How McCain Won (or Could Have)
EmailAccording to the totals so far, Barack Obama won the election by something more than 8.4 million votes. But Mike Sheppard says the margin that really matters was only 445,912. Sheppard, you may recall from a previous post, is a grad student in statistics at Michigan State who became interested in the interplay between the popular and electoral vote in history, and calculated how many votes it would have taken in each race to change the outcome. Sheppard has refrained from telling me what his own political leanings are; his interest is in how well (or not) the electoral process works. He showed that more than half our presidential elections since 1824 could have come out differently if fewer than two percent of voters — the right two percent — had voted differently and swung the electoral college totals to the losers. In 1976, for instance, Gerald Ford could have beaten Jimmy Carter if Ohio and Hawaii had gone his way — and it would only have taken 9,246 voters to make the difference. David Chalian, our political director, has supplied the total popular votes for 2008 as of today: Obama: 66,624,447 McCain: 58,182,368 Take a look at Sheppard’s analysis HERE. It was not a close election by his standards; John McCain needed at least seven more states to win the electoral vote. But the most efficient way, mathematically, for that to have happened would only have taken 444,121 popular votes (out of 126 million cast), since North Carolina, Indiana, New Hampshire, etc., were so close. In other words, Mr. McCain could have become president by winning in the electoral college, 270-268 — though still losing by 7.6 million votes.
Space Station Flies Over Eastern U.S. at Night 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
What a stupid analysis. Thanks for wasting my time with it.
Posted by: rbyanes | November 14, 2008, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
rbyanes: The facts are the facts. If you see looking at them as a waste of time, then you’re just choosing to live in a fantasy world. If you don’t like reality, then perhaps you should look into changing it (there are numerous efforts afoot to remove the “win presidency but lose popular vote” aspect of our nation).
Posted by: jhw539 | November 14, 2008, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
This is like saying John Daly could have won his last major if only he had 7 hole-in-ones.
Posted by: pt | November 14, 2008, 3:01 pm 3:01 pm
Very good analysis.
McCain lost because his stragist are idiots.
Posted by: adam | November 14, 2008, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
Note from Ned Potter–
Rbaynes, sorry you didn’t like it. I think Sheppard’s exercise raises useful questions about the electoral college. Even if you favored George Bush in 2000, do you like the way he won — losing by half a million popular votes but getting the White House because of a two-month court battle over 500 votes in Florida? Sheppard’s point is that even this year, despite a clear margin, the electoral college means it wouldn’t have taken all that much to deprive Mr. Obama his victory.
Posted by: Ned Potter | November 14, 2008, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
The old adage, “figures don’t lie, but liars figure,’ applies here.
Posted by: unshrub | November 14, 2008, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
This analysis may not be stupid since it’s based on factual numbers. However I think it’s ridiculous for the fact that it ignores that sometimes a victory with 5 thousand votes could be as hard if not harder than one with 200 thousand votes.
Posted by: D | November 14, 2008, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm
The day will come when a president is elected and loses the popular vote by several million votes. It may not happen in our lifetime, but it will happen. The electoral college system is antiquated and does not give each state fair and equal representation as it was designed to do.
Posted by: JRS | November 14, 2008, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm
McCain had too many things againist him:
His age
His party
His President
His VP Candidate
His financial condition
His negative advertising
His campaign staff
His temper
There are more but the enough is sufficient.
Posted by: Beto | November 14, 2008, 3:38 pm 3:38 pm
Fae: What possible relevance does that meanspirted insult of a man who just lost a beloved family member have to this subject? Are you just trying to cement the Republican’s image of being heartless out-of-touch jerks?
Posted by: jhw539 | November 14, 2008, 3:50 pm 3:50 pm
McCain’s failure was mainly campaigning without any thought through of smart calculations.
Can anyone tell me why McCain
wasted time and money campaigning in Pennsylvania!
Posted by: FM | November 14, 2008, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
Pointless.
Posted by: dem in chicago | November 14, 2008, 3:56 pm 3:56 pm
How long until al states go the way of Nebraska and Maine? Dividing the elctoral votes along each states popular vote lines, rather than winner takes all, would be a step in the right direction.
Posted by: BooMan | November 14, 2008, 3:59 pm 3:59 pm
Instead of dissecting something in the past with no vaue….send some journalistic time and research finding out the underbelly of our potential 2012 candidate Ms. Palin. Spare us the tidbits day to day and do some honest work…there is enough here to keep you busy till…geez, maybe 2012. She needs to be “outed” with all her shortcomings and her family dynamics made public, so we can put her 2012 energy away for good. If you had spent as much time outing Palin (on a variety of significant issues) as you journalists did on Edwards or Clinton….maybe she would have been dropped from the ticket. But maybe that doesn’t sell news…
Posted by: scooterfoot | November 14, 2008, 3:59 pm 3:59 pm
Who cares? Get over it. He lost….Let’s move forward.
