Below is a just-the-numbers list of all states that have been polled since the conclusion of the Democratic primaries that were also polled by that same polling firm in May; positive numbers indicate an Obama lead.State May June Change
AR Rasmussen -24 -9 +15
KY SurveyUSA -24 -12 +12
OH Quinnipiac -4 +6 +10
KS Rasmussen -19 -10 +9
FL Quinnipiac -4 +4 +8
NY Siena +11 +18 +7
WA Rasmussen +11 +18 +7
PA Quinnipaic +6 +12 +6
WI Rasmussen -4 +2 +6
IA Rasmussen +2 +7 +5
VA Rasmussen -3 +1 +4
MI Rasmussen -1 +3 +4
WA SurveyUSA +14* +17 +3
NC Rasmussen -3 -2 +1
NC Civitas -5 -4 +1
MN Rasmussen +15 +13 -2
MN SurveyUSA +5 +1 -4
OR Rasmussen +14 +8 -6
=========================================
AVERAGE -0.7 +4.7 +5.4
* Average of two May surveys.
6.18.2008
Obama's bounce in state polling
@ 9:10 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
103 comments
New Quinnipiac polls have Obama up in Fla, Penn and Ohio...it's a nice way to start the summer.
wow
Great work Nate. I don't know what the ceiling is for Obama in certain states, but it feels like this is just the beginning of a rather significant shift. It's prone to the ups and downs of the long campaign season, but (to use a baseball metaphor) it's like Obama's taken a 5 run lead early and has a stacked bullpen waiting in the wings. McCain is looking a bit like the Padres offense at this point.
drudge calls McCain
UNDERDOG!
Now, if we only knew how much of this is "bounce," and how much of this support is his to keep.
Nate, how does that list of changes correlate with your coefficients in determining the size of a state's poll adjustment?
Also, are you displaying the actual polls in your data in the right column, or are all of those past sumber subject to change with the super tracker?
Clearly, Obama's biggest improvement seems to be in Appalachia. That described Arkansas and Kentucky, and the Quinnipiac poll also showed him with much better numbers in Southern Ohio. That's why the model seems to think that West Virginia might be a swing state. Obama trailed by 9 there in a poll conducted just before the primary campaign ended, and if he gets an AR or KY type bounce there, it suddenly starts to look like a toss-up.
Looks like the states with the biggest bounces are nearly all states where Clinton won the primary.
Yes, I'm now using Clinton's vote share in the primaries (with a modifier for caucus states) as a variable to derive the state-by-state polling trends.
The Appalachia improvement demonstrates how toxic Bill Clinton's race-baiting campaigning style for his wife was there. Obama should keep Bill Clinton far from Appalachia if he uses him at all.
drudge calls McCain
UNDERDOG!
Pfff. Being a loser isn't enough to make one an underdog. You also have to be NOT part of the last 15 years' ruling party and heir apparent to the Chimperor.
Nate, is there a reason the pacific seems to have disappeared from the state-by-state projections on the left side of the page?
Nate-- in your Scenario Analysis, could you add a couple more "for fun" scenarios-- the probability of either Obama or McCain winning all 538 electoral votes? I've been a little surprised the last couple of days by the height of the bars on the very ends of the electoral vote distribution, but since there's no legend I'm not sure how many simulations that represents.
That swing to Obama is so consistent across the states that it's scary.
What we need is some more randomness. Bring in some ARG polls, please!
Wow is right... I'm Praying to God that it Holds and increases ...
Anon @ 8:47: IIRC, I think the weight applied to ARG polls is so low that a standard 500-person poll that came out today would be weighted below 0.05. I'm still not 100% sure on how ratings translate into weights, though.
"Nate, is there a reason the pacific seems to have disappeared from the state-by-state projections on the left side of the page?"
Major earthquake. Oh the humanity.
Couldn't find this in the FAQ.
Do you calculate Popular Vote and Electoral Vote numbers as an average of all the simulations?
Couldn't find this in the FAQ.
Do you calculate Popular Vote and Electoral Vote numbers as an average of all the simulations?
