One of the fun things we can do with our model is to change the election date to anything we like and see how it might impact the results. So what would the model project if the election were scheduled for tomorrow?
Notice how the red states turn redder and the blue states turn bluer. This is something you'll see happen very gradually over the course of the next four months. As we near the election, smaller leads will become more meaningful, and more states will be taken out of play.
Overall, our model thinks that Obama would have an 88.6 percent chance of winning an election held tomorrow. The most competitive states would be as follows:
1. Virginia. Obama 58% to win, McCain 42%
2. Florida. McCain 62% to win, Obama 38%
3. Indiana. McCain 63% to win, Obama 37%
4. Nevada. McCain 63% to win, Obama 37%
5. Missouri. McCain 65% to win, Obama 35%
6. North Dakota. McCain 79% to win, Obama 21%
7. North Carolina. McCain 81% to win, Obama 19%
8. Colorado. Obama 83% to win, McCain 17%
9. Louisiana. McCain 85% to win, Obama 15%
10. Ohio. Obama 88% to win, McCain 12%
11. New Mexico. Obama 88% to win, McCain 12%
12. South Dakota. McCain 89% to win, Obama 11%
13. Michigan. Obama 90% to win, McCain 10%
14. West Virginia. McCain 90% to win, Obama 10%
15. Montana. McCain 91% to win, Obama 9%
16. Alaska. McCain 92% to win, Obama 8%
17. South Carolina. McCain 94% to win, Obama 6%
All other states are at 95% or better for the leading candidate.
McCain's electoral prospects, unsurprisingly, would be very much tied to his chances of pulling out an upset in Ohio or Michigan. One thing that's going on here, by the way, is that the amount of polling data in a particular state is a factor. For example, our model thinks that McCain would win by 4.4 points in North Dakota in an election held tomorrow, but still assigns Obama a 21 percent chance of winning there because the polling data is so sparse that we can't quite be certain what's going on. In Ohio, meanwhile, the model projects an Obama win of 4.2 points -- less than McCain's projected margin in North Dakota -- but gives him an 88 percent chance of winning because that small lead is backed up by much more polling volume.
And there is still an outside chance that something totally wacky could happen, with the polling data off in the same direction in many states. As recently as 2000, there was about a 3-point miss in the final national polling averages ... Bush was expected to win that election by about 2.5 points but Gore actually won the popular vote by a half-point. In 1996, Bill Clinton was 12 points ahead in the final polling averages but won by "only" 8.5 points ... in 1980, Ronald Reagan led by just 3 points in Gallup's last poll but actually won by almost 10 points. Sometimes, there is movement that comes too late for the polls to detect, or everyone is off in the same direction with their turnout assumptions.
6.28.2008
If the Election WERE Held Today...
@ 9:01 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments
Interesting analysis and reminder of the difficulty in projecting turnout and closing margins of error. Though this is a bit off-topic for projections, you've probably run into different exit poll statistics...How have these fared in comparison to the final polls? And are you taking into account last-minute happenings that tended to sway votes?
nate,
this is why your charts would be so much more fun with live sliders and other doo-dads for all sorts of different variables...
it would be fun to turn on and off different polling firms, or click to normalize for party id, or lets say, choose party id based on latest registration data, etc...
at the least i'd like to be able to sort poll details by all the different columns..... i'd like to be able to make up my own scenarios to analyze, etc...
of course your skinner like ways have caused bad addiction so far... who knows what the doo dads would do...
(soapbox)
as for election day discrepancies, i have to think about all the vote fraud that has been widely reported, including caging lists, leaving punch card machines full of chad, moving voting locations to confuse voters, and all sorts of other stuff. that stuff adds up. our only way to deal with it is to be like fish and have plenty of eggs. so everybody try to get 10 of your low info friends to register to vote. elections matter.
(/soapbox)
Let me jump on the bandwagon here and back up the guy above me that suggested some interactive features for the map. I'm sure there have to be some ultra-tech savvy folks that would be willing to chip in. (I'm not one of them - though if you need 538 salsa, I'm the guy to talk to.)
538 salsa,
???
My goodness, he's still working on the technical stuff, I mean the mathematical stuff, and you guys want bells and whistles on the site itself?
OK, I'd like them too, but we have to be reasonable. This is still essentially a one-man operation; he's had some design help but doesn't have a programmer. If you want a site with a lot of "flash" but without the math, there are plenty of those.
Let's give it time -- and I'm sure Nate would be happy to have volunteers who have good technical design skills. BTW/ the programming of all the options that you want would take a lot of time.
An interactive map where u can see how all the states would change as a slider moved back and forth changing the margin of victory would be a great idea.
I think Nate has got a new project.
Nate
you rock !
this is a great site
Nate, thanks. I figured the chance of winning today was much higher than your fall projections.
