Those with field experience may recognize the conventional wisdom/general rule that 5 points is the most a great field program's ground game can make up against an accurate poll of voter preference.
According to 538 regression analysis, there are currently eleven states closer than 5 points, most of which show McCain with a narrow lead to defend.
In order of closeness and color coded by who currently leads, they are:
1. Virginia, 0.2%
2. Missouri, 0.3%
3. Nevada, 0.6%
4. New Hampshire, 1.0%
5. Michigan, 1.5%
6. Ohio, 1.6%
7. Indiana, 1.7%
8. North Carolina, 3.3%
9. North Dakota, 3.8%
10. Florida, 4.0%
11. Montana, 4.5%
Electorally, the 39 states and DC that lie outside this 5-point range: Obama 252, McCain 157.
For what it's worth, there are twelve states between 5 and 10 points, and each candidate has 6 of them. Obama's are Colorado (+5.1%), Pennsylvania (+5.7%), New Mexico (+6.3%), Wisconsin (+6.4%), Iowa (+8.7%), and New Jersey (+9.4%), for a total of 67 EVs. McCain's are Alaska (+6.1%), South Dakota (+6.6%), West Virginia (+8.2%), Louisiana (+8.9%), South Carolina (+8.9%) and Georgia (+9.9%), for a total of 43 EVs.
What the 5-10% group tells us is that while Obama is currently pressing McCain hard in the under 5% group, if McCain could apply an across the board 2% adjustment in his favor in every state, suddenly there would be 11 states under 5% and McCain would hold a lead in seven states ranging in closeness from Ohio (+0.4%) to Indiana (+3.7%). Obama would hold a lead in four states ranging from Colorado (+3.1%) to Wisconsin (+4.4%) with Pennsylvania and New Mexico in between. And Obama would lead 207-205 electorally in the states outside the 5% margin.
If we want to arbitrarily mark the line at 8%, Obama leads 207-151 electorally with 17 states being inside that margin. Obama leads in 7 of those states that hold 86 EVs, and McCain leads in 10 with 94 EVs.
Obviously, the state races will change over time with some tightening and some being put away. Organization, energy and GOTV programs will make an impact, but we can only speculate right now as to which campaign will take better advantage of the ground game.
What's especially interesting about the close states is what a cultural range those states represent. Montana, New Hampshire, Virginia, Michigan, Nevada and Florida are all culturally such different states that it seems obvious the battle lines in this race haven't settled in yet. In a month or two after the country has had some time to size these two candidates up side by side, we should start seeing some stronger patterns emerge. But for now, let's be a little thankful that this isn't yet another dreary three-state race (OH, FL, PA).
UPDATE: With Nate's updates and new polling data tonight, some of the numbers have shifted. There are now twelve states under 5 points, as New Mexico became closer (+2.5%). Here's the new list, with the 38 + DC states outside the margin: Obama 247, McCain 157.
1. Missouri, 0.3%
2. Nevada, 0.4%
3. Indiana, 0.7%
4. Michigan, 1.6%
5. Virginia, 1.8%
6. Florida, 2.0%
7. New Mexico, 2.5%
8. New Hampshire, 2.6%
9. North Carolina, 2.7%
10. Ohio, 2.9%
11. North Dakota, 3.2%
12. Montana, 4.2%
Monday, June 16, 2008
538's Battlegrounds as of Mid-June
-- Sean Quinn at 11:02 PM
Labels: battleground states, electoral math
24 comments
I think you wrote this before today's updates
These are yesterday's numbers, but in reality it shouldn't matter much. Don't bother changing it, but perhaps pus a disclaimer or else you'll have 10 comments saying that it is old.
Mid-June=June 15. That's good enough of a "disclaimer".
This is absolutely excellent news. I love it.
This would be a cool list to post on the side and update weekly. Columns could include movement arrows, previous week's rank, previous week's margin, and weeks on the list.
This would also give us something interesting to follow now that there's no more dramatic tension about who leads.
Obama needs to figure out a way to use his money in the midwestern states. He couldn't do that effectively against Clinton, and the extra money doesn't mean anything if you can't use it.
I propose Poblano & Co to add Battleground States tracker in order to see how they progress over time.
As far as I noticed Virginia is now +1.6% Blue, rather than +0.2% Red.
Slack: I think if you go back and look at the numbers, Obama significantly improved his numbers when campaigning in the midwestern states, though some like Kentucky and WV he hardly contested. I think Nate showed pretty clearly that the demographics were just better certain midwestern states (PA, OH) than even a great ground game could overcome.