Sinking the Pacific Coast into the ocean? That was Lex Luthor's big plan. Superman!! We need you!!
Can you explain to me why you have Obama up +2.8 points in Indiana when the sum of your numbers listed would put McCain up by +5.9 points? I mean, ok, new model, national polling, whatever, but... An 8.7 point adjustment, really? In Indiana? I'm just not seeing it. And would it be possible to add a line showing the impact of whatever adjustments you're making, because apparently that isn't all included in the regression.
First off, I just can't believe your calclulations for Nevada, W.V., and Arizona. Something has to be broken here. When every survey in NV has shown it going for McCain, including one done last week, it seems wrong to predict it for Obama. It brings your methods into question.
By the way, how did you decide to divvy up the states this way on the left? I would have put Missouri into North Central and West Virginia into the Rust Belt, which in both cases fits better into how they vote and how they think. That leaves Highlands as Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, The 'Southern' states not on a coast (yes, I know Kentucky fought for the North. Most folks in Kentucky don't seem to, though).
Matthew, the most recent poll in NV is from a pollster that doesn't seem to have a history there, so we don't have as much information from it as we think. Wait until the Rasmussen/SUSA polls come out for NV--I imagine they are going to show a significant bounce, like the other state polling.
PPP poll from Virginia -
Obama 47
McCain 45
Confirming Rasmussen's recent numbers.
Great numbers from Virginia.
With the hard work from the liberal groups and the Obama army for registered new voters, Virginia will be blue in November.
Nate, I am wondering about two things:
a) As some commenters in the previous thread pointed out, the unity bounce is not yet as strongly shown in the crosstabs as you had expected. Are we maybe not seeing an unity bounce, but buyer's remorse against McCain? I mean - issues and ideology aside - is there anybody that has watched McCain's speech on the day Obama clinched the nomination, who could imagine this guy successfully moderating a G8 or NATO meeting, not to speak of managing a major natural disaster or answering the 3 am call? From a (admittedly very restricted) look at some crosstabs, it appears to me that a good part of the swing is with older voters, i.e. McCaim's core constituency.
b) I had suggested in an e-mail to you several weeks ago to consider seasonal polling patterns. In Germany, we typically see a "spring bounce" for the more progressive, and/or opposition parties, which is mainly psychological (you feel more open to change when the wheather is nice). The bounce typically lasts until early / mid-October, hence the parties to the left try to have general elections in mid-September, and the parties to the right prefer early to mid October. Secondly, in Germany there typically is a "holiday season" effect. During school holidays, i.e. around Easter and between eraly July and mid-August, poll ratings for the parties to the left are going down by some 2%, as families with children and school teachers, two of their main constitutencies, are on holiday and unreachable for polls. Conversely, poll ratings for parties to the right go down around 2% during main travelling periods for seniors, i.e. January/ February, May, and mid-September / early October. Such pattens, should they exist as well in the USA, could pretty well explain at least half of the "Super tracker" fluctuation over the last months.
I would appreciate if you could run some analysis on both questions and post the results here.
Off topic: Rasmus, have you in the meantime found a good place to have Burritos in Hamburg? Please share it with this former St.Paulianer (Ole-Ole-Ole!)/ now Holsteiner.
Looking at these recent polls, it really is striking the partisan advantage the Dems have this year. It's like Obama is getting the ball on the 50 yard line in each state and McCain gets it on his own 10. Simply splitting independents 50-50 (which went almost 2-1 for Dems in 2006) and winning back SOME of the Clinton voters is going to easily be enough to put Obama over the top.
That's got to be pretty discouraging for McCain's team.
I'm very curious to see how the punditocracy deals with this huge bounce. We already saw Tapper from ABC deny any existence of a bounce...will they all still pretend the race is tied?
Nate,
Can you provide us with some sort of metric or analysis checking how well your new model is doing, how close to the target new polls are hitting? What I mean is that in terms of analogy, your model now seems work along the lines of "Given that shots fired from that state were previously impacting here, and given that the point of impact for shots fired from other states has moved this much, we estimate that the prevailing wind is now blowing with this velocity, and that the next shots fired from that state should therefore land right about there." Looking thereafter at whether the next polls actually landed within the projected point of impact area should tell us a lot about how trustworthy your new model is -- and thereby either silence or reinforce the claims that your results "just don't make sense."
