Was Hillary Right?

At the end of the extended-race charade, Hillary made a public plea to superdelegates, in a memo that outlined her campaign's strengths.

Was she right?

We can ask that for two reasons, at least. First, it's interesting to those who are interested in winning, and it seems that a dispassionate assessment is easier now than before. Second, one ought to avoid the pitfalls of blogging just one perspective allatime.

SMALLER BATTLEGROUND

Her team proposed that there would be a smaller battleground, whether that was accurate or not. She's got only 106 votes up for grabs, with team-blue having just a slight advantage of 217-215, implying magic numbers of 53 and 55.

There would be 19 ways to get exactly 270 EVs and chances would split only slightly in favor of blue.

Block	Combs to Reach 270 exactly	Probably of 270 or more	Win Probability
ALL	19	50%	100%
BLUE	12	26%	52%
RED	7	23%	48%

The odds presented are clearly not as strong as the prior opportunity set. Even throwing Florida to team-red in the prior set would still leave chances slightly better than those here, 56-44 to 52-48.

STATE-BY-STATE

Florida takes on a greater importance, with the reduced set:

State	Percent of Battleground EVs
Florida	25.5%
Michigan	16.0%
Missouri	10.4%
New Hampshire	3.8%
Ohio	18.9%
Iowa	6.6%
Minnesota	9.4%
New Mexico	4.7%
West Virginia	4.7%

It becomes almost a must-do for team blue, with a win percentage dropping to 23% for team-blue if the GOP pick up the state:

Table 3b. Shows winning combinations if battleground state goes "red" or "blue". Shows the number of exactly 270 combinations for both red and blue, for each outcome. Also indicates all the winning combinations as a percentage, adjusted for the fact that one team must win.

	270 Combos		Red Wins / Blue Wins State
State	Blue Wins	Red Wins	Blue 270 Combos	Blue Win %	Red 270 Combos	Red Win %
Florida	9	10	6	23%	4	77%
			6	81%	3	19%
Michigan	19	16	9	45%	7	55%
			12	52%	7	48%
Missouri	9	10	6	36%	4	64%
			6	69%	3	31%
New Hampshire	7	12	6	42%	6	58%
			6	62%	1	38%
Ohio	11	8	6	49%	2	51%
			6	56%	5	44%
Iowa	11	8	6	34%	2	66%
			6	71%	5	29%
Minnesota	8	11	6	46%	5	54%
			6	59%	2	41%
New Mexico	10	9	6	43%	3	57%
			6	61%	4	39%
West Virginia	10	9	6	48%	3	52%
			6	57%	4	43%

That result emphasizes the riskiness of having a smaller set to work with from the start, perhaps. The comparative set shows considerably less sensitivity to Florida.

Looking at the combos required if Florida was lost by team-blue, you can come close to reaching the conclusion that a bet on Hillary is/was very much a bet that she could bring home that state, with its older voters, women, and Hispanics.


HER PORTFOLIO

The major changes from the prior analysis would be to put PA, AR, WV, FL and OH into the "blue column", while putting most everything else either red or battleground.

For the purpose of this analysis, I've chosen to put OH and WV into the battleground, and chosen to go along with the comparative assertion that MN would be a battleground and WI, VA, and NC would go to team-red.

	Battleground	Blue States	Red States
2008 Election	Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia	Maine, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington	Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming

[+/-] Show Full Post...

[+/-] Hide Full Post...

The Battle in the Battleground States

A BETTER CHANCE TO WIN?

Looking at the electoral map, some commentators suggest that Democrats have a better chance to win this fall. What's the best numerical representation of that chance?

Separating states into "battleground" and "safe" for each party (see table at bottom), team-red needs 96 votes from the battleground states, about 1.5 for every one that team-blue needs. Put another way, team-blue needs only about 40% of the remaining votes; team-red, 60%.

But votes aren't combinations. People intuitively think that there might be a jaggedness to the electoral college, so that a single win in this or that state might tip the balance fairly dramatically, beyond the state's percentage in the college overall.

Following on the excellent work done (and shared :-) here, one can show exactly how many ways there are to win. There are 105 ways for either blue or red to get to 270 exactly. What's not intuitive, perhaps, is that the winning number of 270 is very near the cumulative probability of 50%.

Table 1. Combos and Win Percentages each party

Block	Combs to Reach 270 exactly	Probability of 270 or more
ALL	105	50%
BLUE	54	37%
RED	51	13%

If you "cross out" the red states and just look at team-blue's opportunities (their 208 "safe" plus the 156 "battleground"), there are 54 ways to get exactly to 270 and just 37% of all the combinations are winning ones (270 or more). For team-red, the figures are 51 and 13%.

This suggests that team-blue has a 3-to-1 advantage, rather than the 1.5-to-1 advantage, based upon the way the cards can fall, so to speak.

