Based on polling data available, 2016 is going to be a tough year for Republicans.
In the last two presidential elections, Barack Obama was able to easily crush John McCain and Mitt Romney. The Republicans have done well in the off years, but we haven’t won the Presidential Election since sitting President George Bush was challenged by a fairly weak John Kerry in 2004. Prior to that, we lost the popular vote in 2000 to Gore and only secured the presidency based on the vote of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner. And before that, you’d have to go back to 1988 when George HW Bush won the presidency immediately following his stint as Vice President for two terms with Reagan.
The demographics in this country have changed in the last few decades, to the point where Republicans just have a hard time winning with the Presidential electorate. Maybe we’re past the tipping point where too many voters are dependent on the Government for sustenance and therefore continue to vote for more and bigger government through the Democratic Party. The only chance the GOP seems to have is to actually grow that Big Tent we always hear about. We can’t just depend on people over 65 and Whites to win. We need to go after constituencies we’ve never fought for before. And we need to nominate a Republican who can win over not just the GOP base but also independents and disaffected democrats.
Looking at the electoral map, Republicans are at a disadvantage at this point. No matter who we nominate, we can count on winning 191 electoral votes just by the candidate having an R after their name. These guaranteed states are: AK, AZ, UT, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, LA, AR, MO, MS, AL, GA, SC, TN, KY, IN and WV. But in order to win the candidate must win 79 more electoral votes in the Battle Ground States.
The battle ground states are: NC, FL, OH, VA, CO, PA, NH, IA, NV, WI, MN, MI, NM and OR. In 2012 Romney won only one battleground state: North Carolina and its 15 electoral votes. This put his total at 206, well short of the 270 needed. If we want to win in November, we need to elect a candidate who is MOST able to win 79 electoral votes out of those battle ground states.
It’s fairly early in the Presidential nominating cycle at this point, but there is already a plethora of polling data available. Below I have come up with an infographic to visually show how each potential Republican Nominee would do in the general election versus Hilary Clinton in these battle ground states.
There is not data available for all the candidates and some states have more polling data than others. But essentially I’ve taken the average margin versus Hillary of each Republican expected to run and compiled the data together to see who stands the best chance in the general election. No matter who the candidate it is, this polling data tells us it’s going to be an uphill battle.
A few notes about Methodology:
- If a Republican candidate is polling even with Clinton their chances of winning the state are at 50%
- For every 1 percentage point difference versus Clinton, the chances change by 5%
- So for example, in Florida Jeb Bush is polling ahead of Clinton by 1.4 pts, therefore his chances are 57% 50% + 1.4 * 5%
- This procedure was done for all candidates where there is polling data available
- The battle ground states are sorted by Romney’s margin of Victory (Defeat) in 2012, and the electoral votes of each state are listed next to the state
- For each state, the best performer is highlighted green and worst is highlighted red
Looking at the data above can be a little bit overwhelming, but I think the easiest way to analyze it is to look at what states each candidate needs to win in order to break 270 and also looking at their respective chances in each of those states.
I think the wisest way to see which candidate can win is to look at the very last state they need to win to break over 270, or the marginal state needed for victory. So this would assume that they were able to win every state where their chances are higher than this 270-breaking state.
Marco Rubio emerges as the one most likely to win. By winning NC and PA, where his chances are 38% each, he amasses 274 total delegates and becomes the next President. This 38% chance is the equivalent of saying if Rubio is able to win every state where he polls within 2.4% of Hillary Clinton, then he’ll win.
Rand Paul is the next best positioned. In addition to winning all states where his chances are higher, he would also need to win VA where his chances are 35%. Next comes Chris Christie, who needs to win PA where his chances are 25%. And then comes Jeb Bush, who needs to win OH, where his chances are 23%. Scott Walker comes in as the 5th most electable, who needs to win VA with a 20% chance. Next is Mike Huckabee, with an 18% chance of winning FL. Ben Carson and Ted Cruz come in last where they each have a 10% chance of winning FL. Ben Carson is able to amass enough delegate votes even though there is no polling data for him in VA or CO (states that others have used in this hypothetical scenario to achieve 270). At this point, there is not enough polling data on any other candidates to come to an electability conclusion one way or the other.
This data is summarized graphically below:
In conclusion, if the Republicans want to win the presidency in 2016, they need to unite around a candidate who is most able to beat Hillary Clinton. Right now that candidate is either Marco Rubio or Rand Paul.
