Skip to main content

#### 104comments | Permalink

• ##### I see what you're saying now.(0+ / 0-)

You are assuming 'partisan lean' without modifier is comparative partisan lean, I am assuming 'partisan lean' without a modifier is absolute partisan lean.

So I will try to always use a modifier in the future for clarity!

• ##### I would suggest to you(0+ / 0-)

that disregarding the median will confuse the issue greatly. It would have meant that every state except Minnesota was Republican-leaning in 1984, which is patently untrue, given that the median state would have had something like 13% margin for Reagan.

And now, getting back to the question of the effect of a partisan lean: How much of a lean do you think is necessary to have a partisan effect? I would say without much hesitation that if McCaskill loses to one of the bozos running on the Republican side, it will be strictly because of a strong Republican lean in Missouri. If the same candidates were running in Wisconsin or Iowa, McCaskill would probably win by at least 10.

A further remark would be that if things go so badly for Romney and the economy has a sudden upturn, such that Obama loses by no more than 2% or so in Missouri, McCaskill will probably win. But in that case, Obama will be winning by plenty - probably at least all the states he won in 2008 except Indiana, plus Arizona.

Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

[ Parent ]

• ##### The effect(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
MichaelNY

I assume you are referring to the effect discussed in this diary?  That is, that the difference between the margin in the polling average and the actual results is a function of the partisan lean of the state in close races.

You can see how much of a partisan lean is necessary to see this effect in the second graph of the diary.

At Obama = 50% (absolute margin =0, relative margin R+7) the effect is zero; this is where the purple line crosses the x-axis.

A point or two away from 50%, the effect is still very small and not likely to be noticeable, especially compared to other noise.

At Obama = 53% (absolute margin D+7, relative margin=0), the effect, on average is that the election margin is +1 for the Democrat compared to the polls.  But because of other noise, the range we would expect to see for an individual contest is from D+6 to R+4.

At Obama = 57% (absolute margin D+14, relative margin D+7) the effect, on average is that the election margin is +3 for the Democrat compared to the polls.  But because of other noise, the range we would expect to see for an individual contest is from D+8 to R+2.  This is getting more noticeable.

At Obama = 62% (absolute margin D+22, relative margin D+15) the effect, on average is that the election margin is +5 for the Democrat compared to the polls.  But because of other noise, the range we would expect to see for an individual contest is from D+10 to D+1.  This is the point, in deep blue states, where an effect has been noticeable 95% of the time in the past.

The effect goes the other way too; switch out parties in the above descriptions and you're got the right numbers for the magnitude of the effect.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site