Veepstates

Back in mid-April, I had written a post describing who I thought would be the most likely choice for Mitt Romney’s running mate.  In it, I had reasoned that Mr. Romney would be best served by putting someone on the ticket who could help deliver a swing state or a constituency (or both). 

I had actually said in the article that the reason Paul Ryan was rated at number five was because I had doubted Romney’s advisers would care as much about policy heft as possibly picking up a swing state such as Florida or Ohio.  Clearly, I was wrong. 

But it brings up a good question: can Wisconsin swing to the Republicans in November, or would Mr. Romney had been better served by picking someone from a ‘swingier’ state.  Granted, in both 2000 and 2004, the Democrats carried Wisconsin by less than 1%.  But in 2008, Barack Obama dominated in Wisconsin, carrying the state by nearly 14%.

To analyze the effect of a Vice Presidential nominee on a home-state, I gathered data much in the same way as when I did the same analysis for Presidential nominees’ home states.  I first found the difference between how the individual state performed versus how the nation voted.  Then, I used the difference to calculate the state’s average swing, excluding any years the nominee was from that state. 

Finally, I compared the average swing of the state to the year the nominee represented the state on the national ticket.  As before, I used two election cycles prior to and after the selected year.  The reason for this is because states’ voting habits change, sometimes dramatically, over time.  Looking back or forward further than eight years may skew the results in one way or another.  A full compilation of my data can be found here.

Side note: when computing the ‘Average Change’ for each party, I excluded 1988 for Democrats and 1960 for Republicans.  This is due to the fact the Presidential nominee of the other party was from the same state as the Vice Presidential nominee in question. 

Year	DEM State Average Without State Candidate	DEM Performance With State Candidate	Change
1960	1.00	0.8	-0.20
1964	6.20	2.71	-3.49
1968	-0.01	12.58	12.59
1972	3.60	-0.16	-3.76
1976	9.66	4.82	-4.84
1980	8.32	5.49	-2.83
1984	4.39	5.27	0.88
1988	-3.84	-2.3	1.54
1992	-1.40	4.07	5.47
1996	-3.65	-1.23	2.42
2000	4.14	7.53	3.39
2004	-4.51	-4.69	-0.18
2008	5.83	9.04	3.21
		Average Change	1.05
		Median	0.88

Year	GOP State Average Without State Candidate	GOP Performance With State Candidate	Change
1960	-6.14	-10	-3.86
1964	0.07	-7.16	-7.23
1968	-2.72	-1.45	1.27
1972	-3.86	0.59	4.45
1976	8.25	4.47	-3.78
1980	2.69	4.53	1.84
1984	1.88	4.84	2.96
1988	4.86	6.47	1.61
1992	6.03	5.46	-0.57
1996	-8.18	-10.11	-1.93
2000	10.17	19.89	9.72
2004	14.14	18.13	4.00
2008	10.55	13.82	3.28
		Average Change	1.30
		Median	1.61

Above are the statistics for each Presidential year beginning in 1960.  Unfortunately, there is not a huge and statistically significant correlation between a Vice Presidential candidate’s home state average performance and the vote share from that state in the corresponding election.  On average, Democratic VP candidates boost their home state percentage by about 1.05% while GOP candidates help out about 1.30%.

However, like in the Presidential model, I want to examine the difference between the election year and only the two preceding election cycles.  Below are the results:

Year	DEM State Average Before State Candidate	DEM Performance With State Candidate	Change
1960	2.16	0.8	-1.36
1964	2.49	2.71	0.23
1968	0.51	12.58	12.07
1972	2.65	-0.16	-2.81
1976	9.92	4.82	-5.10
1980	8.55	5.49	-3.06
1984	2.43	5.27	2.84
1988	-2.02	-2.3	-0.28
1992	-1.55	4.07	5.62
1996	-4.10	-1.23	2.87
2000	1.40	7.53	6.13
2004	-5.19	-4.69	0.49
2008	5.83	9.04	3.21
		Average Change	1.76
		Median	0.49

Year	GOP State Average Before State Candidate	GOP Performance With State Candidate	Change
1960	0.50	-10	-10.50
1964	0.77	-7.16	-7.93
1968	-3.55	-1.45	2.10
1972	-3.94	0.59	4.53
1976	9.21	4.47	-4.74
1980	2.74	4.53	1.79
1984	-0.05	4.84	4.89
1988	4.08	6.47	2.39
1992	2.90	5.46	2.56
1996	-4.71	-10.11	-5.40
2000	5.67	19.89	14.22
2004	9.09	18.13	9.04
2008	10.55	13.82	3.28
		Average Change	2.23
		Median	2.39

This paints a much rosier picture for those who hope for a VP bump.  Democratic candidates gained 1.76% and GOP candidates averaged a 2.23% increase.