Can you also post Obama's number and the +/- of that? I'd like to compare the 'bounce' in margin to the 'bounce ' in Obama support. I've noticed a lot of polls have McCain losing support since May, but only some have Obama gaining. So what might look like a huge Obama bounce could just be a movement away from McCain to undecided.
Can you provide us with some sort of metric or analysis checking how well your new model is doing, how close to the target new polls are hitting?
Nate mentioned one such metric yesterday: his aggregate national estimate based on his state poll model comes very close to the average 4-5% Obama advantage in national polls.
Was there any point in Kerry/Bush that either led by this many "hypothetical" electoral votes in projected matchups?
It also seems like Obama's map supports the idea that a 4 point victory will win him significantly more electoral votes then the same margin would've won for Kerry.
More good news for Obama:
SUSA says he is leading WI +9 by a margin of 52-43
To those claiming the new model is biased (Indiana and Nevada blue) it seems to agree with today's new Virginia pole. Nate is in a way now 'predicting' the state polls which isn't necessarily a bad thing. As he mentioned the goal is to do the best with all information currently available. However, I agree with previous posters that some sort of verification of the "national tweak" would be illustrative. Also, measures of the performance of the tweak could be used to alter the weight given to it, etc.
Yes, Juris, we do already have that single check that the new model isn't producing results in the aggregate that are wildly off the mark. It seems to me, though, that it should also be possible and useful to check how closely the individual state polls are falling to the projections based on the Political Wind Gauge (a.k.a Super Tracker.)
Since, as Matthew above pointed out, the regression model is now 'predictive' I don't think it is possible to verify its accuracy until Sept/Oct/Nov when the general election is in full swing and the polls begin stabilizing to their final steady state.
I think the best we can do is to see whether or not the state polls start trending in the direction of the the regression. So far it's starting to look good, but we'll need a couple more rounds of state polls to really make a judgment.
I'm not surprised you are claiming there is a bounce. Are these ALL the polls or are you just cherry-picking to make it look good for Obama? I used to trust the data on your site, but I find it harder to now. After writing that Ferraro was a "racist" in a post about past VP picks which had little data analysis and lots of interpretation, I am starting to mistrust your own data analyses? How did Obama suddendly go from a 51% winning percentage to a 75% wining percentage? It weirdly coincided with the false attack against Ferraro. I guess none of the other people you write about on this blog can be called "racists"?
To put it another way for golfers. At 10am you drive the ball with winds of 2mph from the right and record where it lands. Now it's 11am and you drive the ball with 10mph winds from the left. Where is the ball going to land? Until we actually take the shot again and record where it lands it's probably best to assume it's going to land somewhere else dependent on the wind.
It's a good idea give it time.
New Rasmussen poll in Maine
Obama 55
McCain 33
""After writing that Ferraro was a "racist" in a post about past VP picks""
That wasn't Nate, for what it's worth.
And, according to Rassmussen, Alaska is 45 McCain-41 Obama.
Alaska poll - Rasmussen. Tightening.
McCain 45
Obama 41
I'm not surprised you are claiming there is a bounce. Are these ALL the polls or are you just cherry-picking to make it look good for Obama?
If you know of any polls he's missing, post that information here and also send Nate a message. He includes all polls except those produced privately for the campaigns.
The whole point of his approach is not to cherrypick, nor to rely on a single poll, nor to rely in a simple average of polls, nor to rely on outdated polls. Nothing has changed in that approach.
