Point G: Spoilers?

Pre-requisite for a diagnosing a spoiler: the winner must win with less than 50% of the vote and one prominent 3^rd party candidate or a combination of candidates must garner enough percentage in order to made-up the certified margin difference. So, based on the results of the GE 2008, here are the states where the winning candidate came in under 50% (a so-called „minority“ win):

St.	EV	BO-%	JM-%	Margin	PC 12	Diff. 1	2004	Diff. 2
NE-02*	1*	49.97	48.75	1.21	4.00	+5.19	21.79	+22.98
IN	11	49.91	48.88	1.03	1.18	+2.21	20.68	+21.71
NC	15	49.70	49.38	0.33	0.62	-0.29	12.43	+12.76
MO	11	49.25	49.39	0.13	0.46	-0.33	7.20	-7.06
MT	3	47.17	49.43	2.26	1.64	+0.62	20.50	-18.24

Next, a detailed outlay of the 3^rd party vote for these states:

State	Obama	McCain	Margin	Nader	Barr	Baldwin	McKinney	Other
NE-02*	49.97	48.75	1.21	0.59	0.36	0.22	0.11	0.00
IN	49.91	48.88	1.03	0.03	1.06	0.04	0.00	0.07
NC	49.70	49.38	0.33	0.00	0.60	0.00	0.00	0.32
MO	49.25	49.39	0.13	0.61	0.39	0.28	0.00	0.08
MT	47.17	49.43	2.26	0.75	0.28	0.03	0.00	2.33*

*write in for Ron Paul under the Constitution Party.

Next, two theories:

Theory 1 says that those voters who voted for splinter parties would probably not have showed up at the polls had the race only been between the two major candidates, in which case a spoiler analysis would be unnecessary.

Theory 2 says that most likely, the votes for Barr and Baldwin would tend more Republican in the case of a two way race, and that the votes for Nader and McKinney would tend more Democratic in the case of a two way race. With that in mind, here is how these five races could have looked, when I add the percentages of the four third party candidates to their respective major party counterparts. Remember, this is just theoretical:

State	Obama + Nader and McKinney	McCain +Barr and Baldwin	Theoretical Margin	Write-ins	Spoiler possibility?
NE-02*	50.67	49.33	1.34	0.00	NO
IN	49.98	49.98	0.00	0.03 remaining	DOUBTFUL
NC	49.70	49.98	0.28	0.32	YES
MO	49.86	50.06	0.20	0.08	NO
MT	47.92	52.08	4.16	*	NO

For us to even come to these theoretical results, it would mean that every single vote that had been cast for a splinter party would be re-cast for the (relatively) corresponding major party candidate. So, even though Ron Barr picked up a solid 1.06% of the vote in IN, we must assume that some of the write-ins would have also gone for Obama, thus making the race in IN still a total tossup. In NE-02, MO and MT, a spoiler would not have been possible as the candidate that indeed won would have certainly come over 50% using theory no. 2. Thus remains only NC as the true candidate for a spoiler. Here, Barr probably spoiled the race for McCain. With only one out of 51 „states“ as a likely spoiler candidate, we have statistical proof that the third party influence in 2008 was extremely limited.

V. Obama's place in the national rankings

Here is the complete analysis, with 10 extensive tables.

Here are the end-tables, with explanation:

End-Ratings, Obama by percent:

Election Type	No.	Obama Ranking	Obama %ile	Candidate / Place under	Candidate /Place above
All wins	46	18	60.87	Harrison / 1840 / 52.87%	Bush / 1988 / 53.37%
1856 - all	39	17	51.28	Grant / 1868 / 52.66%	Bush / 1988 / 53.37%
1908 - all	26	14	46.15	Taft / 1908 / 51.57%	Bush / 1988 / 53.37%
1948 - all	16	7	56.25	Reagan / 1980 / 50.75%	Bush / 1988 / 53.37%
All DEM wins	25	8	68.00	Tilden / 1872 / 50.92%**	Bush / 1988 / 53.37%
1856- DEM wins	19	6	68.42	Tilden / 1872 / 50.92%**	Roosevelt / 1944 / 53.39%
1908- DEM wins	14	6	57.14	Carter / 1976 / 50.08%	Roosevelt / 1944 / 53.39%
1948- DEM wins	8	2	75.00	Carter / 1976 / 50.08%	Johnson / 1964 / 61.04%
1856- O / SO	21	8	61.90	Grant / 1868 / 52.66%	Bush / 1988 / 53.37%
1856- O only	11	4	63.64	Grant / 1868 / 52.66%	Eisenhower /1952 / 55.18%

**Hayes won the election in an electoral college dispute/backfire, but Tilden won in the PV.

End Ratings, Obama by margin:

Election Type	No.	Obama Ranking	Obama %ile	Candidate / Place under	Candidate / Place above
All	46	27	41.30	Pierce / 1852 / +6.95	Roosevelt / 1944 / +7.49
1856 - all	39	23	41.03	McKinley / 1900 / +6.13	Roosevelt / 1944 / +7.49
1908 - all	26	18	30.77	Clinton / 1992 / +5.56	Roosevelt / 1944 / +7.49
1948 - all	16	9	43.75	Clinton / 1992 / +5.56	Roosevelt / 1944 / +7.49
All DEM wins	25	13	48.00	Pierce / 1852 / +6.95	Roosevelt / 1944 / +7.49
1856- DEM wins	19	9	52.63	Clinton / 1992 / +5.56	Roosevelt / 1944 / +7.49
1908- DEM wins	14	8	42.86	Clinton / 1992 / +5.56	Roosevelt / 1944 / +7.49
1948- DEM wins	8	3	62.50	Clinton / 1992 / +5.56	Clinton / 1996 / +8.52
1856- O / SO	21	11	47.61	Grant / 1868 / +5.33%	Bush / 1988 / +7.73%
1856- O only	11	6	45.45	Grant / 1868 / +5.33%	Taft / 1908 / +8.53%

