9.18.2008

Colorado Rates as Most Important State

Today's polling update will likely show Obama moving back into the lead in the Electoral College, although not yet the popular vote. In advance of that, let's take a look at where the model has key states projected relative to the national trend. These figures include a number of polls from today that don't yet appear on the site.

First, the states where Obama is playing offense:

Obama Offense States
Iowa +5.8
New Mexico +5.4
Colorado +0.8
Ohio -0.9
Virginia -0.9
Nevada -1.6
Florida -2.9
Indiana -4.9
Missouri -5.0
These are all the Bush ('04) states where our projections presently have Obama finishing within at least 5 points of his national popular vote total. The margin indicated in each state is the difference between the projected finish in that state and the national popular vote projection.

Iowa and New Mexico still appear to be outside the range where they can really be considered to be swing states (although the new Big Ten poll shows a tie in the former). Obama could still lose one or both of these states -- but he is unlikely to lose the election because of them. Those states alone, however, are not enough to get Obama to 270 (or 269) Electoral Votes. He needs at least one more state, even if he holds all the Kerry states.

Colorado remains the best bet; it's projecting eight-tenths of a point better than Obama's national numbers. What that means is that, theoretically at least, Obama would still be expected to have a winning elecotral map if he lost the popular vote by 0.8 points. That is why Colorado is so essential; it is the state most likely to be involved in a split result between the popular vote and the Electoral College.

Ohio and Virginia constitute the next tier, but both are projected slightly behind Obama's national numbers. After that are Nevada and Florida, which are a bit further behind. Then the long-shots: Indiana, Missouri and -- just missing this list -- West Virginia and perhaps Montana.

Now, performing the same exercise for McCain:
McCain Offense States
New Hampshire -1.6
Michigan -3.1
Pennsylvania -3.5
Wisconsin -4.5
Minnesota -4.9
Although Obama's lead has bent in a couple of these states -- particularly Pennsylvania and New Hampshire -- it has not really broken, as all Kerry states are polling at least 1.6 points ahead of Obama's national average. However, we may be on the verge of seeing Michigan and Pennsylvania flip places, as Obama's polling has generally held up pretty well in Michigan while faltering in Pennsylvania. Wisconsin and Minnesota have also drawn closer, but with 4-5 points of difference still separating them from the national numbers, it is not clear that they are that are likely to form the tipping point in the election.

233 comments

jakam said...

You must have been typing fast...you spelled two states wrong ;)

sadman1485 said...

No mention of the new poll in Colorado that shows Obama +10?

dpldust said...

Excellent analysis. So if BO polls in pop vote over 1-2 pts, he likely swings CO and OH? But even if he is behind in pop national vote less than .9 he likely wins CO and hence the election.

I guess this is why a 3% popular vote shows a 97% chance of electoral college victory.

Excellent as usual.

Tarr said...

Which shows that the DNC made a very smart pick by putting the convention in Denver.

El Angelo said...

"Obama could still lose one or both of these states -- but he is unlikely to lose the election because of them."

Really? If he takes all the Kerry states + New Mexico + Colorado and doesn't flip Iowa, he loses. How is Colorado that much more important than Iowa? Does the model "bundle" the states together; i.e., it's unlikely he'll win Iowa because he's winning Minnesota/Wisconsin, etc.?

Jesse said...

Nate, I assume you'll be counting the following in today's update:

Big 10
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/18/big_ten_battleground_very_tight_race_in_midwestern_states.html

National Journal:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/18/national_journal_poll_key_red_states_may_flip.html

Scott said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Alex S. said...

Michigan is slightly moving towards Obama I think, but Pennsylvania is moving into tied territory. That state is probably the biggest threat to an Obama win at the moment. Virginia just had 2 heavily red polls with bad internals. I wouldn´t dismiss that state too quickly. And Colorado got a +10 Obama from Insider Advantage today, which probably has to be dismissed as an outlier, too. So I think Virginia and Colorado are on a somewhat even level. Ohio is, in my opinion, a rather erratic state. I am not sure if the Obama campaign feels particularly optimistic about it - they said they prefer Florida anyway.
Although the polls there are close Minnesota and Wisconsin will not be red in November. Minnesota will get lots of new young voters, and Wisconsin was close 4 years ago, will be this year, too.. but Obama will stay ahead. I am surprised though about the difference between Wisconsin and Indiana in respect to the proximity of Chicago. It seems it makes all the difference in Indiana, but none at all in Wisconsin.

Nick said...

Just what we've all knew all along, McCain's convention bounce has faded, the novelty of Palin has come to light and Obama is back in the driver's seat. The economy is the most important issue of this election cycle and when the campain is fought on that "can't remember my houses orknow about the economy" McCain is toast.

judas_priest said...

El Angelo:

What you say is technically true, but as a practical matter every other recent poll in Iowa has shown Obama ahead, and the scenario you envision is unlikely. If MCain gets Iowa he probably won't need it to win.

Glad to be back here posting. I had a flare up of an old injury and couldn't sit for any length of time at a computer. I'm still limited, but a lot better than I was at this time last week.

Jeff said...

I'm in Colorado, and had two pollsters call my house already. One of them was looking for women specifically. I am guessing the tight race is because downtown Denver is at odds with the Colorado Springs area, and rural parts of the state. The liberal Denver population isn't enough to overwhelm the rest of the state, and so it comes down to the suburbs, which are pretty evenly split. I checked my county web site yesterday (Arapahoe) and there are 106,000 Democrats registered, 110,000 Republicans, and 107,000 unaffiliated.

Nate Silver said...

No, this update did not include the InsiderAdvantage polls (including the O+10 in Colorado). It did include the Big 10 and National Journal polls.

Burt said...

Hey Nate, since this is the first release of the Big Ten poll, how are you going to decide how to rate them?

Vanessa said...

Anybody on this post ever been polled on a cell phone?

Vanessa said...

Yeh nate what did you think of the Big Ten Polls?

don't panic said...

el angelo,
i assume the point was that if it comes to the point that he loses iowa, it won't really matter because he would have lost already anyway by losing some of the "kerry" states.

John D. said...

I'm curious as to why the model is putting Wisconsin so far back in the pack. In 2004, I believe that Wisconsin was the closest state on the Board with a 0.38% margin (closer than either Iowa or New Mexico.) In 2000, the margin was even closer - only 0.22%, but it was third-closest on the board behind New Mexico and of course, Florida. The thing is, if I remember the polls from 2004 - I don't think that anyone really had Wisconsin being that close. Is there something about Wisconsin that makes the polls funny? In 2004, Bush finished -1.4% from his Naitonal Number and -0.2% from his National Number in 2000. All this suggests to me that it is actually a pretty bold prediction to suggest that McCain will finish -4.5% off his national number in Wisconsin - and it might be something to look into taking into account in future iterations of the model.

Chris said...

Nate,

If it doesn't, the win% figure should weight ties by the probability of each party controlling a majority of states in the House. So if Dems have a 90% chance of doing so, Obama should win 90% of all ties, etc.

Darío said...

McCain is more likely in PA than MI.
And it´s obvious, PA is more conservative than MI. If you take the 2004 election you see that MI rural counties are much less conservatives than PA rural areas.

Trevor said...

john D--here's the poll history for WI in 2004:

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Graphs/wisconsin.html

It was close at times, although Bush opened up a 14-point lead at the height of the RNC/Swift Boat bounce.

DarienCrow said...

Let's play a game...

Do you know who I am?

I am under 45 years old.

I love the outdoors.

I am an avid hunter.

I am a Republican reformer.

I have taken on the Republican Party establishment.

I have several children.

I have been the Governor of my state for less than two years.

I am the Vice Presidential nominee for the Republican Party.

Do you know who am I?

DarienCrow said...

I think Google is having a trffic problem right about now.

DarienCrow said...

Give up?

Darío said...

The RCP toss-ups:


State Obama (D) McCain (R) RCP Average RCP Status 2004 2000
Colorado (9) 47.3 44.8 Obama +2.5 Toss Up Bush +4.7 Bush +8.4
Ohio (20) 45.1 46.6 McCain +1.5 Toss Up Bush +2.1 Bush +3.5
Michigan (17) 47.3 45.0 Obama +2.3 Toss Up Kerry +3.4 Gore +5.2
Pennsylvania (21) 46.8 45.5 Obama +1.3 Toss Up Kerry +2.5 Gore +4.2
Virginia (13) 45.4 47.7 McCain +2.3 Toss Up Bush +8.2 Bush +8.1
Nevada (5) 44.6 45.6 McCain +1.0 Toss Up Bush +2.6 Bush +3.5
Minnesota (10) 47.0 45.7 Obama +1.3 Toss Up Kerry +3.5 Gore +2.4
Wisconsin (10) 47.3 45.0 Obama +2.3 Toss Up Kerry +0.4 Gore +0.2
Indiana (11) 45.0 47.3 McCain +2.3 Toss Up Bush +20.7 Bush +15.7
New Hampshire (4) 48.0 44.7 Obama +3.3 Toss Up Kerry +1.3 Bush +1.3

Alex S. said...

