PDA

View Full Version : Vice Presidential Home Field Advantage


Brainster
8th July 2008, 11:20 PM
I did some research on this topic earlier in the year and posted it to my blog. For our foreign forum members, Home Field Advantage is a term commonly used in sports to reflect the fact that in most sporting events the home team wins more often than the visitor. In American (NFL) Football, for example, it is generally accepted that the home field is usually worth about 3 net points per game.

I had already looked in the past at the presidential nominee's home field advantage and concluded it was worth somewhere between five and seven percentage points. That is, presidential nominees tend to do about five to seven points better in their home state than they do nationally.

It seems logical to assume that the VP nomination has a similar effect; all other things being equal (which of course they aren't), a state that has a VP nominee should tend to vote a little more for that ticket than they might otherwise. We would assume that the effect would be smaller than for the presidential nominees.

So I put together a little spreadsheet that analyzes the past impacts of VP nominees. I'll illustrate with John Edwards, John Kerry's running mate in 2004. Edwards was from North Carolina, which Bush took by 12.44 percentage points in 2004. By contrast, Bush won North Carolina by 12.83 percentage points in 2000, so Edwards improved things by about 0.39 percentage points.

But that's not the whole story. Remember, Bush actually lost the popular vote nationally by 0.51 percentage points in 2000, and won by 2.46 percentage points in 2004, so there was a national trend for Bush to pick up 2.97 percentage points. Thus, the indicated improvement for the Democrats from having Edwards on the ticket appears to be about 3.36 percentage points.

Of course, there are lots of other things going on in the race, so it's impossible to say that was definitely the Silky Pony effect, but it appears to fit in well with prior years. I went back for the last 16 veep nominees. I excluded sitting vice presidents for two reasons. First, they only run with sitting presidents, and it seems far more likely that voters vote on the performance of that president rather than for their local boy as VP. And second, we don't face that situation this year.

Year VP Nom State Result Prior Trend Effect
2004 Edwards NC -12.44% -12.83% -3.0% 3.36%
2000 Cheney WY 39.79% 12.97% 8.0% 18.82%
2000 Lieberman CT 17.57% 18.14% -8.0% 7.43%
1996 Kemp NY -28.86% -15.85% -3.0% -10.06%
1992 Gore TN 4.65% -16.34% 13.3% 7.71%
1988 Quayle IN 20.15% 23.99% -10.5% 6.65%
1988 Bentsen TX -12.60% -27.50% 10.5% 4.40%
1984 Ferraro NY -8.01% -2.67% -8.5% 3.13%
1980 Bush TX 13.86% -3.17% 11.8% 5.23%
1976 Mondale MN 12.88% -5.51% 25.2% -6.82%
1976 Dole KS 7.50% 38.16% -25.2% -5.45%
1972 Shriver MA 8.97% 30.12% -22.5% 1.30%
1968 Muskie ME 22.23% 37.68% -23.3% 7.83%
1968 Agnew MD -1.55% -30.96% 23.3% 6.13%
1964 Humphrey MN 27.76% 1.38% 22.3% 4.07%
1964 Miller NY -37.25% -5.26% -22.3% -9.68%

Average 2.75%

As you can see, 12 of the 16 nominees did improve their ticket's anticipated performance; the only ones who failed to do so were Kemp in 1996, both Dole and Mondale in 1976, and Bill Miller in 1964. Cheney in 2000 appears to have improved his ticket the most in his home state, but it should be noted that only Al Gore in 1992 appears to have swung his home state over into the winning column. And even there caution is in order; Bill Clinton was also a southerner and that may have had more to do with winning Tennessee than the presence of Gore on the ticket. Overall the average VP appears to have resulted in a 2.75 percentage point improvement in his home state over what the ticket would have done without him (or her, in Ferraro's case). This seems a reasonable estimate. It's about half the presidential home field advantage.

Note: My point here is not that these candidates helped their tickets in the exact percentages as calculated. Individually who knows; as I pointed out, lots of other things are happening. But when we take a look over the long haul some net effect is expected, and the discovered effect appears reasonable.

Implications for 2008? Here's where things get really complicated. We cannot assume that McCain will carry the country by the same 2.46 percentage points that Bush did in 2004. And we cannot assume that the Democrats will win big as the polls are indicating. It seems safest to start both parties at even, by deducting 2.46 percentage points from the Republican net percentage in each state. This tips three states that Bush carried in 2004 into the Democrats' column: Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio. Obviously Ohio is the most important of those three; if McCain carries all the states Bush did except New Mexico and Iowa he still wins (barely) with 274 electoral college votes of the 270 needed. Thus it would seem that an Ohio politician like former Senator Rob Portman would be a logical choice.

Of course, there are lots of other variables in the race. It is well-reported that the state of New Jersey may come into play this year, which might indicate a prominent NJ politician like Christie Todd Whitman could swing the Garden State to the GOP. That would have the added effect of capitalizing on the resentment some women may feel with Hillary not getting the nod in the Democratic Convention, although it would not help McCain with the conservatives. But McCain could lose Ohio, New Mexico and Iowa and still win by picking up New Jersey.

For the Democrats, it's much more complicated. If we assume that Obama picks up 2.46 percentage points in every state, he wins. Does he go for Ohio to seal up the state Kerry barely lost or Pennsylvania to shore up a possible weakness? Or does he ignore all that and decide to go for a woman to solidify his support with a crucial demographic?

Candidates who would not appear to move their state into the win column for Obama barring a much larger move to the Democrats than 2.46 percentage points, include Webb and Kaine. Virginia went for Bush in 2004 by 8.2 percentage points; assuming a Democratic trend of 2.46 points and a VP influence of 2.75 points, that still leaves Obama short by about 3 points. Sebelius similarly looks unlikely to deliver Kansas. Colorado looks tippable by this analysis; the only problem is that sitting governor Bill Ritter is even less experienced than Obama on the national scene. New Mexico is certainly tippable, and although it has few electoral college votes, Richardson might galvanize Hispanic voters nationally.

Of course, this is a pretty simplistic analysis of the dynamics of the VP candidates based solely on their home states. There are much more complicated factors involved, especially in this race.

T.A.M.
9th July 2008, 04:03 PM
Home field advantage is not an American term, or limited to America, as best I can tell. We certainly see it up here in the GWN, with hockey.

TAM;)

T.A.M.
9th July 2008, 04:06 PM
As a side note, if NJ actually "Comes into play" then Obama has MUCH MORE than VP nominations to worry about.

TAM:)