Posted by: Miki | November 14, 2008, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
So McCain (or Obama) could have lost the popular vote by over 5 million votes and still won the election? Reform the Electoral College system now!
Posted by: helloworld | November 14, 2008, 4:12 pm 4:12 pm
I guess it is like the difference between an *** whoopin’and a spanking?
Posted by: Figures Count | November 14, 2008, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm
On the other hand, doesn’t this show the great weakness of the electoral college system? It’s the only form of voting I know of–aside from perhaps sham elections run by unscrupulous dictators–in which the person with the most votes doesn’t necessarily win.
Posted by: Enough | November 14, 2008, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
Well, that says it all!
Posted by: oliver | November 14, 2008, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
All this is saying is that the Electoral College doesn’t always reflect the national popular vote. We knew that. The real question is: what do we do about it?
Posted by: jock59801 | November 14, 2008, 4:22 pm 4:22 pm
I find it fascinating that the same group of people who are still attempting to rehash the 2000 election and the fiasco in Florida with the legendary and infamous “500 votes” — are the same ones telling the people studying the numbers of the 2008 election to ‘let it go and move on’.
Can you not hear the echo?????
Posted by: G F Gentry | November 14, 2008, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm
The article was bad enough. The blogging after was even stupider. Election is over, people. Focus on tomorrow.
Posted by: Rbyanes | November 14, 2008, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm
jhw539: No, jhw539, she is trying to show that Obama did not care for anything except the presidency. I guarantee you any Republican candidate would have gone to the funeral of the woman that might as well have been their mother. And you call us heartless?
Posted by: jaiew | November 14, 2008, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
I understand why the founding fathers of our nation created the electoral college – so that each state can pick the president they want – to give each state a voice, and althought larger states do have more electoral votes, the electoral college allows smaller poplated states to have more control.
I don’t agree with this philosophy! Only the popular vote should elect the president, regardless of the population of each state. Unless it is a landslide, like with Barack Obama, the current system is unfair. As far as I’m concerned, Al Gore was robbed of his presidency!
Posted by: pozar | November 14, 2008, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm
Another reason to do away with the electoral college, it’s day is long gone and it should be eliminated just like buggy whips and button hooks.
Posted by: JR | November 14, 2008, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm
This is a clear example of “if you torture the numbers enough, they will confess to anything.”
Posted by: Gorefan | November 14, 2008, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm
There are a couple of interesting points here:
1. This is a question on how presidents are elected, and not who ran. This is like having question on photofinishing in horse races and then all of sudden everyone talking trash about past horses….it really doesn’t matter.
2. While the electoral college is antiquated, it does offer some degree of isolation for each state. Can you image if the margin for victory was 10,000 votes nationally….that would mean that every vote would be recounted…it would be a national circus. Now, if a candidate gets 60% of the vote, no one makes a stink about the 1000 votes that may be questionable in any state.
Posted by: Angelo | November 14, 2008, 6:25 pm 6:25 pm
Waste of time indeed. Like be sorta pregnant…
Posted by: ObamaMama | November 14, 2008, 6:27 pm 6:27 pm
It is an interesting study though. And the electoral college is necessary in the process to weed out the riffraff of society.
Posted by: robert | November 14, 2008, 11:38 pm 11:38 pm
More on the college.
The reason its necessary is to ensure individual state sovereignty. The U.S. is just that, the ‘United States’, a collection of independent states acting as one entity under the umbrella of a federal government. Just because federal law trumps state law much of the time does not automatically exclude said sovereignty. States remain independent entities and as such each get their fair share of electors, senators and representatives in the umbrella government.
Now as for the electors themselves. Its just a matter of convenience really, the electors cast their vote based on the pool of voters they represent. Think of the elector as a referee. If the vote swings one way or another, no problem. But in the event of a tie, the elector makes their best guess so the election can move forward unimpeded. Without that referee, elections might never see a conclusion due to accusations of this or that, or election recounts (like the hanging chad fiasco in the 2000 election)
Posted by: robert | November 14, 2008, 11:57 pm 11:57 pm
This is yet another reason for us, the ‘defenders of democracy’ in the world, to get rid of the electoral college. We don’t even elect our president by popular vote, and the last time a president lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, we endured 8 years of crap from the right wing.
Posted by: Fatesrider | November 15, 2008, 5:06 am 5:06 am
I doubt that the Michigan Student could find actual-reliable TOTALS..our current President is said to have come out of a VOTING Turmoil–and where are the stats that that has ended or has been FIXED..my thoughts are of a number of VOTES being fraudulent on the side of crony-ism..//..the dubious side of Manifest Destiny seems to have a “speck” of trouble..thanks but no thanks.