Well, it certainly isn´t Sarah Palin because she isn´t a Republican reformer.

Mike said...

Pennsylvania will not turn red. McCain has been pushing heavily here and has only been able to get within 2 or 3 points, just like Bush.

Those last 2 or 3 points are exponentially harder to turn.

Democrats have picked up a half-million new voters in the last 4 years. Plus, Philly turnout is going to be huge.

DarienCrow said...

My name is Theodore Roosevelt and the year is 1900.

Sedi said...

If this election comes down to PA, then I feel very, very good about it. Yes, I know that McCain has a chance there, but I don't think it's a very good one. He hasn't led in any respectable poll during the summer or fall, Kerry won the state by a couple of points, and the suburbs around Philly have been trending blue. Traditionally, those suburbs decide PA elections, and all of the reports that I have seen or read suggest that many there are very upset with Bush and are trending Democratic. If Obama wins Philly and its suburbs, all he has to do is keep Pittsburgh tied and he'll win the state.

Nicholas said...

I like how trying to win elections is "taking on the Republican Party establishment."

JJ said...

Wow! I never thought Colorado would have so much weight.

When I lived in Colorado Springs it was very republican with the AFB and L Martin, Peterson AFB.

But Boulder on the other hand weighs things even a bit. I'm still on the fence about this one, but I've been making phone calls to those who live in Colorado. So far I'm 32/41 which isn't to bad for me : D

jakam said...

I am surprised though about the difference between Wisconsin and Indiana in respect to the proximity of Chicago. It seems it makes all the difference in Indiana, but none at all in Wisconsin.

Northwest Indiana is connected to Chicago directly...it lies within Chicago's census defined urban area.

With Wisconsin, there is a further distance...Chicago's census defined urban area doesn't extend to Wisconsin. Plus, Milwaukee is its own market. Gary isn't.

Sedi said...

"the year is 1900."

Given your political philosophy, I find it totally plausible that you believe that it is 1900.

Marc said...

@Darien:

Depends, were you also a Phi Beta Kappa and a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard? Do you have military experience as a lieutenant colonel in a major war? Are you on your way to a Nobel Peace Prize?

...if so, I'd say you're Teddy Roosevelt. If not, I'd say you're an inexperienced, unqualified piece of window dressing and an insult to the intelligence of voters everywhere.

Marc said...

Oh, and PS, if Palin = Teddy Roosevelt, then Obama = Lincoln. As long as we're making specious historical analogies, let's be even-handed, huh?

Mike said...

I live in the Philadelphia suburbs. I can tell you that the yard signs outnumber McCain 8-1 at least.

I think I've seen a *total* of maybe 10 McCain bumper stickers in the last few months. Compared to at least a dozen or two Obama stickers every day on my commute.

Hell, there are still more W'04 bumper stickers than McCain stickers.

Jason P. said...

All in all a good polling day for Obama, save the ties in Iowa and Pennsylvania.

Vern said...

Interesting side topic. Is there a practical limit on how wide the popular vote difference can be and still have a decent chance of the EC going the other way.

1% 2% how high could the pop vote difference really get and not force the EC along with it?

tomthress said...

"Are you on your way to a Nobel Peace Prize?"

This is a little bit much. TR won his Nobel Prize for work that he did as President, which, in 1900 was far, far in the future. That'd be like saying that Sarah Palin's no Teddy Roosevelt because her face isn't on Mt. Rushmore.

DarienCrow said...

Okay Marc if Obama is Abraham Lincoln he must have said:

"The government that does everything for you is the government that can take everything from you"

Sound about right?

Maxwell said...

Agreed, DarienCrow. It's shameful what the republican party has become since 1900. In the aughts I would have been a proud republican. Now they just masquerade underqualified, corrupt and power-hungry opportunists as reformers.

Sedi said...

Vern,
Nate posted on this a while back (if you click on the words "popular vote" on the left it will probably be one of the oldest posts). A 3% popular vote lead translates into a 97% winning percentage. Once it reaches a 4% popular vote spread, winning is a lock.

Jason P. said...

Vern, I think Nate did a piece on that exact topic. The chances fall exponentially after a point or two. At a 3pt differential, it's virtually impossible to lose the popular vote while winning the electoral college.

Cugel said...

Colorado is the fulcrum of the nation and Denver and Boulder counties are the pivot of the state. Both are Democratic leaning, balancing the conservative Republican bent of rural and western counties.

El Paso county (Pueblo) is also Democratic.

The key for Obama will be racking up enough of a lead in Denver county to offset expected losses in Arapahoe and Jefferson counties (Repubican suburbs) as well as Colorado Springs (which is evangelical wing-nuttia).

The Obama GOTV efforts, especially among black and Hispanic Denver area voters will be central to his efforts. He's racking up registration gains here, but he has to get these voters to the polls on election day or make sure they get absentee ballots for early voting.

One advantage Obama has is that with early voting in Colo, he can figure out how his GOTV efforts are going and where remaining targetable voters are hiding out.

This is quite labor intensive of course, but it's central to any serious effort for him to win the state.

One stat worthy of notice is that Democratic Party ID here has increased to a virtual tie with Republicans, as opposed to the Republican +3 voter ID in 2004 that fueled the Bush win here.

Pollsters are ubiquitous as weeds in Denver county and I get repeated campaign calls.

FreeThinker said...

Some interesting price moves on intrade as of 12:45 PDT:

State Dem Rep
OH +8.5 -14.4
NC +9.1 -9.5
NV +5.7 -9.7
IN +8.0 -5.0
NM +8.4 0.0
FL +4.8 -2.4
MH +3.5 -3.3
MN +5.4 0.0
VA -2.0 -7.0
MT +4.3 0.0
CO +3.0 -0.6
OR -2.4 3.8
US +1.3 -2.4
(Sorry, the formating didn't come through.)

Josh said...

Holy crap! Teddy Roosevelt is posting on this blog!

What a wondrous age in which we live!

Tito said...

Wow, semi-regular updates. I hope this is a new trend.

Grant Henninger said...

Theoretical question: What happens in PA if McCain dumps Palin and goes with Ridge as his VP? Clearly this would cause too many parts to move to realistically model, but I would think it would put PA into the +5 range for McCain.

(Just as a note, I don't think McCain will do this. I'm just asking a "what if".)

Marc said...

@ darien:

Hey, I said BOTH analogies were specious - they both are oversimplifications based on a series of largely meaningless similarities. I don't for a second think Obama is Lincoln, and I don't think you sincerely think for a second Palin is Roosevelt. My point was, what's good for the goose is good for the gander - citing silly coincidences is a lazy argumentative tactic.

Adam said...

Darien,

You say you're 49 but those are arguments middle schoolers would make.

Surely you know better.

Maxwell said...

Grant: I believe PA would move farther towards obama, losing your VP is just too much to recover from in any state that is remotely close to swinging. Had he picked ridge in the first place it may have been competitive.

foobar said...

Rove sees Colorado as a key state for Obama:

"Based on visits this past week with party leaders and old pros, it's clear that Barack Obama will focus on Colorado and Virginia. Both have large concentrations of white, college-educated voters with whom Mr. Obama is popular. And both have seen Democrats surge recently."

August 14, 2008
http://rove.com/articles/48

Darío said...

Iowa isn´t in play.
McCain doesn´t win a poll in IA in this year.

Ron said...

Nate, the CNU Virginia poll is absolute bunk. The poll sampled only 10% African Americans (half of what Virginia actually has), and the age demographics are screwed -- 18-30 y.o. voters constitute only 3% of the sample. Bad, bad, bad poll.

The National Journal poll also seems to be weighted incorrectly based on the numbers, but perhaps you can get those internals somewhere. I couldn't find 'em. [They have Obama getting 91% of Dems and 28% of indys (with 30% of indys undecided) yet scoring only 41% of the vote. That can't be right in today's Virginia.]

cafam said...

Which Western state splits the EC vote - is it Nebraska? What about Iowa, New Mexico and ONE SINGLE EV from Nebraska, and we get to 270? Of course, too tight for comfort, but that is a scenario, right!