@anonymous 10:58
Basically,
"I used to support you, but ever since you did this/wrote that, I don't, so therefore you must tailor to my insecure needs or ur LOOSING SUPPORTERS you could have had! ZOMG!!!111!!" - whiny online commenters
"Yaaaawn. *scratches oneself* Ho hum." - normal, well-adjusted people
unertl,
Unless I am mistaken, the new model is predictive in two, separable steps. First, current state "poll" numbers are synthesized from prior, stale polls in a state and the current velocity of the political wind as estimated from recent polling results in other states. Second, the current polling results and synthesized "poll" results are used to project the results in November. What I am suggesting is that the accuracy of the synthesis of the individual state numbers from stale data and political windage should be checked by comparison to the actual next polling results in a state. You are correct that it will be much more difficult if not impossible to check the accuracy of the full November projections until after the election occurs.
Anonymous @ 10:31 said "Can you explain to me why you have Obama up +2.8 points in Indiana when the sum of your numbers listed would put McCain up by +5.9 points?"
The numbers used are not just an average, but a weighted average. It gives much more credence to the more recent polls and more reliable pollsters. For instance, it counts SurveyUSA's more recent poll more than twice as strongly (.75) as its one from the week before (.38) and more than three times as much as the less-reliable (and with a sample size of 384 highly error-prone) Seltzer's poll (.23).
From where i'm sitting, poll after poll after poll is coming out the last 3 days proving that Nate was again ahead of the curve in his updates...
If anyone doubts Obama's Bounce/Lead and Nate's Skillz at this point, it's time to wake up to the reality that is the Obama Lead.
With 3600 Volunteers in the top 17 states for 6 weeks, this will only firm up from this point out... and further, expansion in August to all 50 states will pull small states like Alaska over the top.
What happened to the Pacific West on the left bar?
In addition to what Richard said about Indiana, I would add that the polls there are all nearly two months old. The entire point of the recent changes to the site was to use national trends to adjust state numbers when the state polling is out of date.
There is little reason to think that polls from April are a reliable measure of support currently, given the major shifts in polling we have seen in virtually every poll over the past few weeks.
Anon @ 10:58: The poll gets a weight based on the number of respondents (which does not scale linearly) and on the accuracy of that pollster during the primary season. SUSA and Rasmussen get huge boosts from the latter since they were more or less bang-on; someone like, say, ARG gets penalties from that.
Quinnipac is closer to SUSA and Rasmussen than ARG, and the OH/FL polls had larger-than-normal sample sizes, hence their heavy weights.
Hey Nate why haven't you lightened up the shading for Mississippi and Louisana? The last polls from those states show Obama within single digits? Even electoral vote now considers them to be "weak republican" as opposed to "strong republican" which I take you indicate by the deepness of the red color given to a state.
In addition to what everyone is pointing out about how the polls are weighted based on recency and pollster, Nate is also adjusting the older poll numbers based on the trend. This is the time trend adjustment he has referred to and is a major change. Based on the recent polling results, Nate's time trend adjustment certainly seems to be proving its worth in predicting new polls.
I strongly wish that Nate would show the amount of the trend adjustment for each state. Right now, the projection for each state does NOT match the weighted average of polls and 538 regression.
Nate. Just a fan letter. You've now replaced www.pollster.com as my "first checked" site in the morning. Great piece on the state level "bumps."
NEW POLL IN NH AND FL FROM ARG.
OBAMA LEAD BY 5 POINTS IN FLORIDA AND 12 IN NH.
FABULOUS DAY FOR OBAMA.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
seconding Alex:
Nate, the Pacific states have disappeared from the state rundowns on the left. Possibly a problem with the ads? Or maybe a browser issue? (I'm running Firefox 2)
As much as I like seeing Obama winning 75% of the time with a nearly 40% chance of a blowout, I am a little curious about whether a site that's trying to predict the outcome in November (and not just a state of the race type thing) should have it's numbers bounce around so much. Theoretically, if we're trying to predict what's going to happen in November, shouldn't the numbers be relatively stable? Or perhaps, since we're still in the "bounce" phase we're not quite in the more or less "stable" period yet?
To Anon@10:58:
Not believing the numbers because someone called Ferraro a racist is like saying:
"Heisenberg worked for the Nazis. I don't believe this whole Uncertainty Principle thing."
2 + 2 = 4 even if Strom Thurmond says it. If you have a problem with methodology, fine. Question the methodology.
