “states” (90.20% of the union, in terms of numbers of states). More exactly, the GOP lost ground in every single state that Obama won and also lost ground in 17 of the 21.75 states that McCain won, statistical evidence that the republican base was weakened in every region of the country. The five states that went against the grain and trended more republican than 2004 will be addressed later.
Point b: Obama's 52.87% win is the largest percentage a democrat has won since 1964 and the third largest since 1944. The Democratic party also posted positive margin shifts in 46 of 51 “states” (90.20% of the union, in terms of numbers of states). More exactly, the democrats gained ground in every single state that Obama won and also gained ground in 17 of the 21.75 states that McCain won. More importantly, in every single state that Kerry barely or narrowly won in 2004, Obama won with landslides or near-landslides in 2008 (this is part of the “Everything table”, re-sorted in ascending order of narrow Kerry wins from 2004):
|
St. |
BO-% |
JM-% |
Margin 2008 |
Margin 2004 |
„Swing“ |
|
WI |
56.22 |
42.31 |
13.90 |
0.38 |
+13.52 |
|
NH |
54.13 |
44.52 |
9.61 |
1.37 |
+8.24 |
|
PA |
54.48 |
44.17 |
10.32 |
2.50 |
+7.82 |
|
MI |
57.37 |
40.92 |
16.46 |
3.42 |
+13.04 |
|
MN |
54.06 |
43.82 |
10.24 |
3.48 |
+6.76 |
|
OR |
56.75 |
40.40 |
16.35 |
4.16 |
+12.19 |
|
NJ |
57.15 |
41.62 |
15.54 |
6.68 |
+8.85 |
|
WA |
57.43 |
40.32 |
17.11 |
7.18 |
+9.93 |
|
DE |
61.94 |
36.95 |
25.00 |
7.59 |
+17.40 |
For instance, in WI, which Kerry barely held on to with +0.38, also a state that Gore just narrowly won with +0.22, Obama landslided with +13.90, making a margin shift (“swing”) of +13.52.
Point C: the Republican party posted margin losses in all but five states that are considered safe GOP terroritory. Nine (9) of the negative margin shifts are in double digits. The other nine states that flipped to the DEMS are not in this list, for those margins are now considered margin GAINS for the DEMS:
|
St. |
BO-% |
JM-% |
Margin 2008 |
Margin 2004 |
Diff. 2 |
|
AR |
38.86 |
58.72 |
19.85 |
9.76 |
+10.09 |
|
LA |
39.93 |
58.56 |
18.63 |
14.51 |
+4.12 |
|
TN |
41.83 |
56.90 |
15.07 |
14.27 |
+0.79 |
|
WV |
42.55 |
55.69 |
13.14 |
12.86 |
+0.28 |
|
OK |
34.35 |
65.65 |
31.29 |
31.14 |
+0.15 |
|
- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
AZ |
44.91 |
53.39 |
8.48 |
10.47 |
-1.99 |
|
KY |
41.15 |
57.37 |
16.22 |
19.86 |
-3.64 |
|
AK |
37.89 |
59.42 |
21.54 |
25.55 |
-4.01 |
|
AL |
38.74 |
60.32 |
21.58 |
25.62 |
-4.04 |
|
MS |
43.00 |
56.18 |
13.17 |
19.69 |
-6.51 |
|
MO |
49.25 |
49.39 |
0.13 |
7.20 |
-7.06 |
|
WY |
32.54 |
64.78 |
32.24 |
39.79 |
-7.55 |
|
SC |
44.90 |
53.87 |
8.98 |
17.08 |
-8.10 |
|
KS |
41.57 |
56.50 |
14.93 |
25.38 |
-10.45 |
|
TX |
43.64 |
55.39 |
11.76 |
22.86 |
-11.11 |
|
GA |
46.90 |
52.10 |
5.20 |
16.60 |
-11.40 |
|
ID |
35.96 |
61.30 |
25.34 |
38.12 |
-12.78 |
|
SD |
44.75 |
53.16 |
8.41 |
21.47 |
-13.06 |
|
UT |
34.27 |
62.34 |
28.07 |
45.54 |
-17.47 |
|
MT |
47.17 |
49.43 |
2.26 |
20.50 |
-18.24 |
|
NE* |
41.60 |
56.53 |
14.93 |
33.22 |
-18.28 |
|
ND |
44.47 |
53.07 |
8.60 |
27.36 |
-18.76 |
The five states that went against the national trend (AR, LA, TN, WV, OK), will be analyzed later in this report.
Point
D: the
DEMOCRATIC party
earned major gains in blue states and in the states that flipped. 17
states + NE-02 reflect a “swing” in double digits. 18 states
reflect a swing greater than the national swing. Only 1 state
reflects a small swing: MA, which was Kerry's home state for the GE
2004. Also of statistical note is that both PA and FL (2 of the 3
“trifecta” states, with OH) posted IDENTICAL swings for the
DEMOCRATIC party in 2008: +7.82,
less than one point under the national swing of +9.71.