DarienCrow said...

Adam...

It wasn't an arguement.

I thought the similarities are entertaining.

You guys need to lighten up and have some fun.

Darío said...

The results from Philadelphia county in 2004 (includes the city of Philadelphia and suburbs).


Philadelphia. Kerry: 80.4% 542,205 votes. Bush: 19.3% 130,099 votes

EmonOkari said...

I'm not too smart, so I need to ask this question:

Does 'Florida = -2.9' mean that Obama most likely needs around a +3% National Lead to have a 50-50 chance at tipping Florida? Am I understanding the generics of the post correctly?

Andy said...

The Colorado poll showing Obama +10 is probably an outlier, as other people have pointed out.

But if it isn't, if more polls show Obama with a decent lead in Colorado, the election is effectively over. Obama doesn't need Ohio or Virginia or Florida.

Vern said...

This whole thing seems to come down to party affiliation.

SurveyUSA in NM had theirs at 37%R, 48%D, 13%I and it led to a 8 point BHO lead. Ras does the same state but adjusts to his 33.6R, 38.7D and 27.7I and it's a tie or small McCain lead.

This election is really about who is going to go vote, not who they are going to vote for. The best polls are going to be the ones that can best predict who will vote - based on history, their survey questions, whatever.

tomthress said...

"The Colorado poll showing Obama +10 is probably an outlier, as other people have pointed out.

But if it isn't, if more polls show Obama with a decent lead in Colorado, the election is effectively over. Obama doesn't need Ohio or Virginia or Florida."

It is (most likely) an "outlier" in the sense that it's very unlikely that Obama's really winning CO by 10 points. But it's still informative, because it's much more likely that this poll is overstating a true 2-3 point Obama lead by 7-8 points than that it's overstating a true 2-point McCain lead by 12 points.

It's similar to the NC poll(s) that showed McCain up by 20. He's probably not up by 20, but you don't get polls that show a candidate up by 20 points when he's not actually winning the state.

John M. said...

Not much of substance to say other than that I agree with Nate here.

McCain has to pry loose PA/MI or hold CO (and VA, which should be easier) to win the election. I don't have a lot of confidence in his ability to do the former. There's only 1 MI poll where McCain actually leads since May and that was at the peak of his bounce. There are no PA polls where he leads and the registration numbers have been absolutely terrible for Republicans in the state.

John M. said...

Not much of substance to say other than that I agree with Nate here.

McCain has to pry loose PA/MI or hold CO (and VA, which should be easier) to win the election. I don't have a lot of confidence in his ability to do the former. There's only 1 MI poll where McCain actually leads since May and that was at the peak of his bounce. There are no PA polls where he leads and the registration numbers have been absolutely terrible for Republicans in the state.

DarienCrow said...

Here gang... don't read this while your drinking. You'll spray your monitor.

A man boarded an airplane and took his seat. As he settled in, he glanced up and saw the most beautiful woman boarding the plane.

He soon realized she was heading straight towards his seat.

As fate would have it, she took the seat right beside his.

Eager to strike up a conversation he blurted out, 'Business trip or pleasure?'

She turned, smiled and said, 'Business. I'm going to the Annual Nymphomaniacs of America Convention in Boston'

He swallowed hard. Here was the most gorgeous woman he had ever seen sitting next to him, and she was going to a meeting of nymphomaniacs.

Struggling to maintain his composure, he calmly asked,

'What's your business role at this convention?'

'Lecturer,' she responded. 'I use information that I have learned from my personal experiences to debunk some of the popular myths about sexuality.'

'Really?' he said. 'And what kind of myths are there?'

'Well,' she explained, 'one popular myth is that African-American men are the most well-endowed of all men, when in fact it is the Native American Indian who is most likely to possess that trait.

Another popular myth is that Frenchmen are the best lovers, when actually it is men of Jewish descent who are the best.

I have also discovered that the lover with absolutely the best stamina is the Southern Redneck.'

Suddenly the woman became a little uncomfortable and blushed.

'I'm sorry,' she said, 'I shouldn't really be discussing all of this with you. I don't even know your name.'

'Tonto,' the man said, 'Tonto Goldstein, but my friends call me Bubba.'

sugerfunk said...

I grew up in Jersey and I know Pennsylvania pretty well (I've driven across the state several times and spent time in many of the different areas). There is no chance in hell that John McCain wins the state.

The Republicans have lost hundreds of thousands from their registration rolls, and the Democrats have gained hundreds of thousands, and I can assure you they weren't all added only to vote for Hillary. And although his primary loss in Pennsylvania was hyped through the roof, he did get over 45% of the vote there.

Pennsylvania gets hit HARD when the economy falters with its rust belt economy and crumbling cities. And I can assure you -- in this election, Philly will turn out like never before. Obama could easily gain a hundred thousand votes over Kerry's totals in that city alone.

Mark my words: There is NO way McCain wins Pennsylvania this year. Not a chance. If he does, I'll eat my hat.

Disclaimer: All bets are off if the live boy/dead girl scenario materializes.

Mark said...

EmonOkari - that's how I understood it. Or, a 2.9% notional lead, since 3% would theoretically deliver it for him.

Of course, that number could change by November.

FreeThinker said...

GH - McC loses his base.

EmonOkari said...

Thanks Mark. All this math and numbers gives me 'pain in the brain'. =^)

Jeff Kuta said...

Am I missing something? The Obama vs McCain Projection at the top shows McCain winning 280 to 258. Colorado is in red, but it's only worth 9 EVs. That's not enough to capture the electoral college. Now, if Obama is also going after Nevada, which is worth 5 and similar enough to Colorado demographically, then I could see this being a viable "Western" strategy.

Josh said...

cafam - Obama really only needs 269 as he'd win a tie (Dems control congress)

Marie said...

dariencrow, that was totally off-topic but made me smile :)

judas_priest said...

I agree with Marc on the argument by analogy, but even taking it at face value, by 1900 TR had served several terms in the NY Assembly, served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy (and essentially ran the cabinet department) and had commanded troops in battle. Oh yes, he had also served on the US Civil Service Commission (a big deal in those days) and had authored two history books, one of which remained the standard work on the subject for many years.
[Facts from Wikipedia entry on Roosevelt]

You can't resist tinkering with facts even in an analogy, can you [Eat] Crow?

And the reference to 1900 reminds us again why the qualifications or the VP are very imprtant. (McKinley was assassinated six months after assuming office. (The presidents were not sworn in until March in those days.)

Marie said...

Prediction: PA will ultimately go to Obama (check polling history). If, however, it does not, my guess is it will be largely attributable to turnout - either an underperformance on the Dems' part, or an energized turnout on the Reps', or some combination of the two.

I also predict the final margin will be 1.0-2.0%.

Darío said...

If McCain wins PA, he will win the election. If Obama wins Ohio, Obama will win the election.
It´s simple.

Vanessa said...

"Theoretical question: What happens in PA if McCain dumps Palin and goes with Ridge as his VP? Clearly this would cause too many parts to move to realistically model, but I would think it would put PA into the +5 range for McCain. "

Grant,
He cannot dump Palin although I believe she will continue to be a liability. The less peoeple talk about her in the news, the less this protective shield she is enjoying from the media makes sense as a defense to shield her from the sexist wolves that are the Media and the Obama Campaign.

Hypothetically speaking though, if he were to instead take Ridge, he would probably end up Losing North Dakota South Dakota, Alaska, West Virginia, Nevada along with all those Evangelical Conservatives in the south that he enlivened with his disastrous pick. Probably doesnt help him at this point. He's stuck in a precarious situation.

Marc said...

Anyone else want to just forward their Inbox directly into the comments window?

What I'd like to see on this site is some formal measure poll variability, as opposed to just means...a "wildcard" factor if you will. We've seen crazy discrepancies between polls from FL, OH, IN, VA, etc (the most erratic of all is probably NC, but since all polls are showing McCain up the "wildcard" factor would be pretty negligible). If we could correlate that variability with demographics of the individual polls and past turnout figures, a clearer picture might emerge. Thoughts? Would this add a dimension to the picture that's meaningful in any way?

judas_priest said...

Dario,

Unless they've changed the boundaries since I lived there, Philadelphia county was the City of Philadelphia and nothing else. I grew up in Mongomery County close enough to the city that I could walk to the boundary.

Darío said...

Portland Tribune Oregon.

Obama 50
McCain 40

The Mac dream to win Oregon and WA is out.

Sedi said...

