Revisiting Obama's Chance of Victory

In May 2012 I made the prediction that Barack Obama would win the 2012 general election and that either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich would be the Republican Nominee. I named six key swing states that the Republicans would need to win in order for there to be a Republican victory. Those states are: North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. We'll review the most recent polls in those states:

North Carolina: Obama 46%; Romney 48%

Indiana: Obama 42%; Romney 48%

Florida: Obama 46%; Romney 42%

Ohio: Obama 45%; Romney 48%

Virginia: Obama 49%; Romney 46%

Colorado: Obama 49%; Romney 42%

There is much speculation now that Marco Rubio will be Romney's running mate. There are two important facts about Rubio: he is a U.S. Senator from Florida, and his parents are immigrants from Cuba. The idea is that adding him to the ticket could both win the state of Florida for Romney, and improve Romney's poll numbers with Latinos. Polls show Obama ahead by about 44 points among Latinos. 

I think that adding Rubio to the ticket could push Florida to Romney's side, but he would still need to find a way to win Virginia and Colorado. According to the 2010 Census Virginia is 7.9% Hispanic and Colorado is 20.7% Hispanic (compared to 9.7% for the United States overall). This might lead you to believe that Obama will barely win the election, holding onto just Virginia of the six. I doubt this. Rubio is Cuban, not Mexican. He has stated that he supports SB 1070 for Arizona, but not for Florida. I interpret this as meaning that he is okay with Mexicans being oppressed, just not Cubans. The media has focused a lot on Romney's large recent fundraising totals, but cash on hand is the better overall predictor of whose poll numbers are going to improve from this point forward. Obama has $261 million, more than twice Romney's $122 million. The evidence still points to a fairly easy victory for Obama.

High Five

The Ladder to One Percenthood

In the midst of the debate and discussion surrounding the 1% versus 99% dichotomy, I've heard the claim that making it into the 1% is just a matter of avoiding consumer spending. I decided to do a kind of test of this theory.

Firstly, we should clarify the definition of the 1%. Most people have been defining it by income, but it is really more proper to define it by wealth. Economix had a good article on this topic. They explain that although the 1% are typically defined as those earning more than $380,000 per year, the 1% can also be defined as those with net worth totaling more than $8,400,000.

So, let us assume that you earn the 2010 median household income of $49,445. We'll also assume that you avoid consumer spending altogether. That's right, we'll assume that you somehow avoid all living expenses, and save 100% of your income. While we're at it, we might as well throw in an assumption that you somehow avoid paying any taxes. You then invest the money at a rate of return of 9.59% (the 20-year average S&P 500 total return). If you start this process at age 18, you'll enter the one percent club by the time you're 50 years old. You can surmise that adding in a small tax rate or living expenses would mean that you won't live long enough to enter the club at all. 

If you're wondering how long it would take you to make it to the top, Carlos Slim Helu's (the richest person on Earth) $69 billion would be matched when you turn 147.

Bring Back the California Raisins

The California Raisin Marketing Board is waging war on Craisins. Apparently the dried cranberries, marketed by Ocean Spray, are cutting into raisin sales. The 'Lets Keep it Real' campaign alleges that Craisins are less healthy, featuring moms who are shocked to learn how much sugar is in Craisins. They don't mention the fact that raisins contain nearly the same amount of sugar. If you really want to compare the details, you can get the complete nutrition facts from the USDA. Overall, raisins appear to be a little more nutritious. Craisins, however, can boast that they have more fiber, less sodium, slightly more niacin and vitamin K, and a lot more vitamin E. Being from Wisconsin, where most of the U.S. cranberry crop is grown, I feel some sense of duty to defend cranberries. I would suggest that rather than negative campaigning, the California Raisin Marketing Board should reintroduce the California Raisin commercials of the 1980s.

Ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the Federal Government

There are 242 Republicans in the 112th Congress House of Representatives. This is the most Republicans in the House since 1949, but this is not the high point of Republican power in the Federal Government. During the 108th and 109th Congresses (2003-2007) Republicans had a majority in the House and Senate, as well as holding the Presidency. 

The following chart shows the ratio of Democrats in the Federal Government since 1957. A value of 1 would imply that the President and all members of Congress are Democrats. A value of 0 would imply that all are Republicans. Values are weighted with the assumption that 50% of the power lies in the Presidency, 25% in the Senate and 25% in the House of Representatives. Independents and members of third parties were ignored by excluding them from the total number of members in the respective body. The high point of Democratic power (since 1957) was the 89th Congress (1965-1967).