The turnout error you mention sounds like a systematic error. If anything, I think it would go in Obama's direction. The primary polls underestimated Obama's support, I think by 3-4% on average, presumably because more Obama supporters turned out than were assumed by the pollsters. There is also going to be a lot of voter registration between now and November.
Perhaps some of this error is already included in your "polls tighten" effect.
btw, why does your Electoral Vote Distribution have a peak near 0?
-eyesopen
One reason for the extra large Reagan margin compared to the projections in 1980 was Carter's (typically) self-centered decision to concede early. It likely cost the candidate whose campaign I was managing the election (as well as screwing a lot of other Dems in the West.) One of a number of things he has done I have trouble forgiving him for.
I still have to quote the late great Tim Russert
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
I think whoever wins Ohio wins the election. That being said because of the economy I think Obama wins Ohio with ease. Got I'm gonna miss Mr. Russert's face on election night.
"Carter's (typically) self-centered decision"
Excuse me? Jimmy Carter was one of the most caring, empathetic, and honest presidents we ever had. Just look at all the humanitarian work he's done since.
Hi Nate. Out of curiosity, is your consistent use of the word "data" as a singular, rather than plural, noun intentional? I'm not trying to be nitpicky, as I think the singular usage is widespread enough so as not to be prescriptively wrong. I was always taught, including in stats classes, to treat it as a plural, but I notice a lot of people doing the opposite.
I almost feel more comfortable with Kerry+IA+CO+NV than Kerry+OH.
Ohio has disappointed me too many times.
"Bush was expected to win that election by about 2.5 points but Gore actually won the popular vote by a half-point. In 1996, Bill Clinton was 12 points ahead in the final polling averages but won by "only" 8.5 points"
These two should not be compared. 2000 was close, 1996 was not. We don't know if the candidate leading in the polls will actually benefit, or not, from a large lead. There may be less enthusiasm on his own side, or less enthusiasm on the other side. That depends on a lot of factors, and 3.5 points could very well be within that enthusiasm gap.
Does anyone have any polls or data showing the effect of Hillary Clinton as potential veep on the presidential race? I've asked for this information in other comments, but have only gotten assertions that she hurts the ticket. I don't know until I see data.
One argument against her is she mobilizes Republicans. But she also mobilizies Democrats, and we know the data show there aren't as many Republicans as there used to be. So is it possible she is a net plus for Obama among party identifiers?
And then I have no idea if Obama-Clinton would be better among indepdents than Obama is polling now. Anyone have data on this?
The only recent poll I've seen shows Obama-Clinton helps Obama somewhat in Michigan. Don't know about other states.
See poll results here:
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/12076
Dear Ty, read this and then tell me what your agendum is?
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/data
Some points:
1. The "election today" map actually shows Obama 306 - McCain 232.
2. Given an Obama lead of 36 EVs, he could lose EITHER Michigan OR Ohio, but not both. This is not generally considered a shocker.
3. Winning both would make it virtually impossible for McCain even if he won Virginia (likely in the end, Virginia hasn't voted for a Democratic President since 1964).
4. I still think what we're really looking at is Kerry + NH + IA + CO + NM = 273. That's Obama's best chance.
I think all this talk about turning Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, North Dakota, Missouri and Indiana blue is nice but if Obama can't lead these states with a 4% + national lead then he's probably NOT going to win any of them in the end.
I think he has to plan to win without any of those states or Ohio, which means a nail bitter in Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico and New Hampshire will determine the outcome of the election. Obama needs all of them.
If he's still leading in Ohio in October then his strategy should be to concentrate everything on holding onto his lead there and nailing it down solid. If he takes Ohio and keeps Michgan then McCain needs to win every other Bush state plus New Hampshire to win.
I don't see McCain winning New Hampshire. It's tending more and more blue and despite his popularity in the state, he's still a Republican in a terrible year for Republicans in the Northeast.
That means it's all down to Ohio. If Obama wins that he wins. If he loses, it's going to be very close and we'll wake up once again and not know for sure who the next President is until every vote is counted in New Mexico again.
Cugel, New Hampshire WAS a Kerry state.
I think OH no longer has the importance it had in the past two cycles.
Obama can win with Kerry+CO/NM/NV or Kerry+IA/VA, for instance. Not to mention many other states in play this year...
That said, it's hard to picture a scenario in which Obama wins OH, yet McCain winning nonetheless.
Sure, Bush+NH-OH would hand McCain victory, but my belief is that NH is very much trending blue. And even if McCain were to pull off NH, losing any of IA, CO, NM or NV would still give Obama victory.
As for Michigan, I don't see OH with swath of Appalachia turning blue whilst Michagan turns red.
My sense is thus that McCain badly needs OH while Obama does not.