Dario,
My understanding (having lived there for 8 years) is that Philadelphia county only includes the city. Now, there are a lot of neighborhoods in Philly that were incorporated many decades ago, but the actual suburbs aren't in Philly. They are in Montgomery, Bucks, Delaware and Chester counties. If I recall correctly, Clinton won the PA primary because she (collectively) won these counties.

Antmatic said...

As a rule, the Obama campaign likes states where it believes it has more of its "type" of voters that it needs to reach as opposed to states with large numbers of "swing" voters. The Obama campaign is very good at locating and motivating voters that are already predisposed to it; it is not as good at convincing skeptical voters to vote for Obama.

This is why i think states like Colorado and VA (with a lot of Obama type voters) and to a lesser extent Indiana and Florida will be better pickup opportunities than a states like Ohio. There are a lot of Obama type voters in CO and VA, and apparently they exist in Indiana and Florida as well. It's pretty amazing to me that Obama has polled better in Indiana than in Ohio in some cases. He did a lot better in the Indiana primary than he did in the Ohio primary, so maybe its just a better state for him.

That said, this also means Obama is vulnerable in MI, PA, and maybe WI and needs to put in work there.

tomthress said...

"Am I missing something? The Obama vs McCain Projection at the top shows McCain winning 280 to 258."

Jeff, the EV numbers up at the top are averages across scenarios. If Obama is the favorite in CO, then he's the favorite in states that would give him the majority of Electoral Votes (Kerry's 252 + IA(7) + NM(5) + CO(9) = 273).

Beyond that, I think right now in Nate's model, McCain has slightly better odds of picking off Obama states (MI, PA, NH, maybe MN, WI) than Obama has of picking off McCain states (OH, VA, maybe FL, IN), which pushes up McCain's "expected" EVs (and his win percentage). But this is probably all going to change tonight when Nate suggests Obama is probably going to move back in front.

Josh said...

Obama does not necessarily need Ohio. He can win without with Colorado, or Florida, or Virginia. All are possibilities.

Of course yes, I agree if Obama DOES win Ohio it's pretty unlikely he loses the election. It's hard to envision a situation where Obama wins Ohio and loses the election.

And I'll also agree it's hard to imagine McCain winning PA and losing the election.

Antmatic said...

Dario

It looks like its plausible that Obama wins OH but loses PA based on some polls we've seen. Not likely but plausibe.

johnsonct5 said...

DarienCrow,
The irony of Teddy Roosevelt is that he was put up as VP to get rid of him - marginalize him - becuase the party bosses did not care for him. McKinley's assassination was his (and our) lucky break. He didn't know ehn to "leave the party" as evidenced by the bull moose fiasco.

Sara Palin is not in the Teddy Roosevelt mold. Although I she may not know when to leave the party either.

Amy said...

I live outside of Lancaster, PA and work closer to Philly and my husband works right on the main line headed to Philly. While all my neighbors will be voting McCain, if they vote at all, my KKK neighbor will, for sure, who knows about the rest, but Mike is right... Obama signs and stickers are at least 10 to 1 to McCain. There's no way we're not going to deliver PA for McCain. I know this means nothing to any of you, but even my father, MY FATHER, is going Obama this year. I found this out last night and am still in complete shock. If my dad's going Obama, you can bet the state's going Obama.

Annaimports said...

Hello, just dropped in to checkout your blog and also introduce our Grand Opening for www.annaimports.com . We offer the ultimate superb selection wholesale of handbags, purses, wallet, Quilted bag, with the highest quality and the absolute lowest prices and that's a promise. We extend our invitation for you to stop on by and check our website out at : www.annaimports.com Thank you and have a great day!

Vanessa said...

amy I'm interested in why your father hasn't voted in the last few elections?

Scott said...

Strategic Vision (R) with Obama +4 in New Jersey and +5 in Washington; polls conducted on 9/14-9/16 .

Citizen Grim said...

Is the U.S. moving to the left while the rest of the world moves right?

In the UK Conservatives lead Labour and Lib Dems by 52% - 24% - 12% respectively, and are consolidating ties with the successful conservative leaders of Germany (Merkel) and France (Sarkozy).

Canada is set to reelect its Conservative party to a great majority in Parliament.

Heck, even lefty New Zealand is getting tired of Labour, preferring the conservative Nationals by 47% to 36% in recent polling.


Odds are, the U.S. is trending rightward, too, and the 4-year Obama presidency (much like that of Carter) will be a blip on the radar.

If he even wins at all.

Darío said...

Antimatic, forgot Michigan.
This is the most progressive rusbelt state.
The popularity of Bush there is one of the worst in the country.

tomthress said...

"Is the U.S. moving to the left while the rest of the world moves right?"

Wouldn't this just be a case of both sides moving toward the middle? I was under the impression that - Republican cries of "Socialist!" notwithstanding - Obama would actually fall on the right or center-right in most of the rest of the world.

Vanessa said...

Obama is much more conservative than George W. Bush Mr. Grim.

See you've been convinced by Karl and friends that "abortion, guns and taxes" make a conservative.

George Bush has grown this government larger than it's ever been in the past. As compared to G-Dub Obama is conservative. That's why he will win.

John said...

Rasmussen New Jersey poll:

Obama 55
McBush 42

not a swing state

Cugel said...

Maxwell, historically, the Republican party in the 19th and early 20th centuries was the party of reform politics.

Teddy Roosevelt campaigned using language that would be considered wildly radical today beyond what even Dennis Kuchinich dares:

"I believe in a larger use of the governmental power to help remedy industrial wrongs, because it has been borne in on me by actual experience that without the exercise of such power many of the wrongs will go unremedied."

A Teddy Roosevelt in 2008 would never get within 100 miles of election. The media would denounce him as a lunatic revolutionary:

In 1912 he favored: increasing the rights of labor unions to organize, women's rights including the right to vote, federally mandated industrial standards, wages and hours and working conditions, the eight hour day and an end to child labor, and he even favored a constitutional amendment to enable a plebicite of the voters to overturn any S.Ct. opposition to progressive laws.

Teddy Roosevelt on the Republican party:

"When the . . bosses in control of the Republican party. .last June stole the nomination and wrecked the Republican party for good and all - I want to point out to you that nominally they stole that nomination from me, but it was really from you. They did not like me, and the longer they live the less cause they will have to like me. But while they don't like me, they dread you. You are the people that they dread.

They dread the people themselves, and those bosses and the big special interests behind them made up their mind that they would rather see the Republican party wrecked than see it come under the control of the people themselves. So I am not dealing with the Republican party. There are only two ways you can vote this year. You can be progressive or reactionary. Whether you vote Republican or Democratic it does not make a difference, you are voting reactionary."


For McCain to call himself "a Teddy Roosevelt Republican" is like Hitler calling himself a Rabbi. He would be considered a radical leftist if alive today.

Scott said...

Does McCain saying he'd fire the SEC chair as President, even though the President can't do that, count as a gaffe?

My heart tells me yes, but my brain is telling me no.

Darío said...

This country will never go to the left. The Constitution is center-right.
With Obama or McCain the USA will continue to be a center-right country.

Jeff Kuta said...

"Jeff, the EV numbers up at the top are averages across scenarios. If Obama is the favorite in CO, then he's the favorite in states that would give him the majority of Electoral Votes (Kerry's 252 + IA(7) + NM(5) + CO(9) = 273)."

Thanks for the clarification. I guess averaging works, but it makes it slightly confusing to look at a map with discrete EV blocs to think about.

Sedi said...

"Strategic Vision (R) with Obama +4 in New Jersey and +5 in Washington"

These must be very encouraging polls for McCain. Ignore the Rasmussen poll of NJ-- he is a Democratic hack. I think that McCain should devote half of his remaining time and resources to these two states. I'm sure that he can get one of them to flip.

Scott said...

Ignore the Rasmussen poll of NJ-- he is a Democratic hack.

Are you being serious?

Mark said...

The Constitution is center right? What does that even mean?

quantman said...

Fellow posters:

- Please again do not lose the forest for the trees

- This election WILL be decided based on what's been happening and will happen with the financial markets and housing/mortgages.

- Bush's team has BUSTED this economy waiting and doing 11th hour reactive stuff again and again, when large financial institutions had no other alternatives and were on the brink of bankruptcy

***** This news about an RTC type plan for solving this mess by buying the losing mortgage by the Govt and us (taken as a whole) buying this mess, and trying to work it out in the Long RUN will be very difficult to make happen.

-- First Congress and Bush admin have different plans and they have to come to an agreement. This will take time.

-- When agreed it will take time to implement

--IN the interim, more banks and other companies will go bust, Washington Mutual will go bust quite soon!