As time goes on this data will change, but as it stands now, we need to maximize our chances. Nominating Jeb Bush will mean our hopes will be dependent on him overcoming a 5.4 point deficit in OH, as well as winning all the other states he has higher chances in. Nominating Scott Walker will require overcoming a 6.0 point deficit in VA. Nominating Ted Cruz will require overcoming an 8.0 point deficit in FL.
It’s time for GOP voters to unite behind the electable candidates. The John McCain’s and Mitt Romney’s of this world are not good enough. I’m sick and tired of losing in November. Let’s unite and do what’s necessary to win.
21 comments
There is another route to winning. It is to put forth a candidate whose qualities excite enough to get those who sometimes ignore elections (not registered/registered but not voting). Marco Rubio with his conservative message, telegenic appeal, humble beginnings, and HISPANIC heritage can do it. The fact that he will appeal to the youth vote also helps.
Why would I vote Republican for President after their TPP fiasco yesterday?
Nancy Pelosi, the Unions, and a few Conservative Republican’s stopped TPP for now.
TPP is nothing more than the continuing sell out of American jobs.
John Boehner is keeping it alive.
What does American get to keep if they vote Republican? You did not tell us?
You’re using conjectured data to come to a conjectured conclusion that you present as fact (as stated above). That’s horsecrap. And quite an oddly specific number, too.
I am using real data, publicly available. Here’s a snapshot of all polling data used in this article. It includes all publicly available polls for the battleground states dating back to March 6th.
I am not using conjectured data. I am using real data. I’ve compiled all polling data publicly available for the battleground states. These polls were taken between March 6th and today (which means that they were taken when most all of these candidates were expected to run). I’ve attached below all polling data used, including the source of each poll, so feel free to verify the data for yourself. I have already mentioned that this is early and a lot can change between now and the election. But this data tells me that Rubio and Paul have easier paths to winning the presidency than Christie, Bush, Walker, Huckabee, Carson or Cruz.
Your process fails immediately when you attempt to use polls 17 months out from an election as the starting point for your modeling methodology. Your modeling methodology consists of procedures like “For every 1 percentage point difference versus Clinton, the chances change by 5%” without any demonstration of how that’s statistically legitimate (Hint: it’s not). You also fail to include the myriad of other variables that can (and will) change in the next 17 months.
Your numbers, charts and graphs look pretty… but they have no statistical integrity. The null hypothesis remains 100% intact.
Thanks for the compliment Bruce. The charts and graphs do look pretty. As for your claims, a little off-base to say the least. The general election is very far away indeed and a lot can and will happen between now and then. I’ve mentioned this already and it’s plainly obvious. However seeing who seems most electable now is helpful in determining who will have a harder time overcoming the numbers and who will have an easier time. The game is even for everyone now, so seeing trends within polling data to compare candidates’ electability to each other is actually very helpful. Hypothetical Presidential Polling is intended to give us a snapshot of what would happen if the presidential election were held today. It’s a pulse of the electorate, if you will. What’s the point of any of these firms doing any polling right now if we’re not supposed to take it to mean anything? You can sit back and make snide comments about its uselessness, but I’m going to actually analyze the data we have available. As we get closer to the election, the data will be more and more meaningful, until right before the election when it’s been historically very accurate.
If major media stations are going to cover these polls and use them to further whatever their narrative is, then I can certainly use these same polls to try to find out what trends are actually forming. I have been open about what data I’ve looked at and where it’s publicly available and I’ve been open about my methodology. Saying a 1% lead means a 5% higher chance of winning is certainly rudimentary, but the whole point of that was to make the data more understandable. My preferred candidate is Rand Paul, yet the data points to Marco Rubio actually having a slightly better chance (mainly based on his strong FL numbers), yet I’m still presenting the data as is because I think it’s important for GOP voters to have as much relevant information as possible to aid in picking our nominee.
Judging from the comments I’ve seen you post here and on different articles, I can only assume that your favored GOP candidate doesn’t do so well according to this data and therefore you want to attempt to discredit the process I’ve chosen as much as possible. Or your favored candidate is Clinton and you don’t want this information out there because you want her to have an easy victory against a weak general election nominee, like Bush or Walker.
Damn, you got me (not). Heh. Seriously? You think your data model is that on target? There you go again. You’re using incomplete past data to form a hypothesis that’s flawed. As for your question on the point of polling right now, the answer is that polling employees gotta eat.
Bottom line: You’re building a 10-story data model building on an seriously unstable foundation.
Polling at this point in the presidential cycle is nothing more then questionable trend lines. I respect your tendency to use an analytical bent to motivate individuals toward the candidates Paul and Rubio, which I presume you favor, but lets not kid ourselves and claim it has any meaningful base polling underpinnings, its just way to early for that to hold much water.
I think it’s fair to say that it’s early in the race and a lot can and will happen between now and the general election. But I’m only going off of the data that we have available. The first time I voted in a presidential election was 2004. I was more active in 08 and 12 and during those nominating contests, the narrative pushed on us was that John McCain in 08 and Mitt Romney in 12 were the most electable candidates and therefore we needed to nominate them if we wanted to win in November. They both lost by huge electoral margins. I am doing my small part to point out that if you want to actually claim that someone is the most electable, you need to have data backing up your claim. Political Pundits and Talking Heads saying x candidate is most electable does not make it so.
Whether or not Republicans win in November of 2016 will depend on a lot of factors that no one can even guess at this point. But looking at this point in time at our potential candidates and how they stack up against each other does give us a lot of useful information about a candidates comparative electability. Toss polling data aside at your own peril.
My preferred candidate is Rand Paul. The data tells me Marco Rubio has a slightly better chance. I am just presenting the data. It’s up to voters to due their due diligence and pick the most conservative candidate, WHO CAN WIN.
This is good – we need a game changer, someone who can reshuffle the deck. Both Rubio and Paul qualify for that, but I’m not sure about a lot of the other candidates.
Mr. Bukowski has offered some insightful and useful analysis here, but he has omitted another pertinent point which helps to explain our electoral predicament – the role played by identity politics and tribalism. When members of Group A feel compelled to vote for Democrats because members of Group A have been brow beaten into believing that if you don’t vote for the Democratic candidate, then you are not a legitimate member of Group A (but rather an “oreo”, “coconut”, etc.), we are on our way to Balkanization. This type of voting pattern usually occurs in multi-ethnic democracies (e.g., Suriname, Trinidad, Bolivia, Ecuador) with little cross over vote. In short, the Republicans had better figure out a way to crack that code or we will be facing far more serious problems than just winning presidential elections. When non-whites vote for the Democratic Party 75% of the time, and that voting power is used to expand the reach and breadth of government, then Houston, we have a problem. The easiest fruit to pick here is the Asian American vote. It plays a key role in places such as Washington and Virginia.
The first step to winning over constituencies beyond whites is to actually engage them and bring your message to them. Most of the current Republican candidates, save maybe Rand Paul, have not actually attempted the dialogue with various overlooked constituencies. This is a necessary first step. Whether it’s successful, only time will tell. But we’re never going to win certain constituencies if we don’t bring our conservative message to them. Criminal Justice Reform, Non-violent drug offense reforms, restoring voting rights to felons, economic freedom zones, etc. are some actual policy positions that can help break into these demographics.
Generally Republican responsive to identity politics is to close our eyes and say “freedom works for everyone” or something like that. Or we will fall back condescendingly to gay marriage or abortion and say “Hispanic and black voters are religious!” It hasn’t worked. The GOP could use some identity politics, quit frankly, because our in our effort to become “color blind” we have become blind to color.
“in our effort to become “color blind” we have become blind to color.”
I agree with your post, but this is not nearly as profound as you think it is.
in no way do I ever think I am in any way profound.
In order to be profound, we first must have found a pro.
Chris B – no one is often profound in these blog threads. However, you were being quite aphoristic, which is more important. Of course, I am just a lowly schlub conservative foot soldier, but I agree with Anne Coulter, who last week claimed we are far more likely to make inroads with black voters, who are generally conservative and more the victim of misguided white liberal policies (e.g., welfare, open borders, forced integration, etc) than anyone else in America. I would try to drive a deep wedge between the rich white liberals who run the Democratic Party and the urban masses who suffer immeasurably in failing schools and unsafe streets. The vast majority of black people do not dislike the police, they just want police measures to be applied fairly. We can do that EASILY without violating our core principles.
How about something bold and gutsy such as vouchers and school choice, Nick? Of course, that would mean a battle with the teachers unions, and as we know, most Republican politicians and pundits are spineless and have little appetite for battle. Which is another reason why we do much worse than we should with many black and Hispanic men. We are frightful pussy cats, and that does not play well with those demographic groups.
Excellent analysis. I’ve been saying Rubio is our dark horse but he seems now to be our winning horse.
You’re deluded if you think any candidate is a “winning horse” now.