I think that, technically, it would be "okay" to adjust these probabilities for the fact that someone must win, in which case their relative chances would be better expressed by 74%-to-26%...

ARE SOME BATTLEGROUND STATES MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS?

Some commentators (and campaigns) have suggested that the big states are must-haves or crown jewels. What's the best numerical representation for such a claim? Suppose you were getting paid big bucks for strategy consulting and your boss asked you?

Well, if you just rank-ordered them, you'd end up with a like like this, based on how much of the battleground vote they represent. Surprisingly, perhaps, this simple ranking holds up well as a representation of how important each state is to winning. Sometimes simple is better.

Table 2. Battleground weight by EV

State	Percent
Florida	17.3%
Pennsylvania	13.5%
Ohio	12.8%
Michigan	10.9%
North Carolina	9.6%
Virginia	8.3%
Missouri	7.1%
Wisconsin	6.4%
Colorado	5.8%
Nevada	3.2%
Maine	2.6%
New Hampshire	2.6%

Still, we can look at combinations and use that to justify a fee ... maybe.

One way to judge the importance of each battleground state would be to look at how many winning combinations there are after one side or the other picked it up. Here's that table (Table 3), ranked according to the win percentage for team-red (just because). Another way to judge the importance would be to exclude the state from consideration altogether and tally the impact - I've done this, but I'll keep this note brief, because the results are similar.

Table 3a. Shows winning combinations if battleground state goes "red" or "blue". Shows the number of exactly 270 combinations for both red and blue, for each outcome. Also indicates all the winning combinations as a percentage.

	270 Combos		Red Wins / Blue Wins State
State	Blue Wins	Red Wins	Blue 270 Combos	Blue Win %	Red 270 Combos	Red Win %
Florida	29	76	38	28%	38	22%
			16	46%	13	4%
Pennsylvania	40	65	32	30%	33	19%
			22	44%	18	6%
Ohio	38	67	35	30%	32	19%
			19	43%	19	6%
Michigan	43	62	31	31%	31	18%
			23	42%	20	7%
North Carolina	45	60	31	32%	29	17%
			23	41%	22	8%
Virginia	40	65	33	32%	32	17%
			21	41%	19	9%
Missouri	48	57	29	33%	28	16%
			25	40%	23	9%
Wisconsin	47	58	30	34%	28	16%
			24	40%	23	10%
Colorado	49	56	29	34%	27	15%
			25	39%	24	10%
Nevada	52	53	29	35%	24	14%
			25	38%	27	11%
Maine	50	55	29	35%	26	14%
			25	38%	25	12%
New Hampshire	50	55	29	35%	26	14%
			25	38%	25	12%

Here is the same, with the probabilities adjusted for the fact that someone must win:

Table 3a. Adjusted win probabilities

	270 Combos		Red Wins / Blue Wins State
State	Blue Wins	Red Wins	Blue 270 Combos	Blue Win %	Red 270 Combos	Red Win %
Florida	29	76	38	56%	38	44%
			16	92%	13	8%
Pennsylvania	40	65	32	61%	33	39%
			22	88%	18	12%
Ohio	38	67	35	61%	32	39%
			19	87%	19	13%
Michigan	43	62	31	63%	31	37%
			23	85%	20	15%
North Carolina	45	60	31	65%	29	35%
			23	84%	22	16%
Virginia	40	65	33	66%	32	34%
			21	82%	19	18%
Missouri	48	57	29	67%	28	33%
			25	81%	23	19%
Wisconsin	47	58	30	68%	28	32%
			24	80%	23	20%
Colorado	49	56	29	69%	27	31%
			25	80%	24	20%
Nevada	52	53	29	71%	24	29%
			25	77%	27	23%
Maine	50	55	29	72%	26	28%
			25	77%	25	23%
New Hampshire	50	55	29	72%	26	28%
			25	77%	25	23%

Clearly, Florida is a must-do for the GOP. Without it, their win percentage - the total number of combinations that lead to 270 or more - drops to 4%. With it, the total number of combinations that equal 270 jumps to 76 (for either party), 38 each for red and blue; and blue-team chances jumps to 22%, closing the gap to just 6% behind team-blue.

The blue percentages are all more "robust", grouped in a fairly narrow corridor, reflecting the advantage that team-blue has (on this set) before the battleground are contested.

WHY MITT ROMNEY IS THE ODDS-ON BET

Giving Florida to the GOP and then playing dice for them, one can come up with these 270-vote, odds-off "death-spirals" for team-blue:

FL, NH, MO, MI, NC, VA, ME, NV
FL, NH, MO, MI, NC, VA, CO

I read those as McCain campaign taking a serious look at the "Michigan route" to the nomination.

Another interpretation of these results is to reinforce the notion that the advantages of modeling the race in terms of discreet outcomes are small, compared to just using the average chances of winning each state and effectively contesting, if not with a 50-state strategy, some portion larger than 50% of a winning number of EVs.