That's why the focus on the states polling <5% margin is where the majority of campaign funds are going to be spent. Obama has already demonstrated he's got an excellent ground game in the primary.
Updated... I plead distraction from this weird HBO documentary on high school debaters, where a couple of them seem to think an effective way to win is to speak like the FedEx guy from those commercials in the 80s. As if you "win" a debate by screaming in an incomprehensible speed yelling contest and simply saying more than the other person. It's surreal.
Nate, here are some suggestions to improve the site. It is great as is, but since it is a work in progress you may want to consider:
1) User registration to post comments. Get rid of trolls and the annoying Anon. I think you have big enough audience now.
2) Your ID should be more than Nate when you respond. There could be more than one Nate responding in comments. I'm surprised this hasn't already happened.
3) Interactive map. Clicking on state could give history, demographics, polling trends, etc. I guess they may be work intensive.
4) More bloggers? What happened to Sean BTW? Haven't seen any new posts. This is the first site I come to now, and more posts makes it more interesting.
5) Get rid of color coding on left of screen. More than one person has been confused by the colors. Their current color in this cycle would be more relevant/helpful. Somebody else mentioned you could give an up or down arrow in blue/red indicating trend.
6) More debugging. For some reason when I open up comments or after I post one, I get error messages. Not always, but often. I run XP/Vista. Others must be having similar issues.
7) Carotogram. Not that I care for it, but apparently enough do. Those posts asking for it back are getting annoying.
8) Add more variables to your regression. It will only improve accuracy.
Great site, keep up the good work
Ha this post is by Sean. I better correct myself on point #4 before the flood begins.
Nate, I am curious in what percentage of your scenarios Obama wins one of the delegates out of Nebraska (but not the whole state). Does he have a chance of winning one away from there?
Nate:
A few days ago, you posted this graph: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3019/2579252924_b23343ff7d_o.png
This appears to suggest that if Obama's polling figures hit roughly the 6-7% lead range, he is in near certain victory territory. In today's update you also suggest that it's almost impossible to win the Electoral Votes if you are 3% or more behind in the popular vote, so with an error of 6-7% on top of 3%, that would mean a polling figure of 9-10% lead now would be almost insurmountable. With these two figures in mind, we are already heading into the 6-10% range by most estimates. Your 6/15 Super Tracker puts Obama with just shy of a 6 point lead, and Pollster's national poll average puts Obama with a 5.6% lead currently. The trend lines are clearly up, and both candidates seem to be primarily focused on growing their base rather than attacking their opponent. I do not see how Obama stands to lose poll figures in this climate, only grow. Barring a major controversy in the next few days, it seems almost certain the next set of polls will put Obama in the 6-10% lead range.
While clearly it's a wee bit early to declare victory, how can your models still claim only a 65% chance of victory for Obama when historically Obama is almost certain to win with his current performance in polls? Clearly it's possible the polls are still in error (ahem...NH), but my intuition says that Obama is almost certain to maintain his recent gains unless another Wright-like controversy comes up (and as minor as that was, with as long of a primary as we had, it seems unlikely there are any major controversies remaining). What do you think of the current polling rally for Obama, and what it means about McCain's chances this fall? Care to write a post labeled as "OPINION" on this topic? You are in the projection business, after all ;)
Also, while on the subject, what does historical polling data suggest about a candidate who goes over 50% in polls leading up to an election? I would assume that undecideds normally keep both candidates below that line until the race tightens up near the end, but I do not have access to all of these wonderful numbers you seem to have! I find it interesting that Obama frequently crosses the 50% line in national polls, where I can only see McCain crossing 50% twice... in early January and at the peak of the Wright controversy.
Also, could you put up a McCain EV Distribution graph? I'm curious to see how or if his shape differs from Obama's.
I'm sure you're swamped with requests and personal notes, so I understand if all of this goes unnoticed ;) I'm an adoring fan since your first posts on Daily Kos, keep up the excellent work! These are just things I have been thinking of over the weekend, and what better place to post and hope for a little discussion than 538?
Oh, another idea. Have you considered doing analysis of specific, interesting states? It may help your projections to take the time to really study these states, and I'm sure a lot of readers would find in-depth articles on states like Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, North Dakota, or even MI/FL/OH very fascinating to read! :) I hope you're making loads of money off those ads, especially the McCain ones :P
The battleground states aren't the states closest to 50/50. They're the states closest to 50/50 *conditioned on the assumption that the election is close*.
What would happen if you took whatever national swing would be required to make the percentage 50/50 between the two candidates, then took the states closest to that swing?