Here the democratic wins, in ascending order of partisan shift, or "swing":
|
St. |
BO-% |
JM-% |
Margin 2008 |
Margin 2004 |
„Swing“ |
|
MA |
61.80 |
35.99 |
25.81 |
25.16 |
+0.65 |
|
DC |
92.46 |
06.53 |
85.93 |
79.84 |
+6.09 |
|
OH |
51.38 |
46.80 |
4.58 |
2.11 |
+6.69 |
|
MN |
54.06 |
43.82 |
10.24 |
3.48 |
+6.76 |
|
RI |
63.13 |
35.21 |
27.92 |
20.75 |
+7.17 |
|
FL |
50.91 |
48.10 |
2.81 |
5.01 |
+7.82 |
|
PA |
54.48 |
44.17 |
10.32 |
2.50 |
+7.82 |
|
NH |
54.13 |
44.52 |
9.61 |
1.37 |
+8.24 |
|
ME |
57.71 |
40.38 |
17.32 |
9.00 |
+8.32 |
|
NY |
62.80 |
36.11 |
26.69 |
18.29 |
+8.41 |
|
NJ |
57.15 |
41.62 |
15.54 |
6.68 |
+8.85 |
|
USA |
52.87 |
45.62 |
7.25 |
2.46 |
+9.71 |
|
WA |
57.43 |
40.32 |
17.11 |
7.18 |
+9.93 |
|
IA |
53.93 |
44.39 |
9.53 |
0.67 |
+10.20 |
|
CT |
60.59 |
38.22 |
22.37 |
10.37 |
+12.00 |
|
OR |
56.75 |
40.40 |
16.35 |
4.16 |
+12.19 |
|
MD |
61.92 |
36.47 |
25.44 |
12.98 |
+12.46 |
|
NC |
49.70 |
49.38 |
0.33 |
12.43 |
+12.76 |
|
MI |
57.37 |
40.92 |
16.46 |
3.42 |
+13.04 |
|
WI |
56.22 |
42.31 |
13.90 |
0.38 |
+13.52 |
|
CO |
53.66 |
44.71 |
8.95 |
4.67 |
+13.62 |
|
CA |
60.95 |
36.92 |
24.03 |
9.95 |
+14.08 |
|
VA |
52.63 |
46.33 |
6.30 |
8.20 |
+14.50 |
|
IL |
61.92 |
36.78 |
25.13 |
10.34 |
+14.81 |
|
NV |
55.15 |
42.65 |
12.49 |
2.59 |
+15.09 |
|
NM |
56.91 |
41.78 |
15.13 |
0.79 |
+15.92 |
|
VT |
67.46 |
30.45 |
37.01 |
20.14 |
+16.87 |
|
DE |
61.94 |
36.95 |
25.00 |
7.59 |
+17.40 |
|
IN |
49.91 |
48.88 |
1.03 |
20.68 |
+21.71 |
|
NE-02 |
49.97 |
48.76 |
1.21 |
21.79 |
+23.00 |
|
HI |
71.85 |
26.58 |
45.26 |
8.74 |
+36.52 |
Note that for both points C and D, the smaller swings are usually in states that are traditionally either very red or very blue, anyway, whereas the double digit swings are in states that have been either contested in the past or were hotly contested in this year. One notable exception to this is OHIO, which has tended to go with comparatively narrow margins for the winner since 1992.
Point E: Obama surpassed the end-polling in the overwhelming majority of states that he won (23.25 out of 29.25 states). However, so did McCain (16.75 out of 21.75 states):
|
St. |
BO-% |
JM-% |
Margin |
PC 12 |
Difference to end polling |
|
IA |
53.93 |
44.39 |
9.53 |
12.75 |
-3.22 |
|
NY |
62.80 |
36.11 |
26.69 |
29.00 |
-2.31 |
|
MN |
54.06 |
43.82 |
10.24 |
12.00 |
-1.76 |
|
NH |
54.13 |
44.52 |
9.61 |
10.43 |
-0.82 |
|
NJ |
57.15 |
41.62 |
15.54 |
16.00 |
-0.46 |
|
USA |
52.87 |
45.62 |
7.25 |
7.54 |
-0.29 |
|
NC |
49.70 |
49.38 |
0.33 |
0.62 |
-0.29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CA |
60.95 |
36.92 |
24.03 |
24.00 |
+0.03 |
|
ME |
57.71 |
40.38 |
17.32 |
17.15 |
+0.17 |
|
IL |
61.92 |
36.78 |
25.13 |
24.90 |
+0.23 |
|
OR |
56.75 |
40.40 |
16.35 |
15.57 |
+0.78 |
|
FL |
50.91 |
48.10 |
2.81 |
1.79 |
+1.02 |
|
CT |
60.59 |
38.22 |
22.37 |
21.33 |
+1.04 |
|
VA |
52.63 |
46.33 |
6.30 |
4.93 |
+1.37 |
|
OH |
51.38 |
46.80 |
4.58 |
2.30 |
+2.28 |
|
MI |
57.37 |
40.92 |
16.46 |
14.44 |
+2.02 |
|
IN |
49.91 |
48.88 |
1.03 |
1.18 |
+2.21 |
|
CO |
53.66 |
44.71 |
8.95 |
6.62 |
+2.33 |
|
WA |
57.43 |
40.32 |
17.11 |
14.60 |
+2.51 |
|
WI |
56.22 |
42.31 |
13.90 |
11.34 |
+2.56 |
|
PA |
54.48 |
44.17 |
10.32 |
7.30 |
+3.02 |
|
DE |
61.94 |
36.95 |
25.00 |
20.70 |
+4.30 |
|
MA |
61.80 |
35.99 |
25.81 |
21.33 |
+4.48 |
|
NE-02* |