Not worth linking to it, but I would like to note that it was Ferraro and not the Obama campaign who applied the r term to herself -- accusing the Obama campaign (Axelrod in particular) of pasting it on her. Some Obama supporters used the r word but it was Ferraro who imputed it to the campaign and then vilified it on FOX as a paid contributor. So it was self serving on her part.
I think the use of the term here was unfortunate, just as I feel a lot of the negatives on the Obama blog are unfortunate. Glad Obama is above it.
On another note, while Anonymous posts here are sometimes apposite, I do not see why requiring a person to create an identity is unreasonable. I would read comments with more interest if that were the case. It makes it difficult to sort out comments when you have multiple Anonymous posting going on.
SUSA-WI +9
PPP-VA +2
Luuucy! You have some 'splainin' to do!
Sorry, I posted this on the thread below when intending to post here. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and recrimination regarding the issue of state polling, based on the raw poll numbers which are shown in the right-hand column.
OK, I get the new system (I think), but today my eye was drawn toward the newly-pink West Virginia, a lightly polled state, and it's clear that the weighted average from the raw poll numbers (McCain +4.7) is about 3 points different from the projection (McCain +1.7).
It occurred to me that it would be useful, in addition to the raw poll numbers, to have one more column for "Demographically Adjusted National Trend Since Poll" (you might want to abbreviate that) to give the casual reader a better idea of how these projections are done, and why they're more accurate than any snapshot poll. The weighted mean of DANTSP+Margin should equal the projection.
So now that's two polls today showing Obama ahead by 4 and 5 in FL. If he consolidates his bounce, even if he doesn't gain any further, McCain is in deep trouble.
Let's not forget John Kerry had a similar lead in June 2004. I think the dynamics of the election are different, but still.
Also, the vote margins in most of these states will be close enough that the old Republican dirty tricks and fraud can easily swing the election to McCain. There has been almost zero reform to prevent the issues from repeating, so a stolen election is still possible.
Not sure if you keep day-by-day archives of the maps or not, but that thing would make an awesome timelapse animation watching the maps grow blue or red and recede - almost like waves.
Anon @ 13:05,
Kerry didn't lead in June 2004. The national polling average had Bush somewhere between +1 and +2. Obama is somewhere around +4 right now.
I'm anon 10:58 that got scrubbed. I'm not completely concerned about the data analysis now that I realize Nate did it, and some other person wrote the offensive stuff about the only major-party female candidate for vice presdient in history in a different post. But seriously, the posts by Sean are better suited for DailyKos or some other web site that is not trying to offer statistical analysis. You are hurting your own cause. It is very clear how pro-Obama Sean is, to the point of offering interpretivist opinion instead of hard-nosed quantitative analysis. I'm not going to check this blog as much if the knee-jerk commentary from Sean replace Nate's well-observed data analyses. Your write-up in Newseek last week was great, for instance. But how would that article have looked had they dwelled on a comment where Ferraro was called "the racist"? It makes lose a lot of credibility. Please stick to facts and data. Leave bloviating to MSNBC. And please don't scrub my comment this time like you did last time.
Theoretically, if we're trying to predict what's going to happen in November, shouldn't the numbers be relatively stable?
Projection, not prediction.
Looks like the bounce is primarily in states where Clinton did well - which makes sense. The new polls in Florida/Ohio/Pennsylvania are making those that were echoing Clinton's "big state" argument look pretty silly. Well they already looked silly, but now they look really silly.
Interesting thing in the Electoral Vote Distribution chart today: Obama is more likely to win with what looks like 523 EVs than McCain is to win with any individual EV total.
I'm guessing the missing EVs are Utah.
No comment was scrubbed. There is limited space for them on the front page, so only the most recent comments are available there. If you want to see earlier posts, then you have to click-through to article's full page.
Richard,
Yes, I know it's a weighted average, and I used the weights, and did the math--you obviously didn't.
I wonder what's with that SurveyUSA MN poll showing Obama up by only one. That's so different from everything else I've read about the polls here. Given SUSA's primary track record, this concerns me a bit.
