In 2004, during my tenure as chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign, I did some scenario planning on possible outcomes in a very close election. I had expected that election to be decided by 3 percentage points or less, and I said this a number of times both internally and to the media.
One scenario I raised as a real possibility internally was that George Bush could win the popular vote but lose the electoral college (the exact opposite of what happened in 2000). And this scenario would have come to pass if the Bush margin in Ohio had changed by 120,000 votes. John Kerry would have won the electoral college, 271 to 266, while Bush would have won the popular vote by approximately 3 million votes. (Remember the mishap of the one electoral vote from Minnesota.)
Further, subtract 2.2 percent from the margin in each state in 2004 and Bush would have still barely won the popular vote (but by a bigger margin than Gore won the popular vote in 2000), but lost the electoral college to Kerry, 283 to 254, because Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico would have switched from Bush to Kerry.
So let's do some similar scenario planning for 2012, when another tight election is expected. It is also expected to be decided by less than 3 percentage points, just like 2004. And today, nearly every public opinion poll shows the race within the margin of error between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
In a very tight race this November, Obama could lose the popular vote and win the electoral college. Let me say that slightly differently: Romney could win the popular vote by more than 1 million votes and lose the electoral college to Obama by a margin of 272 to 266. What a difference in talking points that would mean for the two parties compared with the 2000 presidential election controversy.
Let me show how you I arrived at this scenario. Obama won the popular vote by a national percentage of just over 7 points in 2008. If we subtract 8 points from the margin in every state, Romney would have a little less than a 1-point victory nationally (which gives you the 1 million vote margin for him in the popular vote).
And as we subtract 8 points from every state's margin, what happens to the electoral college? It gets much, much closer, but Obama still wins it by six electoral votes. So in one very possible scenario, Obama can lose the popular vote and still be reelected because he barely carries the electoral college.
Obviously, much can change over the coming weeks and months, and there are a variety of possibilities. The economy could get worse and Romney wins by a bigger margin and carries the electoral college. The economy could improve and Obama gets reelected comfortably in both the popular vote and the electoral college. Or it's a close election, and as is traditionally the case, the popular vote and electoral college are in sync.
But keep in mind that in the very tight elections since 2000, we have been increasingly faced with a divergence of the popular vote and the electoral college. This happened in 2000, it could have easily have happened in 2004, and it could definitely happen in 2012. But interestingly, if there is a divergence in 2012, it is likely to benefit President Obama and not Mitt Romney.
Cross-posted from ABCNews.com
Follow Matthew Dowd on Twitter: www.twitter.com/matthewjdowd
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
The National Popular Vote bill ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
The National Popular Vote bill changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but since enacted by states).
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in the country would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
The bill uses the power given to each state in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have been by state legislative action.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc
This story is non-news pretending to be news. Perhaps tomorrow we can get a piece on the sun being hot or that water is wet.
AND YOUR AV\\
FANNED FROM NYC
Karl Rove is considered a "Strategist" for helping gerrymandering districts to keep them red or turn them red.
Someone (Maybe Mr Dowd) has advised Rick Scott on how many voters should be "Purged" in order to help Mitt appear to have really won Florida, because we all know whether or not he really wins the vote, he'll be announced the winner and the results will be proven after the fact.
It sickens me that our democracy - the iconic democracy on this planet - has been given to the multinational corporations to do with as they wish.
Our treasury was bankrupted building democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, while our own nation has been auctioned off to the highest bidder with the blessing of "justice" Roberts.
-If you think this is done to benefit Romney, you're probably right. It happens in...mmm...I'd guess most politics in this country to some degree. Missing ballots floating in the bay to a speaker of the house calling a law passed in spite of a 2/3 majority present and yelling against him, this is nothing new.
-We don't have a democracy in this country, we have a republic. A democracy is actually a pretty terrible thing.
-Our treasury was bankrupt before 2001. That's why we've had a deficit for the last 100 years or so (ballpark, don't nitpick me if I'm off, it's been a long, long time).
Pres Obama's popularity is way much higher than Romney, fact.
Oh, how sweet that would be to see. I can hear the lefties screaming. :-)
Just seemed like an odd thing, to be afraid of the same guy you want to win.
Pres Obama is more popular and would win in big, medium and smaller states. How Romney who has yet to drive a record in an state thus far.....in SC it was Newt not Romney, would win the popular votes total in these USA, defies Logic.