One notable trend is that the results have improved over time.  For example, between 1960 and 1984, Democratic candidates boosted their home state percentage less than half of the time.  However, since 1984, they had a perfect score (excluding 1988 because George H. W. Bush also represented Texas).  The same is basically true for Republicans.  If we were to only examine the past two decades, the averages would be 3.66% and 4.35%, respectively. 

So how do we know which numbers to use when deciding how much of a ‘bump’ Paul Ryan will provide in Wisconsin?  Republican readers are likely going to optimistically go with 4.35% and Democratic readers could choose 1.30%. 

To be truthful, it’s more of a personal judgment call. Remember, Wisconsin’s current average swing, relying only on the past two Presidential elections, is +7.15 DEM.  This would mean Paul Ryan would need to provide a 7.15% bump in order to put Wisconsin in the GOP column. 

However, Wisconsin has become much more polarized since Obama won it in 2008.  In 2010, which was a great year for Republicans nationwide, Wisconsin elected both Scott Walker and Ron Johnson to the Governorship and Senator, respectively.  Before Mr. Romney’s selection of Mr. Ryan, Obama was ahead in the polls in Wisconsin by an average of 5%.

Can the GOP win Wisconsin in 2012?  Possibly.  It would require an above-average bump from the running mate or an overall decline in President Obama’s standing nationwide. 

Would Mr. Romney have been better served by choosing someone else, at least in the electoral sense?  Probably.  Florida is currently one of the most competitive states on the map, and it has way more electoral votes than Wisconsin.  A Republican likely won’t win the White House without carrying Florida.  By picking Mr. Ryan, Mitt Romney is making a huge gamble that he can, indeed, win both Florida and Ohio without some outside help.  That’s a gamble that I’m not sure will pay off.  

Who Won the Week (July 8-14)

The hits this week just kept coming for Romney camp.   The debate over outsourcing has not gone away; in fact, it has intensified.  President Obama’s team has begun to make the case that Romney doesn’t care about jobs, just the profits.  Romney, in what could be called an “I am rubber, you are glue” moment, has labeled President Obama as the “Outsourcer in Chief”. 

In the end, the advantage on this argument goes to Obama, as the Romney campaign is only further adding legs to the outsourcing story.  They also did this two weeks ago when it was revealed that Bain invested in companies that pioneered outsourcing; the Romney camp, instead of refuting the claim, said there was a difference between “outsourcing” and “offshoring”.  Either way, they are debating semantics, and the debate only helps the President.

All of that would be small potatoes if there wasn’t another bit of damaging news this week for Mr. Romney.  The Boston Globe came out with a piece showing that Romney had, in fact, been actively involved in Bain Capital long after the candidate had originally said. 

The Obama campaign was quick to pounce on this information, saying that Romney had either committed a felony by lying on Federal disclosure forms or that Mr. Romney had lied to the American people. 

Which brings us to the tax problem.  In the primary campaign, Mitt Romney (after much pressure) had released his 2010 tax returns and had released a partial return for 2011.  His campaign had believed that in doing so, they would take the issue off the table for the general election. 

Boy, were they wrong.  A growing chorus of Democrats, the media, and even many Republicans are demanding that Mitt release more than what he has already.  On Friday, Mr. Romney answered those calls by refusing to release anything more than he already had, again, playing right into the President’s hands.

In effect, the Romney campaign has likely concluded that there is more potential damage in making public his taxes than suffering what will probably be the constant attacks on him for not releasing them. 

On an only slightly related note, the Romney campaign on Thursday floated Condoleezza Rice’s name as being on the candidate’s short list for Vice President.  The move, however, was largely seen as a way to distract from the bad news cycle that had been manifesting this week from the Bain and tax issues.

However the news wasn’t only bad for Mitt this week.  On Monday, it was revealed that President Obama had his best fundraising month yet… except that he still fell far behind Mr. Romney.  How far?  Romney raised $106 M to Obama’s $71 M.  If this pace keeps up through the election, it’s conceivable that Romney could actually be better funded than the President, something that looked to be impossible just a couple months ago. 

Polling:  The President’s lead is relatively unchanged since last week (+2.4 according to RCP).  However, as we are getting closer to November, the statewide polls will matter more.  In that regard, the President seemed to have a very good week in polling.  Two polls in Wisconsin gave the President a 6 and 8-point lead, while a PPP poll in Virginia put the race at +8 Obama.  Finally, a Rasmussen poll found Florida to be a tossup, which can be seen as good news for the President as Rasmussen polls tend to lean towards the GOP.

Who Won the Week?  President Obama