That latest SUSA MN poll also has voters under 30 being the most unfriendly demographic for Obama...something is wrong with that poll.
What is with that spike near 538 today in the Electoral Vote distribution. I'm surprised that getting basically 538 electoral votes is more likely than, say, 450. I feel like there has got to be a maximum of around 450-500 that Obama could possibly get... I just don't think we're going to see states like Utah or Wyoming flip... certainly not all on the same day. =)
Let's vote like it's 1964!!!!
Jeff, I think it's because getting to 450 would take such an unlikely series of events that it would be more likely to go all the way to 538 than to stop at 450. Say McCain is exposed as a pedophile or cocaine user a few days before the election, or starts screaming at reporters for no reason and threatening to "drop the big one" on Iran, or whatever. This would be the McCain Utter Collapse scenario, and it would be unlikely to stop at 450.
New ARG Polls:
New Hampshire
Obama 51, McCain 39
Florida
Obama 49, McCain 44
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_arg_new_hampshire_florida.php
From Stephen C. Rose 12:51 pm
On another note, while Anonymous posts here are sometimes apposite, I do not see why requiring a person to create an identity is unreasonable. I would read comments with more interest if that were the case. It makes it difficult to sort out comments when you have multiple Anonymous posting going on.
Amen!
Please remove McCain's ad from your site.
Thanks
McCain Hater!
Anon @ 3:01:
Every time you click on the McCain link from 538, that means $$ for this site. So instead of asking for it's removal, go ahead and click on it at least once a day. Clicking on it doesn't do McCain any good in any meaningful sense, and it helps out Nate.
Graham-
Getting to 450 doesn't seem THAT impossible, and wouldn't necessarily be the total collapse that you suggest (although it would be a collapse). For instance, throw in the traditional Democratic states, swing states + the "swing" states that Obama is already doing well in (CO, NM, etc), then add VA, TX, AK, NC, ND, MT, NV, GA, IN, AR, MS, KS and maybe an EV or 2 from NE and you're at over 451. This scenario, while perhaps sort of unlikely, doesn't seem all THAT implausible as compared to Obama actually reaching the 500 EV mark. Adding in perhaps the next level of potential states like SC, SD, LA, and all of NE puts Obama at 476. The states that are left for him to pick off are AL, TN, KY, WV, OK, AZ, UT, Idaho, and Wyoming. I'm not sure where he goes from there, maybe WV, KY, and AZ, which gets him to 499. TN next to put him at 510? Who knows... This is, of course, extremely improbable, but it's a nice mental exercise nonetheless. I still think 450 is far more probable than over 500. =)
Hey Nate,
Do you even use ARG? I don't see any of the states having a ARG poll. If you do then there is a new FL and NH poll. Also a Rasmussen ME poll, a SUSA WI poll and a PPP VA poll. Please update again today!
Nate, I really enjoy your site. Keep up the good work.
The sidebar has dropped the Pacific Coast states. Could you bring them back please? Thanks!
There is a Rasmussen AK poll!
M: 45
O: 41
The good news for Obama keeps rolling in.
New Ohio poll from Rasmussen. Basically a dead heat, consistent with the most recent Rasmussen poll (5/15).
McCain 44
Obama 43
is the Rasmussen AK poll real ?
can anybody confirm ?
AK poll is real
rasmussenreports
wow
Polls are all over the place. New Rasmussen poll shows McCain having an insignificant one point lead in Ohio. Jack- it is real.
oops !
thats an old poll
Anon@ 15:49 - Looking at the ARG site, I think these are the first two polls of the National election that they've done; I think everything older was only for the primaries. Don't know how this affects the weighting, but I'm sure Nate does. (although it obviously means we don't have any older data to compare directly to).
Hi Nate
somebode posted the following on another thread
//After your "We know less than we think" adjustments increased the variance of the results, perhaps you should increase the simulation size to smooth the distribution out a bit more. It won't really change the EV/win/vote numbers, but it will make the distribution itself a bit more aesthetically appealing.//
I fully agree with him.