Posted by: Mark S. M. | November 15, 2008, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm
“This is like saying John Daly could have won his last major if only he had 7 hole-in-ones.”
That is exactly correct. The statistic shown above is meaningless because of the rediculously low probability of it actually happening.
Posted by: viscor | November 15, 2008, 8:07 pm 8:07 pm
McCain lost because the Better man WON!
Posted by: t.v.eddie | November 15, 2008, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm
Antiquated system for such a super power, needs fixing desperately, AMERICA should be ashamed.
Posted by: AEW | November 16, 2008, 11:08 am 11:08 am
Ned
Good article and I agree with your comment as well. The only thing I object to are comments (not here BTW) that claim a landslide victory when in fact it is only a little more than 50% of the popular vote (52% last I heard), which gives the false impression that he is extremely popular when in fact it was Bush that was extremely unpopular and lost the election for McCain. This too has happened before and we end up with changes that we really did not wan’t by voting for the lesser of two evils (political parties not people). But as a Libertarian I’m always disappointed in the results.
Posted by: Quietman | November 16, 2008, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
t.v.eddie
The better man refused to run and supported Obama instead.
Posted by: Quietman | November 16, 2008, 1:11 pm 1:11 pm
FM
21 electors.
Posted by: Quietman | November 16, 2008, 1:14 pm 1:14 pm
ps
McCain is very popular in PA but Pittsburg and Philly went to Obama.
Posted by: Quietman | November 16, 2008, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm
McCain lost largely because of the enormous effect of the economy on voters, because he did not run a very good campaign and because most voters are stupid.
Posted by: curtis41 | November 16, 2008, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
Hussein won via Acorn, and numerous individuals with zero integrity voting more than once. Our voting system really needs to be overhauled. However……….. this will never happen, so change will NEVER happen.
Posted by: JCShermani | November 16, 2008, 6:12 pm 6:12 pm
Wonder if anyone running for President would campaign anywhere, but the coasts if the Electoral College was discontinued?
Why would smaller states vote to discontinue the Electoral College?
Posted by: Shoemaker | November 16, 2008, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm
You know what! Obama won by a landslide! He had enough votes to win the electoral votes in enough States, and he had the popular vote by over 7 million votes.
Conservatives have to realize that the tide is against them. Even in 2000, after the Democrats were in the White House for 8 years, Bush didn’t even get the popular vote, Gore did. And the only reason he was re-elected was because most people felt he should finish the crap he started in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I believe you will see the GOP having a very hard time in the future. A new party might have to be created. The reality is that as the years go by, there are more Hispanics and blacks, and they tend to vote Democrat. As well, the morals and philosphy of the GOP just does not jive with most of the nation today. The Regan era of conservatism is over!
Posted by: pozar | November 17, 2008, 8:09 am 8:09 am
The electoral college is not broke, it works exactly as designed. It is a compromise along the lines of the Senat/House division of power between large populous states such as NY and CA and the rest of the country. Only the media and the uninformed are fixated on the popular vote. Both parties are highly aware of the rules of the electoral college and design their campaigns accordingly.
Posted by: Craig Breaux | November 17, 2008, 10:25 pm 10:25 pm
The article point is to make us think -What if? But problems in 2000 and various other Presidential elections should already make us ready to junk the electoral college. It has flunked! I’m sure that when we went from electing senators from state legislators to popular vote, many had worries over that. campaigns would not be only on the coasts because one man-one vote would mean every vote would be valued equally! Now, voters in states like Ohio and other ‘battle ground’ states get inundated with phone calls because their votes are more important -literally. Change three thousand votes in Missouri and would switch 11 electoral votes. That is 4% of what is needed to win. Why should any small set of voters be so over-valued? Some people don’t vote in states already determined #by polls#. Candidates spend too much times in ‘swing’ states and little or no time in others, such as NY, California, and Texas with the most voters. Small states are ignored as well, for the most part. If each vote is equal, candidates may do well by campaigning state by state to win votes in every state – not fly over states to repeatly go to the battle ground states. The electoral college is truely un-democratic and shoull be abolished!
Posted by: Dave from Davis | November 18, 2008, 2:06 am 2:06 am
Craig
The system does not work as designed due to the growth of cities, in particular cities like NYC and LA. This happened in Rome around 400 A.D. so remember what comes next.
Posted by: Quietman | November 18, 2008, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
David Chalian, our political director, has supplied the total popular votes for 2008 as of today:
Obama: 66,624,447
McCain: 58,182,368
-what are those first three numbers?
Posted by: ask me later | December 5, 2008, 6:18 am 6:18 am
Hi
This is like when your Sports Team just lost the championship by one measly point, you go thru the season when the referees decision robbed you, when your best player was sick, when the opponent’s ball bounced off a flying duck and went into the goal, it’s all wasted heartbreak!!
Posted by: dave | December 5, 2008, 8:31 am 8:31 am