49.97 |
48.75 |
1.21 |
4.00 |
+5.21 |
|
NV |
55.15 |
42.65 |
12.49 |
6.83 |
+5.66 |
|
NM |
56.91 |
41.78 |
15.13 |
9.26 |
+5.87 |
|
MD |
61.92 |
36.47 |
25.44 |
17.30 |
+8.14 |
|
HI |
71.85 |
26.58 |
45.26 |
36.00 |
+9.26 |
|
RI |
63.13 |
35.21 |
27.92 |
18.10 |
+9.82 |
|
VT |
67.46 |
30.45 |
37.01 |
27.00 |
+10.01 |
|
DC |
92.46 |
06.53 |
85.93 |
69.00 |
+16.93 |
-- |
|
|
|
|
-- |
|
St. |
BO-% |
JM-% |
Margin |
PC 12 |
Difference to end polling |
|
NE |
41.60 |
56.53 |
14.93 |
19.00 |
-4.07 |
|
SC |
44.90 |
53.87 |
8.98 |
12.55 |
-3.57 |
|
KS |
41.57 |
56.50 |
14.93 |
17.00 |
-2.07 |
|
TX |
43.64 |
55.39 |
11.76 |
13.00 |
-1.24 |
|
MO |
49.25 |
49.39 |
0.13 |
0.46 |
-0.33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MT |
47.17 |
49.43 |
2.26 |
1.64 |
+0.62 |
|
SD |
44.75 |
53.16 |
8.41 |
7.50 |
+0.91 |
|
TN |
41.83 |
56.90 |
15.07 |
14.00 |
+1.07 |
|
OK |
34.35 |
65.65 |
31.29 |
30.15 |
+1.14 |
|
GA |
46.90 |
52.10 |
5.20 |
3.85 |
+1.35 |
|
AL |
38.74 |
60.32 |
21.58 |
19.33 |
+2.25 |
|
ID |
35.96 |
61.30 |
25.34 |
23.00 |
+2.34 |
|
MS |
43.00 |
56.18 |
13.17 |
10.50 |
+2.67 |
|
KY |
41.15 |
57.37 |
16.22 |
12.40 |
+3.82 |
|
AZ |
44.91 |
53.39 |
8.48 |
4.43 |
+4.05 |
|
UT |
34.27 |
62.34 |
28.07 |
24.00 |
+4.07 |
|
WV |
42.55 |
55.69 |
13.14 |
7.66 |
+5.48 |
|
AK |
37.89 |
59.42 |
21.54 |
14.58 |
+6.96 |
|
LA |
39.93 |
58.56 |
18.63 |
10.43 |
+8.20 |
|
AR |
38.86 |
58.72 |
19.85 |
10.75 |
+9.10 |
|
WY |
32.54 |
64.78 |
32.24 |
23.00 |
+9.24 |
|
ND |
44.47 |
53.07 |
8.60 |
1.34 |
+9.94 |
When
we consider that polling and pollsters are often criticized for being
“off” (see: 2004), this critique cannot apply in 2008, for the
most often applied MoE (Margin of Error) is +/-3.5 and only in the
case of NE for McCain was the actual result a negative value larger
than -3.5. As far as the positive values go, in 10 states, Obama
outperformed the end polling average by more than +3.5 (outside of
the MoE), but the majority of those states were vastly underpolled;
it was already a given that Obama would win in those states handily,
for instance, in DC,
which was only polled once entirely, or in VT,
which was polled a grand total of 4 times. Ditto WY
for McCain.
And the national polling was only off by +0.29%,
which is a statistically insignificant difference. You cannot get much more exact in predicting than that!
Furthermore, there were only two cases where the end polling pointed in the direction of one candidate, but the “state” went for the other on election day: ND and NE-02. Obama won 7 states and McCain won 3 states within +/- 1.0% of end polling, which means that the polls in 20% of the Union were practically dead-on. Widening the parameters a little bit, Obama won 17 states and McCain won 10 states within +/- 2.5% of the end polling - which is well within the MoE – making for 27 of 51 “states”, or 52.94% of the Union. There were only 2 states which had been polled considerably, where Obama won with more than +5 points over the end-polling, and both of those states are in the west: NM and NV. Similarly, for McCain, WV was polled extensively starting one 6 weeks before the election and McCain surpassed expectations there by more than +5% over the end-polling.
FACIT: the polls, or better put, the polling average, was far more accurate in 2008 than in the previous four cycles.