-- So much damage has been done already, in other countries as well, AND this broken humpty dumpty will be very very difficult to put together. BUT we have to try this!

-- IF you guys have investments and see the market taking off in the next few days, you might want to think about selling (after things go up) and stay on the sidelines.

-- I believe this mess with the markets will continue to create and produces big problems on a daily basis, LIKE the money market funds who are having problems and a couple are putting a hold on withdrawals.

If you saw the 400 point up move in the market, you could reach a wrong conclusion.

SuperstarJ2ThaR said...

Are you being serious?

I don't think she is. I do, however, think that she is hoping a couple of dumb key McCain strategists read her posts and agree. ;)

Vote said...

Sept 18 Polling Update

Their Possible Pasts

Cindy McCain's Fallacious Rebuttal

The Red November: An analysis on campaign marketing

sugerfunk said...

Yeah, I'm a little lost on the center-right Constitution comment. That's like saying that the Magna Carta was fascist doctrine.

Michael said...

Hey, what happened to your coverage of the senate polling? There's been no change in your senate sidebar for weeks. I know there hasn't been that much polling but that was really good coverage. I would love to see it come back.

Thanks,

Mike

Alan said...

Hey I'm from Ireland and have always been really interested in US elections. You really do have them like no-one else! Just wanted to pose a question generally.

If Obama wins what chances does everyone give him getting a second term considering the economic climate and the mess the Bush administration will leave behind?

I know I'm bypassing the central question we're all analysing here (the 08 election), but just interested in your views.

Cheers!

InkStain said...

"It looks like its plausible that Obama wins OH but loses PA based on some polls we've seen. Not likely but plausibe."

What polls make it plausible that he loses Pennsylvania in a close national election (i.e. one where he wins Ohio)?

The *only* poll McCain has led Pennsylvania was from the infamous pollster that put Obama up five in Arizona.

Sedi said...

"Are you being serious?"

I would seriously like for McCain to campaign in NJ. Does that count?

judas_priest said...

Citizen Grim:

The fact that the relatively conservative parties are leading in those countries does not mean they are conservative in the American sense. The positions they advocate are signficantly to the left of where the US Republican party is today.

The US is today the only major industrialized western country without some form of universal health care. Germany (well, it started in Prussia) adopted a comprehensive (although not universal) insurance in 1883. That's 125 years, people. None of the "parties of the right" in those countries is talking about removing such programs.

Hell, if the Republican Party today were still a party of Tom McCall, Dan Evans and similar Governors, I'd be a Republican. (For those of you not up on their political history, they were governors in OR and WA a generation ago.)

markymark said...

tomthres,

interesting question. I think one thing that has happened is a certain level of anti-incumbency mood, and in many other countries, reletively progressive governments have felt the full force of that. (Though Australia remains a step ahead of America by replacing an unpopular conservative by a progressive, Kevin Rudd.)

But there is an interesting Historical mirror to all of this. In much of the world in the 1980s, more leftward governments were being elected (Mitterand in France, Hawke in Australia, some other smaller countries as well) but USA went rightward. (Britain and West Germany also swang right, after a leftish period).

Scott said...

I would seriously like for McCain to campaign in NJ. Does that count?

;) gotcha

Kevin said...

Nate, excellent anaylysis.

Latinos in CO/NM/NV will win Obama the election (otf...thanks for the stats in yesterday's blog). Kerry + IA/NM/CO is still a very viable path: even if Obama loses BOTH FL and OH. MI/PA/WI/MN are staying in the Dem column even if by the smallest margins (think states that voted Dem the last 4 prez elections will flip in this economic/political environment?).

This notwithstanding, if we are still talking about the economy in most of the news cycles over the next 7 weeks, even OH & FL will be in serious play ("Bubba vote" needs a paycheck too). Don't think that the economic situation won't make IN, NC, & MO a bit more pink/purple leading into 11/4? VA by itself can be an early election night gamechanger.

The bottom line is that Obama still has multiple paths to 270. Iowa, and possibly NM are already gone for McCain. McCain has to defend ALL of the remaining tossups that Bush won in 2004.
Palin cannot carry him for 6 weeks (I'm sure most saw her "non-answer" answer to the women's Q on foreign policy in yesterday's town hall - scary).

If Obama keeps the momentum into next Friday and does well in the debate, the 2 - 3 point lead will hold thru election day (good enough to mitigate 1 - 2 points of the over-hyped "Bradley Effect." When people start talking this up along with the winter/spring reprises of Wright/Ayers/Rezko, you know McCain supporters are getting nervous).

Obama 273-265 is the EV floor.

InkStain said...

"The *only* poll McCain has led Pennsylvania was from the infamous pollster that put Obama up five in Arizona."

Lemme specify that again, because I got called on it earlier:

The only poll McCain has led Pennsylvania since April.

InkStain said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Amy said...

@Vanessa - Oh, my father has voted. There's no doubt about that. But he voted Bush twice. In '04 we went at it like cats and dogs. I told him that Bush bought him for $600. I called him the night before the election bawling and begging him not to vote for Bush. That conversation ended with a phone being slammed down in my ear. But this year, oh THIS YEAR, he's going for Obama. Maybe it's because he's worried about the economy and his 401K because he's going to be 60 in December. Maybe it's because after working for the same company for 40 years he's spent the last 6 months packing his equipment up and sending it to Japan and training them how to do his job, maybe it's just that his daughter is now 30 and he takes her thoughts and opinions and world views more seriously. Maybe he's finally realized that race doesn't ACTUALLY matter. I don't know, but whatever the reason, my almost 60 year old, old-fashioned, raised in the era of racism father is going for Obama. And I could not be prouder.

Darío said...

Obama 273-265 is the RCP electoral map.

InkStain said...

"McCain has to defend ALL of the remaining tossups that Bush won in 2004. "

Or pick off Michigan or Pennsylvania. I don't think it's likely, but if I'm McCain I could easily fool myself into believing it's doable.

Darío said...

Forgot Michigan people.
This is the most progressive rusbelt state.
The popularity of Bush there is one of the worst in the country.

Amy said...

@alan - No one can fix in one term the problems in this country. If Obama follows through on what he says he will do, gets this country to do an about face, get the programs in motion that he says he's going to get in motion and does it with little or no tax burden on the middle class like he promises... you can guarantee a re-election.

Andrew said...

Good analysis Nate. If in half a week, Ohio is still running behind the national numbers in favor of McCain, I would downgrade it to a fourth tier. Next week, at least temporarily, the main issues will involve foreign policy, which should swing Ohio further away from Obama. The next chance he get's to bring Ohio up in front of the national numbers (or at least paralleling the national numbers because I don't think it will run in front) would be at the domestic policy debate on Long Island, a week before the election. As much as the Obama supporters have been worried about the last few weeks of polling (I was one of the more apprehensive ones), there hasn't been a Kerry State in the top 4 tipping point states for more than 2 days at a time. I would expect that to change. Of course, we'll have to wait and see what the economic issues do to Pennsylvania and Michigan, but I'm willing to bet we get a decent mixture of tipping point states at the top. Namely, Colorado, Virginia, Michigan and Pennsylvania. This would put Obama on offense and defense, something we haven't seen of late even with the 'Palin Surge.' So I would expect this in a week after the first debate, not now. Further, I think we'll see a few weeks we're the gallup tracker sways back and forth from +2 Obama to +2 McCain daily until the third debate and a week before the election. I don't remember the last time that happened (though I'm pretty sure it has), but from what I've seen Obama is not out of the woods yet. I do think he'll be the favorite, in EV terms, once you update the model tonight. I would still put it at 70/30 that he's losing the popular vote.

markymark said...

Actually the constitution is a very liberal document (espcially if you just take the Constituion itself and the Bill of rights). It guarantees individual freedoms, and sets up limits to the governments powers, and strict balances to secure its fairness.

bryen193 said...

I'll keep saying it - every dollar that McCain sends down the Pennsylvania sinkhole is a wasted one. If he wanted a Kerry state, he should have named Mitt Romney early, dropped him in Michigan (where the dem party machinery is weaker than in PA) and not let him out of the state for a minute. McCain is now stuck with the Bush map. That's his roll of the dice - banking on holding VA and CO.

markymark said...

Does anyone else miss the fact that there aren't trolls telling us that McCain is abouit to win a landslide, despite the fact the polls have him less far ahead than Obama was 2 weeks ago? Ah well small privce to pay for the nation coming to its senses.

couchpotatoxxx12 said...

"I live in the Philadelphia suburbs. I can tell you that the yard signs outnumber McCain 8-1 at least.