This is really a bad year to run in for McCain. Turnout among blacks, latinos and the young is bound to be up, many states are demographically trending blue, the GOP brand is in the dolldrums and then there's Obama's superior organisation and campaigning skills.
I really don't envy McCain's task. It's tough.
One reason why OH may not be so central this time is that we have more confidence in the balloting part of the election. Last time the vote suppression was obvious to all (recall the handling of new registrations? people waiting hours and hours to vote in Cuyahoga County? The handling of provisional ballots?)
The Bush team's "ace in the hole" was that the thought they could count on these measures to cut Kerry's support by a couple of points.
But Blackwell is gone, the Taft administration is gone, certain nefarious characters in Toledo are gone. Not that all is perfect in the new administration, but the state GOP is demoralized and the Secretary of State's office appears to be running as it was supposed to.
Two cycles ago, Gore made Florida, rather than Ohio, the primary battleground state. On election day in 2000 the Bush people really thought they were going to win MI, OH and PA. Gore would have won even without FL if he'd won NH or his home state. 2000 was a very strange EV year.
OH has been IT for Republicans since 1860 and Obama is a career Midwesterner. Obama should be able to win in OH and, if he does, he wins as Michigan is also in the Midwest and has a more favorable demographic and history.
For myself, I'd like to see Obama select a Western governor to be his running mate and I'd like to see the reaction from the South if the South, as a block, goes one way and the nation goes another.
Nick:
Although the choice of phrase ("self-centered") was rotten, the trait is real. He "knows" himself to be righteous and is too little inclined to question his own judgment. It was late at night when I wrote that and it should have been self-righteous.
Somebody expressed the diffference between him and Reagan in this apothegm:
Carter would pay no attention to the cleanng lady at the white house while being concerned about howgovernment policies affected her, while Reagan would talk to her and treat her well, but adopt policies that harmed her.
In addition, because of his strong concern about his own moral judgment, he tended to procede with things without taking into account how his actions might impact others. His concession is a perfect exemplar of this. Once he realized he had lost the presidential election in 1980, he felt the appropriate thing for him to do was to concede - he did not consider the conequences of the decision for others. He he done so, he would have delayed his concession until the polls closed in the West.
I can admire the personal trait, but, having put himself into the public arena, he had had a moral obligation (I think) to consider those consequences.
For those who keep mentioning Pro-Republican vote fraud via Diebold machines that have no paper trail, remember that vote fraud cuts in both directions.
There are plenty of pro-Democratic "cemetery precincts" in Chicago, Philly, Detroit, St. Louis, and Gary, IN too.
Re: EV spike near zero
My guess would be those are simulations in which Obama only carries DC. The shorter column adjacent to the spike would be DC+VT.
Boss Tweed: There are plenty of ... "cemetery precincts" in Chicago, Philly, Detroit, St. Louis, and Gary, IN too.
No, there are not, and haven't been since before WWII, when *both* parties engaged in such electoral shenanigans.
Are you trying to earn McCain Points, or something?
Please take your Fox News/Rush Limbaugh talking points to a different audience.
.
JGabriel, I guess you must have missed the mayor of Gary, Indiana's phone interrogation by Wolf Blitzer and others on CNN on the night of the Indiana primary when he had no valid explanation for the stalling on the counting of all-black Gary's votes till after the rest of the state was in.
Also, on November election nights, Chicago, St. Louis, Philly, and Detroit are still notorious for reporting their votes after almost all of the rest of their state's vote is in -- so the cheaters can see what they need to have the Dems carry the state if it is close. You just watch this November how the votes come in in those cities (except Chicago, which is irrelevant this time).
Also, pro-Democratic cheating goes on on Indian reservations in South Dakota and Arizona.
Don't pretend that Democratic inner-city operatives are virginal League of Women voter types.
Wow, Tweedy what a shocker!
You've absolutely proven that... large cities take longer to count votes. Who'd a thunk it? I'm impressed.
Your assertions are baseless lies and smears, Tweedy.
You must be pretty desperate to rack up some of those McCain Points. What are you trying to get, the Golf Pack or the Fleece Jacket?
Boss Tweed,
There was a valid reason for why Lake County, IN took so long to count. They were doing the time-intensive absentee ballots first and didn't realize that the whole country was waiting on them. Why didn't the mayor of Gary know that? Because he doesn't work for the county election board.
I agree the mayor appeared clueless in the interview and probably shouldn't have done it. But think about what you are alleging...the mayor was part of a grand conspiracy to fix the votes. If he was part of such a conspiracy, do you think he would have gone on TV? Don't you think he would have designed a better cover story?
Your only piece of evidence is that he didn't know what was going on. That is a pretty weak thing to base a major conspiracy on.
A major conspiracy would obviously entail quite a few people. Why haven't any of them come forward as whistleblowers? It seems to me like you are alleging a serious crime without any evidence.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment