Barack Obama has a 5-point lead in Montana, according to a new poll from Rasmussen Reports. John McCain had led by 5 in their only previous poll of the state back in April.
It would, obviously, be premature to conclude that Obama is the favorite in Montana. Our regression model still thinks that the state ought to favor McCain by about 6 points, and will probably maintain that opinion until we see some other good results for Obama in (i) traditionally red states or (ii) states out West. Thus far, Obama's bounce had come mostly in blue and purple states east of the Mississippi, which is why this result is surprising.
But there are two things I think we can make of it. Firstly, it certainly validates Obama'a decision to campaign in North Dakota today. If you'll recall, Obama has already spent several days in Montana. Yes, that was nominally in connection with the state's Democratic primary, but at that point Obama was already 80 percent of the way to general election mode. While I don't think Obama is the odds-on favorite to win Montana, he very probably is the favorite if he runs a campaign there and McCain doesn't.
Secondly, we're seeing a bit of a cultural divide in Montana between cultural conservatives who have resided there for a long time, more libertarianish folks who have resided there for a long time, and new migrants who like the cheap land and beautiful scenery and bring more of a West Coast mentality to the state. In this poll, Obama leads by 27 points among Montanans who rarely or never attend church, and by 20 points among people who attend occasionally, but trails by roughly the same margins among people that go to church at least a few times a month.
A couple other polls out today too. In Rhode Island, which also hadn't been polled in a long time, Obama leads by 28 points in a Rhode Island College survey. This is not a surprise considering his recent results in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Speaking of which, there is yet another poll out in Connecticut, this one by Research 2000 on behalf of Daily Kos, which shows a 22-point lead for Obama (and suggests that Joe Lieberman would lose to Ned Lamont if that matchup were held today). Finally, a Strategies 360 poll in Washington has Obama ahead by 8.
n.b. Edited for maturity.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Today's Polls, 7/3
-- Nate Silver at 2:14 PM
Labels: connecticut, montana, rhode island, today's polls, washington
95 comments
why in the world would he lose point's in WA. That make's no sence to me.
anything happen that I didnt notice, or somthing to make him drop?.
Will there be site updates through the Holiday weekend?
I would guess polling would tapper off due to the holiday..
Nate: Slightly off topic, but fitting the western theme, I'm curious about the Idaho and Oregon Senate projections. As of today, Idaho is 73% tilt Rep. while Oregon is 75% tilt Rep. I can think of only one good reason for that: more polling establishing Gordon's front-runner status than Risch's.
However, common sense (and natural pessimism as an Idaho blue) makes me question this projection. Idaho hasn't elected any statewide Democrat since 1994, hasn't elected a Democratic Senator since Frank Church lost his seat in the 70s, and hasn't gone for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964. Perhaps most importantly, these specific candidates already face each other in '06, when Risch beat LaRocco for the Lt. Guv's seat by double digits.
I'm unaware of any demographic shift to suggest this is changing, and the presidential projection is still 98% Republican. So where does the Senate projection (which has been in the 70s for at least a few days) come from?
I want to believe it. I volunteered for LaRocco when he ran for Lt. Gov., and I've donated to his Senate campaign. I'm just seriously skeptical of this projection, and see nothing to support it, which makes me wonder about some of the other Senate projections.
Hi Nate, As someone who was born in Montana and grew up in Texas I have to say that that accent sounds a lot more like it is from Texas.
I wonder how much of this gain by Obama can be attributed to his TV ads. It does provide at least a little support for the not so surprising proposition that campaigning, ads, and organizing can drive up your numbers when your opponent is silent. I tend to think you're right that Obama is close enough in most of the states he's advertising in that he will win if McCain ignores them completely.
As someone who grew up and lives in Texas, I have to say it doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard.
As someone who's lived in Florida, Texas and Colorado - Westerners do not have pronounceable accents. You kind of sound foolish when you poke fun at something that you know nothing about. It sounds like a deep southern accent to me, although I've definitely heard it in Texas too. Ack. Cheers.
I'd like to see Obama built momentum and blunt arguments to discredit him based on him saying he will refine his position on Iraq after talking to commanders by doing an ad of him clearly laying out this -- strongly but with subtlety and by stating quite clearly that he will always operate by looking at actual conditions.
3 things:
1) Your model currently shows Obama's win percentage at 69.1% to McCain's 30.9%. On Intrade, Obama gets 65.1% to McCain's 31.5%. Predictions markets are awfully good predictors, so this gives added credibility to your current model.
2) I made this graph a few days ago based on your state by state win percentages. It's supposed to be a better, smarter way of showing Safe/Likely/Leaning EVs. Unfortunately, I know very little about using excel to create graphs and wasn't really able to achieve my overall intent. Think you could take a look or improve on this? Current version is simple but there's room to make it better.
3) Could you possibly either bring back the cartogram or show the number of EVs for each state in the map to the right?
I live in Helena and I'm not really surprised that Obama is creeping up the polls here. Just driving around town I see an awful lot of Obama signs in front yards. I can only recall 2 or 3 signs for McCain.
McCain still has a lot of support, but Obama's supporters are clearly more vocal about it around here.
Oops, here's the link to that graph...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3228/2617413632_ec6ba564be_o.jpg
Left end represents safe McCain, right end represents safe Obama.
Dan in Denver:
I second that comment about the lack of accents in Montana.
I read a study some time ago that found the English spoken in Eastern Montana/Western North Dakot is the most accent-free version of English anywhere in the world.
Reposting a suggestion, Nate:
Do we get significantly different "Tipping Point" maps if you split them up for McCain/Obama wins? My guess is that we would see a much higher concentration amongst a few states for McCain and a more diffuse situation for Obama. Is that intuition along the right track?
I'm baffled as to how McCain is so close in the national polls if he is down huge in blue states and barely ahead/trailing in red and swing states.
Actually, McCain is up big in several states - Alabama, Louisiana for example. The deep red states where Obama is doing well - MT and likely the Dakotas, don't have that many people so frankly don't count much in terms of national polling.
Alex, I don't think it would really make a difference since Nate changed the algorithm to include only very close results a couple weeks ago.
Why did North Dakota seems to get a bigger "neighbor bounce" from Montana's poll than Wyoming did?
Not that I disagree, because being here in ND, 34% seems reasonable, but I'm curious as to why Wyoming remains only at 1%.
Is it because ND, like MT and unlike WY, is on Obama's list of 18 and is a campaign destination?
The only accent-free version of English is Sign Language.
(Off-topic, though, by now).
@Diggsby: I think, intrade may be influenced by Nate's predictions, so it may not be an independent confirmation of his numbers
Is it because ND, like MT and unlike WY, is on Obama's list of 18 and is a campaign destination?
I would say it's because North Dakota simply isn't quite as conservative a state as Wyoming is. Its people aren't quite as outdoorsy as Wyomingers, so gun control doesn't have the same effect there as a GOP scare tactic.
Plus, the moderation that comes with being a border state with Canada (not to mention liberal/libertarian Minnesota) must be taken into account.
I didn't realize that, Costa. However, I'm not sure that leaves us with an interesting map, either. By saying we only care which state tipped the election if the election is "close," we skew directly to a favorable-McCain scenario. By showing all possible Obama tips, we could visualize Obama's more numerous paths to victory.