I think I've seen a *total* of maybe 10 McCain bumper stickers in the last few months. Compared to at least a dozen or two Obama stickers every day on my commute."

Haha, spot on. I was about to say this same thing. The polls must be overpolling rural PA in order to make it look even.

ANYWAY...

Now it's the middle of the week, and like I predicted last weekend, Obama is dominating again. So much for the "fundamentals of the race" changing, huh repubs? ;)

Kennyb said...

Cugel,

You are correct that ONE key for Obama will be racking up enough of a lead in Denver county to offset expected losses in Arapahoe and Jefferson counties as well as Colorado Springs, but the key to the Obama ground game, from what I understand, is to persue a 2 prong approach whose second prong is minimizing the margin of loss in places like Arapahoe, Jefferson, and Colorado Springs. You see the same thing (but better developed, I believe) in Nevada, with a strong presence in rural, GOP leaning Nevada, in addition to a strong GOTV effort in Las Vegas. This is a difference between the Obama campaign and Kerry's, who dramatically improved Democratic GOTV efforts in urban strongholds, but did not commit the time, have the resources or the foresight to try to lower the margins of defeat in Republican strongholds.

Alan said...

Thanks Amy, gotta say I laughed out loud at this ...

"I know this means nothing to any of you, but even my father, MY FATHER, is going Obama this year. I found this out last night and am still in complete shock. If my dad's going Obama, you can bet the state's going Obama."

:)

Darío said...

You´re right Byren.
With Romney, McCain will be more competitive in Michigan and NH too.
Without Mitt he will said bye.

Ordinary Average Blogger said...

The Bucky Goldstein joke was much funnier when Steven Wright first performed it, back in the 20th century.

The Real Mike Is Back said...

Sorry - signs and bumper stickers don't vote.

Kennyb said...

Amy, I hope your dad also apologized to you for '04 and '00!

AxmxZ said...

It might soon occur to McCain that he needed that 1%-2% of support in WI/MI/OH etc. that Romney might have gotten him much more than he needed an extra 10-15% in ID/WY/KY/KS/MS/OK that Palin got him.

And he will be sad.

Adam said...

One of the things I was thinking about today as the polls came out was how difficult a time McCain has had in putting forward a unified message during the campaign. Being forced to alter the GOP convention speeches from his Experience platform after selecting Palin (or, I suppose, having Palin selected for him) is a part of it. The other part, I think, is that he's playing defense in states that vary wildly in demographics. To me, it seems like it would be a nightmare trying to put forth a national message that pleases voters in all of Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada and Colorado (and, after the latest round of polling, possibly Indiana but I doubt McCain will be able to afford effective campaigning there as well).

By contrast, Obama is playing defense in states which, while not totally similar, are at least likely to have a similar message appeal to them. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Iowa (and to a lesser extent New Hampshire) are going to be much closer on the issues, comparatively.

If Obama focuses his positives as a single message that can generally appeal across those borders (and I think he has by focusing on the economy) while hammering McCain in the traditionally red swing state issues, then McCain is going to have an enormous problem. I think it's already starting to make it's way to the forefront as the Obama campaign has been relentless in their "for it before he was against it" line.

Sedi said...

I don't know why so many folks here really think that PA might tip, but to the extent that y'all do, the Biden pick looks pretty darned good right now. He is definitely well known and well liked in Philadelphia and its suburbs, and he plays well in the areas (e.g., NE Philly) where Obama would be weakest.

InkStain said...

"I don't know why so many folks here really think that PA might tip,"

There were those five non-ZI polls since April that showed him ahead in the state.

Wait, no there weren't. Four? Three? Two? One?! ZERO!?!?!

Why the heck do people think it might flip if not one serious polling outfit has given him a lead there since April?

Amy said...

Speaking of Biden, I was so impressed at the turnout he had in Media, PA. That's in Delaware County, which is red red red. Judging from the pics I'd say there were easily 800 - 1000 people there, probably more. Someone who went said it looked to be about 2000... in a very small area. Linvilla Orchards.

Vanessa said...

Adam,
McCain didnt really start playing defense in Florida till about 10 days ago.

Kennyb said...

Geez, Alan, you want us to model the 2012 race already?!! Obama will be an incumbant, so he will likely have an advantage. If the economy is still in the tank, it will be closer and he may lose. That's 1992 all over again, except without Ross Perot (let's hope).

Scott said...

McCain didnt really start playing defense in Florida till about 10 days ago.

And he's doing a piss-poor job of it.

InkStain said...

"Geez, Alan, you want us to model the 2012 race already?!! Obama will be an incumbant, so he will likely have an advantage. If the economy is still in the tank, it will be closer and he may lose. That's 1992 all over again, except without Ross Perot (let's hope)."

He'll be glad he's pursued his western model, because a lot of traditional Democratic states lose an EV in the projected census. Something like a net -6, iirc.

jbentley said...

Obama will get a huge turnout in Philly and Philly burbs are going blue. Mac will not flip this state.

Charlie said...

Nate, it would be interesting to know when these state level polls were conducted. It seems increasingly clear that, at the national level, McCain is in a downturn. Down 4 in Gallup with one +2 day remaining in the mix is going to produce an interest result tomorrow, I suspect.

Would I be right to think that these state level polls are going to be looking pretty damn good for Obama by the end of next week or early the following week?

Darío said...

Pay attention to New Hampshire.
Al Gore lost the 2000 election because he lost NH, not Florida.

Tito said...

markymark said...

Does anyone else miss the fact that there aren't trolls telling us that McCain is abouit to win a landslide, despite the fact the polls have him less far ahead than Obama was 2 weeks ago? Ah well small privce to pay for the nation coming to its senses.


Obama is running away with this thing! He's up by 4 in Gallup, 5 in the CBS NYT Poll! Indiana is flipping, even WV is going his way! This thing is over!!! OVER!!! Congratulations President-Elect Obama!!!

...Well, I try anyway. It's really hard to impersonate the Rep trolls, and there's no way I could seriously write that kind of stuff about McCain. Funny how when we Dems get in a better position than McCain was for most of last week, we don't go poppin champagne corks and breaking out the fireworks. Most of us remember there's still 6+ weeks to go and all the debates to get through. In other words, we're realists.

Adam said...

Vanessa,

That's a fair point, but I could certainly see the tightening of the race there being attributed to comments he made to hold on to his lead in Colorado that don't fly in Florida.

Trevor said...

AxmxZ--

but according to some on the right, he did do the right thing in shoring up KY, since it's voted for the Presidential winner every time in the last few decades. :) Same with TN and a few other very red states. :)

Vanessa said...

Charlie,
There is no lag between state and national Polls. The State polls are just polled less frequently. What you see is what you get.

InkStain said...

"Pay attention to New Hampshire.
Al Gore lost the 2000 election because he lost NH, not Florida."

Not too many of Obama's win scenarios really need it, though.

Kerry + IA + NM - NH + (any swing state but Nevada) is a win, with Colorado being a tie and lots of fun in the HoR before Obama finally won.

Charlie said...

With Wisconsin, there is a further distance...Chicago's census defined urban area doesn't extend to Wisconsin.

I believe that the Chicago CMSA includes Kenosha, WI. And the Chicago commuter rail goes there now, too. I have a friend who's a political consultant in WI and he has been telling me for years that Kenosha is part of Illinois now.

Charlie said...

There is no lag between state and national Polls. The State polls are just polled less frequently. What you see is what you get.

Yes, but the infrequency is the source of the lag. Were these new state polls done this week or last week?

djl said...

dario,

It's even worse than that - Gore would have won in 2000 if he'd carried his home state.

I'm too lazy/busy doing other stuff to look, but apart from Gore '00, when were the last few times a candidate failed to win his home state? Anyone know?

InkStain said...

McGovern, South Dakota, 72 was the last time before Gore.

Darío said...

Gore was born in Washington DC, not in TN.

Charlie said...

It might soon occur to McCain that he needed that 1%-2% of support in WI/MI/OH etc. that Romney might have gotten him much more than he needed an extra 10-15% in ID/WY/KY/KS/MS/OK that Palin got him.

Romney would have lost him Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, and Florida. The Baptist wingnuts would've rebelled against a Mormon.

Trevor said...

djl--should Gore really have been expected to win TN given how red it's gotten?

Don't say he got elected as a Senator there so he should've been able to win--he was much more conservative then and ran against much less prominent figures than Bush.

George McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972, but again, it's not like he should've been expected to win there (even outside a 49-state landslide.)

InkStain said...

"Gore was born in Washington DC, not in TN."