First, when looking at the end tables, here is how to interpret them:

Example – the first election type, „All“, means all elections since the PV has been counted (since 1824). There have been 46 election cycles since then. In terms of winning percentage, Obama has place 18. In terms of EC win, he has place 27. The percentile is simple: 46-18=28. 28/46=60.87, which means that in terms of winning percentage, Obama is almost in the 61^st percentile (or almost in the upper two thirds) of history. And for the category „All“, he is nestled between Harrison and Bush Sr. In terms of winning percent; his place is between Pierce and Roosevelt (FDR) in terms of winning margin.

You will see from the tables that the place above Obama shows much more stability: in terms of winning percent, the name Bush (Sr.) appears the most often, showing the closest correlation to Obama, going up the ladder. In terms of winning margin, the name Roosevelt (FDR) appears the most often, showing the closest correlation to Obama, going up the ladder.

The place below Obama is much less stable, but the overall percentage below Obama's that he comes closest to is: Grant (1868, 52.66%). The overal margin below Obama's that appears the most often is Bill Clinton from 1992.

Percentiles: one notices that Obama's percentile rises greatly when he is only compared to other DEMOCRATS. But all in all, this win put him on the average somewhere between the 50^th percentile and the 66^th percentile, roughly between the upper one-half and the upper one-third of all US elections.

VI: Conclusion

All seven pre-requisites for a solid re-alignment election have been met:

a.) the GOP lost ground in 46 states and lost 9.25 states to the DEMS.

b.) the DEMS gained ground in 46 states and won with a convincing +7.25% margin.

c.) the GOP lost ground in solid GOP territory and in all geographical regions and sub-regions in the union.

d.) the DEMS posted very large gains in home territory.

e.) the DEMS surpassed the end-polling predictions in the vast majority of states that they won.

f.) Obama re-drew the electoral map in a fascinating way, interesting due to the states he picked up, but just as interesting due to the states that would normally have sided with a DEM in a DEM cycle, but which did not. This is evidence of a SOLID PARADIGM SHIFT.

g.) third party influence was practically nil in this election.

And there were numerous firsts in american electoral history:

1.) Obama is the first black president in our history. Biden is the first catholic vice-president in our history.

2.) Obama earned more real votes than any other candidate in US history, breaking Bush's record from 2004.

3.) Obama earned the highest number of votes in any one state (CA) and the largest raw vote margin in any one state (CA) in US history. Alone in the state of California, Obama surpassed Bush's national plurality from 4 years ago. His margin in CA is the largest since 1928 and he also did better in CA than Ronald Reagan in both 1980 and 1984. A more state-specific analysis will be posted in the late spring of 2009.

4.) Obama set a superlative record for the largest winning percentage and winning percentage margin in DC, thus breaking Kerry's record from 2004. He is also the first candidate since 1944 (Roosevelt, Mississippi, 93.56%) to earn over 90% in a state of the Union. No GOP candidate has ever won a state with more than 78.22% (Coolidge, 1924, VT) in US history.

5.) By winning NE-02, Obama set a record as being the first candidate in history to pick up an elector in a so-called „Elector Splitting state“ (NE or ME). He also set a cross-party partisan shift record for the CD at +23.00.

6.) This is the first time since 1980 where the winning ticket posted sizeable gains in the homestates of both candidates (IL, DE), whereas the losing ticket actually did worse in both of their homestates in comparison to the previous cycle (AZ, AK).

7.) With a winning percentage of 52.87%, this is only the second time in american electoral history that two presidential candidates have won with exactly the same percentage, down to the 1/100^th of a percent: Harrison also won with 52.87% in 1840. FDR and Jackson also have tied percentages at 54.74%, from 1940 and 1832, respectively. Also interesting is to notice that in both cases, the candidates were separated by a time-span of more than 100 years.

8.) Deep in the heart of what was the most conservative state in the Union in 2004 (and now the 3rd most conservative state, based on GE 2008) - in Utah - Obama won Salt Lake City. This is the first time since 1964 that a DEM has won the county.

Partisan shift superlatives:

The most stunning cross-party partisan shift of 2008 was the Obama win in IN, a core GOP state, causing a shift of +21.78.

Obama's largest intra-party partisan shift was in HI, a shift of +36.53. Just four years ago, the Bush camp had been talking of making a play for the „Aloha State“. However impressive +36.53 may look, Obama did not break the partisan shift record for this state. LBJ did that in 1964, with an intra-party partisan shift of +57.46 over Kennedy's win in 1960.

McCain's largest intra-party partisan shift was in AR, a shift of +10.09.

Statistically speaking, the most stable states, one for each party in the Union, comparing 2008 to 2004, are:

MA (+0.65) / OK (+0.15)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix:

There were four (4) preliminary reports to this one: The first report is here to read. And the second report is here to read. Here's the third report. And here is the fourth.

Website references:

The best site I know is David Leips USELECTIONATLAS.ORG, which has the most comprehensive data I have ever seen on one site for presidential elections throughout US history.

Another site which has been updated quite well this year is the WIKIPEDIA entry for the GE 2008.

A third site, but less reliable as it is not updated as often, is the so called GREEN PAPERS.

The fourth site, created by Dr. Michael McDonald, from George Mason University, was excellent in following the state-by-state process of reporting the vote tallies.