Furthermore, there are some scenarios that only happen 0, 3 or 5 times in your simulation. Those percentages are a bit meaningless until you run your simulation, eg. 50000 times.
I hope your computer is able to handle that...
At the far right of the EV Distribution chart, there's one lonely tall blue spike, not quite all the way to 538, and it looks like only one very short vertical line to the right of it. Apparently, there are various simulations where Obama wins 49 states but almost none where he wins 50. LBJ won 49 and the straggler was Arizona. I wonder what it is for the McCain nightmare scenario. Utah? I can't imagine AZ staying red if AL and UT go blue.
Ironic that McCain and Barry G are both senators from AZ.
AL will be red
i don't see how AL will go blue
There's a pretty simple reason why 538 is so high in the distribution:
The algorithm is really about popular votes, which is then translated into electoral votes. I can imagine that even with just a 10% margin nationwide, you can potentially have a 538 EV win. While increasing margins are less and less likely, if you sum all those up it can still come to a fairly notable value.
In effect, the 'tail' of the graph that represents higher and higher popular vote margins in each state was cropped and lumped into the 538 EV category. This is a result of the first-past-the-post electoral system.
All who are skeptical about the "bounce"...
Please note that the the Popular Vote bounce has been far more modest than that in EV's or Win%. Nate just recently posted about this: especially in a close race, the Electoral College serves to hugely magnify the margin of victory vis a vis the national totals. I think a look at popular vote totals in, say, '64, '72, or '84 would bear this out.
IIRC, the pop-vote pie on June 1-ish stood at exactly 50/50. Right now only 2.3% have switched (for a 4.6 net margin). So Nate's #'s in fact aren't at all outside the mainstream.
However, Nate: Isn't it unlikely in reality for McCain & Obama to total 100% of the pop vote? I'd think Nader, Barr & miscellaneous others would gather a percent or two, even if they don't affect the outcome.
Also, how do "undecided" numbers figure into the weighting/projection system?
Hmm, I bet that drop is because Utah is calculated as a 0% win chance for Obama.
From obsessed at 5:31 pm:
LBJ won 49 and the straggler was Arizona. I wonder what it is for the McCain nightmare scenario. Utah? I can't imagine AZ staying red if AL and UT go blue.
Ironic that McCain and Barry G are both senators from AZ.
Goldwater carried 6 states. SC,GA,AL,MI,LA as well as his home state of AZ.
Obama is unlikely to win 49 states.
Nitpicky, but that should be MS, not MI. Goldwater definitely didn't carry MI.
Can we see the Obama % and McCain % and undecided % changes for these states? In a lot of national polls, Obama has not gained (he's moved from 45% to 46% in the last 2-3 weeks). It is just that McCain has dropped from, for instance, 46% to 40% in alot of polls. How much of the bounce is a move away from McCain to undecided? And how much is a direct increase for Obama?
What percentage of the time in a race with a 1-4 % popular vote margin does the winner of the popular vote also turn out to be the winner of the Electoral Vote?
For example, it could be that 65 % of the time that the popular vote margin is between 1 and 4, the popular vote winner also wins the Electoral College.
Also, I would think that Barack would be more likely to suffer this type of Al Gore defeat than McCain (I think it quite likely, of course, that Barack will win-- just saying that of the two it seems much more likely that it could happen to Obama).
Comments?
Answers?
thanx.
Let's see how objective this site really is. Rasmussen has an Ohio poll out today, 6/19 showing McCain with 44% and Obama with 43%. In a Rasmussen poll of Ohio on 5/14, Obama had 44% and McCain had 45%.
Rasmussen also has a Florida poll out: McCain 47%, Obama 39%. A month ago, Rasmussen polled Florida and it was nearly the same, with McCain 50% and Obam 40%.
In terms of change, there's very little bounce in these two polls. Obama was -1 in Ohio a month ago and is still at -1 when just looking at margins. In Florida last month, Obama was -10, and now he is -8. Could they be outliers? Perhaps. But so might the Qpac polls from yesterday.
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!! 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,
^^ 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,
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