Most people count Illinois as a home state for Obama. And McCain's home state advantage isn't Panama.

djl said...

Well, yeah, GW Bush was born in Connecticut, but that's hardly his home state.

Scott said...

You go back and look at old electoral maps, and it sure doesn't seem like we could EVER get that kind of 40+ state landslide ever again, does it?

jdk said...

I'd still like to see a better Tipper State Analysis and ROI. We're losing information in the asymmetry (O tips different from M tips) and you are separating noise from information, so too many states are showing up.

Let's investigate these states from your "portfolio"/state sim. analysis.
(Caveat, I question the variables you use because you've included geography and in any case use demographic variable different from 538 regression (but even that now is shrouded in secrecy.)

I'll include IA and NM, even though IA doesn't seem to be really in play and NM has a whole different thing going on down there that is closer to Cook County (1955-1975).

This is what your list looks like and I've added a very rough index +1 Blue, +1/2 swing, -1 red:

IA WI KS SD +1-1-1= -1
NM AZ TX CA -1-1+1= -1
CO WA MN NV +1+1+1/2= 2.5
OH MI MO IN +1+1/2+1/2= 2
VA DE CO MO +1+1/2+1/2= 2
NV CO WA CA +1/2+1+1 = 2.5
IN OH KS NC +1/2-1-1 =-1.5
MO OH NC SC +1/2-1-1 =-1.5

Both the danger and the possibilities in such a close election are obvious.

I've have a more purely demographic model (Standardized - ancestry data + '88,'00,'04 results), which looks like this:

IA KS MO SD -1+1/2-1= -1.5
NM AZ TX OK -1-1-1= -3
CO OR AZ KS +1-1-1= -1
OH PA IN CO +1+1/2+1/2 = 2
VA GA NC SC -1-1-1 = -3
NV AZ CO WA -1+1/2+1 = .5
FL MD DE NY +1+1+1 = 3
IN MO WV KS +1/2-1-1 = -1.5
MO IN AR KS +1/2-1-1 = -1.5

Of course, distance does matter so these very rough indexes are just that very rough.

And according to Plouffe's recent account, GOTNV "get out the new vote" ostensibly changes the map in NV, FL, and VA.

My purely non-standardized demographic model (only ancestry data) looks like this (you all can do the math which is much more optomistic):

IA WI KS SD
NM AZ TX CA
CO WA MN NV
Oh MI MO IN
VA DE CO MO
NV CO WA CA
FL PA DE AZ
IN OH KS NC
MO OH NC SC

There are many measures of centrality in network analysis that might be employed by you. And I think that minimum tree spanning may well be a better technique to see paths.

In the end, I suppose granfalloons are granfalloons.

AxmxZ said...

I think people aren't realizing that Obama is playing "defense" in states that were never indigo-blue in the first place:

RCP averages as of right now:

-----------------

Michigan (17) 47.3 45.0 Obama +2.3 Kerry +3.4 Gore +5.2

Pennsylvania (21) 46.8 45.5 Obama +1.3 Kerry +2.5 Gore +4.2

Minnesota (10) 47.0 45.7 Obama +1.3 Kerry +3.5 Gore +2.4

Wisconsin (10) 47.3 45.0 Obama +2.3 Kerry +0.4 Gore +0.2

New Hampshire (4) 48.0 44.7 Obama +3.3 Kerry +1.3 Bush +1.3

-----------------

So if we give them all a couple of days to cycle out McCain's bounce results, what will we see?

- NH will be as blue as NM.
- Obama is outperforming both Kerry and Gore in WI already - odds are his numbers will rise to a nice margin of +3 or 3.5 before the week is out
- MI and PA should go up at least to Kerry's numbers
- MN should go up to at least Gore's numbers

Naturally, if McCain is to entertain any real hope of winning, he needs to hope to flip at least one of those big states. But his odds of doing it suuuuuuuuuuuuck.

djl said...

trevor-

I'm inclined to agree with you, but the same could be said about Clinton '92 and Clinton '96...and he won Arkansas both times.

InkStain said...

"You go back and look at old electoral maps, and it sure doesn't seem like we could EVER get that kind of 40+ state landslide ever again, does it?"

Well, I think we've been suckered by the last two elections into a false sense of inevitable closeness.

But also, campaigns *are* better at what they do than ever before, and as competitions improve they tend to equilibrate (or whatever that word is).

Charlie said...

I believe Bush Sr. home state was Maine. He came in third in Maine in 1992.

InkStain said...

"Naturally, if McCain is to entertain any real hope of winning, he needs to hope to flip at least one of those big states. But his odds of doing it suuuuuuuuck."

People need to feed the "swing state/close race/horserace" narrative.

couchpotatoxxx12 said...

"Someone who went said it looked to be about 2000... in a very small area. Linvilla Orchards."

Yup, I live in Delaware county. :) It was quite a lot.

SuperstarJ2ThaR said...

Romney would have lost him Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, and Florida. The Baptist wingnuts would've rebelled against a Mormon.

That's what's so funny: Republican posters excoriate the Democrats for playing identity politics, but when it comes down to it, the GOP has the same issues with playing identity politics, and it came back to burn them because Romney would honestly be the far superior choice for VP. Too bad he's a Mormon.

Trevor said...

But Arkansas is not as red as TN (especially on the non-Presidential level) and Clinton didn't move as far left as Gore did.

Having Gore on the ticket actually probably helped Clinton win AR by as much as he did (16 and 17%) and vice versa because of the similarities between the states and candidates.

Eric said...

This is not discernible by any data we have. Everything is very much up in the air. One could argue that in an even election Obama wins Kerry + NM + IA, but still needs one more, the most likely being Colorado. That's probably true, but there's reason to believe Virginia is just as likely, if not more than Colorado. I'd also argue that Florida, Indiana, Nevada and North Carolina are not easy to call. Ohio is a state that with economy as the biggest issue could easily flip. All of these states are potential flipping points for Obama and for McCain to think Colorado is the on needing the most defending might be very wrong. McCain on the other hand could easily pluck Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Oregon. I'd have no problem believing Obama wins Ohio and Virginia, but loses Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Pre-Palin Colorado seemed the obvious "most important state", now it's certainly not obvious.

Vernon said...

Alan-
Thanks for your interest in our Presidential elections. It's a very interesting system we use and quite different from the various parliamentary systems used elsewhere. I've been a really interested party in elections since I was eight and have followed them closely my whole life.
To answer your question, the incumbent in our system has a lot of advantages. I would say if Obama wins in 2008 he would have a 55+% chance of re-election depending on world events. Clinton won in 1996 by a plurality despite having his head handed to him in the 1994 midterm elections. Also, the media here is very supportive of Democratic presidents, less so of Republicans (this is a contentious point but just look at the coverage yourself and consider the various non-partisan studies on the topic). There are a lot of big events on the horizon like the resurgence of Russia, the Iranian question, and continued concerns about terrorism that could have an impact. Also, many Republicans are not enthused by McCain but a loss in 2008 would compel the party to put up a candidate that has a stronger appeal to this center-right country.
Many have likened Obama to Carter, who was president from 1977-1980. If he governs like that, Obama would likely not be reelected. Obama has yet to show the ability to stand up to even his own party so how would he do against dictators around the world? That is the unresolved question that I think hangs over this election. Can he keep us safe? It's a question asked of all Democrats but particularly of Obama. Considering he has pushed for getting rid of all nuclear weapons and stopping development of new military systems, there are many who worry about him as a commander in chief.
Now this is all my opinion, but I'm responding to your question as honestly as I can.

Adam said...

Romney was never in the running for VP because McCain can't stand him. His top choices were Ridge and Lieberman and the GOP higher-ups pushed him to pick Palin at the last minute. I'm still not convinced it was the wrong choice. Although, even if Palin was the "best" choice, it's probably not enough in this political climate and against Obama's campaign.

Andy said...

Someone predicted that Obama would only win Pennsylvania by 1-2%.

I think he'll win by at least 4-5%, maybe more. Even at the height of his bounce, the best McCain can do is tie.

InkStain said...

"McCain on the other hand could easily pluck Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Oregon. "

Delusional. Utterly delusional.

The idea that you have to occasionally poll ahead in a state to win it has no effect on some people?

AxmxZ said...

eric: Basically, it's becoming clear that the GOP is very, very much on defensive even post-Palin. And in some cases, like FL and OH, *especially* post-Palin.

I give conservative bloggers maybe two more days of bad polls to go from celebrating her pick to lamenting it.

InkStain said...

'Someone predicted that Obama would only win Pennsylvania by 1-2%."

I could see that happening. It's far easier to make a state close than it is to flip it, though.