BREAKDOWN OF "BATTLEGROUND"

Here's a picture of how states that are likely to be hotly contested by the major political parties. This shouldn't be too controversial, at this date. Some lists include Iowa.

The net impact of the breakdown is that the "score" of the game is 208-174, a 34 point "lead" for team-blue. Given 270 to win, the "magic" number for team-blue is 62 and for team-red, 96.

	'08 Battleground	'08 Blue States	'08 Red States
2008 Election	Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin	California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington	Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming

[+/-] Show Full Post...

[+/-] Hide Full Post...

The Electoral College

Trying a new visualization.

[This doesn't render correctly in Internet Explorer. Very hard to tell why. Use Firefox.]

These figures are from intrade. Purple is for anything from 45-55, on this rendering.

Because these are win/loss contracts, the numbers do not approximate the actual vote (as would a field poll), but the probability of win/loss. This accentuates the blue-red divide ...

State	DEM	REP	Chng Wk. Dem/Rep	Bid-Ask. Dem/Rep	Elec. Vote
D.C.	95	3.7	0/0	1%/35%	0
Illinois	95	4	0/0	1%/25%	21
Massachusetts	93	6.5	0/0	1%/8%	12
Hawaii	92	3	-4/1	2%/233%	4
New York	92	6	6/1	2%/100%	31
Rhode Island	92	5	1/3	3%/100%	4
Washington	90	5.1	5/0	4%/96%	11
Maryland	90	5.5	-1/-1.5	3%/45%	10
California	88	10	1/2	5%/45%	55
Delaware	87	6	1/0	8%/108%	3
Vermont	86	6	0/0	9%/117%	3
New Jersey	86	8	-0.5/2	3%/69%	15
Connecticut	85	10	-5/2.3	12%/30%	7
Oregon	85	10	5/0	6%/90%	7
Maine	83	10	1/0	8%/70%	4
Iowa	82	16	7/-4.1	1%/38%	7
Minnesota	78	18	4/-2	9%/16%	10
Wisconsin	77	15	10.9/-15	10%/60%	10
Pennsylvania	75	23	6/4.9	7%/8%	21
Michigan	70	29	0/4	6%/3%	17
Colorado	66.5	30	5.9/-5	5%/15%	9
New Mexico	62	34	1.8/1	10%/15%	5
Ohio	60.5	39	-1/1	4%/1%	20
New Hampshire	50.1	46	4.1/0	16%/8%	4
Virginia	50	45.1	4/-5.4	4%/18%	13
Nevada	48.5	50.5	1.5/0.4	2%/7%	5
Missouri	41	55	5/-5.5	10%/9%	11
North Carolina	23.5	70	5.5/-5	27%/13%	15
Florida	28	71	7.9/1	4%/6%	27
Alaska	8	75	3/-10	74%/23%	3
Indiana	18.5	75	2.5/-5	35%/8%	11
Arkansas	15.1	76	-6.9/0.4	59%/12%	6
Mississippi	10	80	4/-6	100%/11%	6
West Virginia	10	80	-5/5	90%/13%	5
Nebraska	15	80	5/0	27%/11%	5
Kansas	10.5	80.1	0/-5.9	38%/12%	6
Georgia	12.5	81.1	2.4/1.1	59%/6%	15
Montana	15.2	82	5.2/2	32%/1%	3
Louisiana	10.5	84	-1.5/0	90%/7%	9
Texas	6	85	1/0	150%/9%	34
North Dakota	7	85	-3/0	113%/9%	3
South Dakota	7	85	2/0	114%/9%	3
Tennessee	6.5	85.1	0/0.1	129%/9%	11
Oklahoma	10	86	5/0	30%/5%	7
Wyoming	3.5	90	-1.5/0	186%/6%	3
South Carolina	7	90	-4/1.9	100%/3%	8
Arizona	8	90	1/0	25%/7%	10
Utah	6.9	90	-0.6/0	45%/7%	5
Kentucky	9	90	1.5/0	9%/5%	8
Idaho	2	90	0/0	400%/6%	4
Alabama	6	92	-1.5/2	33%/8%	9

[+/-] Show Full Post...

[+/-] Hide Full Post...

Signs of the times: "Golden Coffin Pay"

I don't know what all the griping is about. Someone, somehow has to pay off the wine cellar.

Take Eugene Isenberg, the 78-year-old chief executive of Nabors Industries Ltd. If Mr. Isenberg died tomorrow, Nabors would owe his estate a "severance" payment of at least $263.6 million, company filings show. That's more than the first-quarter earnings at the Houston oil-service company.
...

The CEO of Shaw Group Inc. is in line to be paid $17 million for not competing with the engineering and construction company after he dies.

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s top officer didn't even need to die to get a death benefit; Lockheed paid out the sum, about $1 million, in March while he was still very much alive.

[+/-] Show Full Post...

[+/-] Hide Full Post...