PeteKent said...

I think with PA, MI and WI being in play you have a very destabilized race for Obama. The latest Battleground Polls give him little comfort.

The values issues are going to haunt Obama. As I noted in the earlier post (reprinted below), Obama is enjoying a short run bounce from the economic news, but if PA, MI and WI remain in play next week, then we may have the beginnings of a "heartland problem" for the Senator from IL. Again other states too seem to be moving away from him, including OR and WA. Give her time, but Palin will do her job and lock up NV and CO, if not NM.

I think a bit more emphasis on Obama's personal history and elitist disdain for the average guy, coupled with his pro-tax economic outlook that is so wrong for the nation at this time, could cause most of those states to tip McCain's way.

We would be back where we were heading last week, when so many of those on the Left were in full panic mode.

It seems only panic on Wall Street can calm your fears. Don't count on winning by exploiting bad news.

***

From the other thread . . .

The focus on the economy has clearly tilted the race in Obama's favor. I noted this on Tuesday night when I asserted that we had seen, at least for the time being, the high water mark in McCain's polling and that we would enter something of a lull until the first debate, 8 days hence.

This is a Wall Street crisis, not a Main Street one. It is a very complicated matter, having to do with liquidity and the functioning of the financial markets. As such it is somewhat non-traditional and does not play directly into Barack Obama's hand or at the Democratic Party’s strength on meat and potato issues. This is more of a Dover Sole and brocolini issue.

There is no doubt that Obama has gotten the better of the sound bite debate, aided by his many friends in the media, thus far.

McCain has acted in a Presidential manner this week, trying first to calm fears. This is an important thing to do, since a panicked reaction can result in further downward spiral.

Obama would rather pour gasoline on the fire and has stoked it successfully to his short term advantage.

In the longer run, if the people are truly fearful of economic collapse, they will not turn to the candidate who is outpolled by his opponent 70 - 30 on the question of experience. It is simple logic too that you do not raise taxes on investment in the middle of an investment crisis and Obama has a fair amount of baggage to deal with on this issue/

This is at best a short run bump in the road for McCain who, together with Palin, remains well poised to take back the momentum.

Andy said...

Wow! Obama's win percentage on this website has just increased from 45.1% to 61.2%. That's quite a jump in one day.

Eric said...

The two recent Virginia polls have terible internals and do not rperesent the truth in that state. I'll accept that a chunk of the Midwest is up for grabs that Obama needs to hold onto. But, this notion that Virginia is at McCain +7 or +9 is ridiculous. If an organization is going to release a poll, they should at least base it off of proper demographics. They're both absurd.

InkStain said...

"This is a Wall Street crisis, not a Main Street one."

The *money market funds* were under some stress today.

That's one step removed from little-old-ladies' savings accounts.

couchpotatoxxx12 said...

"McCain on the other hand could easily pluck Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Oregon."


Bush was ahead in all of these states at one point (mostly around this time actually)...what direction did they go again?

Also, easily?! If he does pick off any one of them states, it's going to take a hell of a lot of effort.

AxmxZ said...

petekent:

"In the longer run, if the people are truly fearful of economic collapse, they will not turn to the candidate who is outpolled by his opponent 70 - 30 on the question of experience. It is simple logic too that you do not raise taxes on investment in the middle of an investment crisis and Obama has a fair amount of baggage to deal with on this issue/"

I think all this verbiage would hav a teensy-weensy bit more weight if the last few days hadn't shown us what happens to McCain's support the second the nation's attention gets focused on the economy.

AxmxZ said...

Hey look guys, the pre-RNC map is back! Hi, map!

Scott said...

McCain on the other hand could easily pluck Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Oregon.

You had me until "easily" -- there's no way McCain "easily" picks off any of those states.

Matthew H said...

AxmxZ said....
.

RCP averages as of right now:
-----------------
Pennsylvania (21) 46.8 45.5 Obama +1.3 Kerry +2.5 Gore +4.2
.
.

- MI and PA should go up at least to Kerry's numbers


Michigan, yes. The Michigan "machine" will make sure that Obama wins it.

Pennsylvania, not so sure. Both Kerry and Gore seemed more from the Pennsylvania area than Obama does. Obama will probably do better in Pittsburgh, but not in the Philly region.

As others have pointed out, that makes Biden a smart pick, since he's considered local to eastern PA.

Wouldn't it be odd if McCain won PA but lost FL?

sperricar said...

No way McCain wins in MI/PA and he seems threatened in several states that were tossup or leaning GOP.
The Palin pick looks now like a desperate try to shake the race. And finally in the current financial turmoil, it's the worse he could do.
I really don't what he could do next (a brilliant showing in the debates... just kidding). any Idea?

InkStain said...

"Wouldn't it be odd if McCain won PA but lost FL?"

It would be utterly and completely shocking.

SuperstarJ2ThaR said...

Won't Ed Rendell's machine lock up PA for Obama? I can't believe people are buying into McCain possibly winning PA. Or MI, for that matter.

quantman said...

BUSH beat McCain in 2000........................................and in 2008 it WILL be Bush (and his management of the country).................................................
who will beat McCain again in 2008

Obama does NOT have to beat McCain because Bush will beat Obama to it!

No pun intended!

Viva La Bush!!

McCain will get Bushed...and Ambushed by BUSH!!!

How sweet it is..the Repeat of 2000

mikelow1885 said...

Curious to why the NH percentage went up for Obama despite the ARG poll. ARG isn't the best out there, but it's their home state.

Matthew H said...

InkStain said...
"This is a Wall Street crisis, not a Main Street one."

The *money market funds* were under some stress today.

That's one step removed from little-old-ladies' savings accounts.


What one step is that? Most LOLs have money market accounts- savings accounts don't have crap for interest. Most of those LOLs aren't even aware that they aren't insured. Well, I'll bet they'll find out real fast if WaMu goes under!

Eric said...

McCain will lose both Virginia and Colorado. Florida and Ohio are very much up for grabs. Indiana, Nevada, and North Carolina are not sure things. His strategery has to be play to the fears of whites in the Midwest and hope to flip enough electoral votes there to make up for where he loses them. These potential states are Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and New Hampshire. If 2 or 3% of those states don't want to vote for Obama, but would otherwise vote Democrat, that could be the difference. McCain can't win on himself because he knows nothing about the economy and his running mate is a moron. He has to make it a referendum on Obama and hope some blue states in the Midwest don't like him. It's that simple.

PeteKent said...

Axmz:

You do know how to read: This is a short run bump up for Obama. He does not have the personal qualities or the policies to sustain it.

In times of crisis, people will want to turn to a leader, a steady hand.

Obama's bounce will settle down over the next week and hopefully McCain (from whom little is expected) will demolish it in the Debate.

InkStain said...

"Won't Ed Rendell's machine lock up PA for Obama? I can't believe people are buying into McCain possibly winning PA. Or MI, for that matter."

The fact that's he's never trailed the state in the general election cycle will lock it up for him.

"Curious to why the NH percentage went up for Obama despite the ARG poll. ARG isn't the best out there, but it's their home state."

The national trendline went up.

JTD said...

Nate/Sean,

You might have addressed this in comments elsewhere, but I'm curious if you think some states might get a bump from neighboring volunteers. I'm thinking particularly of restless Californians in Nevada and New Yorkers in PA, maybe IL in IN. Each of the later you listed as places for Obama's offense.

I note too that McCain doesn't have any obvious offensive plays like this, and even the defense plays are not as strong.

Would you anticipate movement in the coming weeks in populous-safe-state neighbors by dint of brute force volunteer efforts alone?

Alex S. said...

What a big jump in just one day! But on the other hand, I think the trend-adjustment was the only reason why Obama looked in rather bad shape before. The Iowa/Colorado/New Mexico-firewall was never broken during McCain´s convention bounce.

Vernon said...

Do any of you here think that the Democratic primary will impact the General Election? I ask that because of one simple thing we are mostly ignoring. Obama's statement that some middle class people are "bitter..." and "cling to their guns and religion". The two states that seemed most impacted by that statement were Ohio and Pennsylvania which Hillary won going away. Do you think voters still remember those statements and hold those against Obama? I intuitively feel they do and that it will be brought up by McCain and the 527s between now and the election, but I don't see any hard statistical evidence to back up my gut instinct. People tend to have short memories on some things (Bush's 90%+ approval ratings after 9/11 for example) but this could be another of those undercurrents explaining why Obama is not doing better. What do you think? (And don't accuse me of being a concern troll. I'm just curious if statements said months before in a primary can impact the final results in November.)

InkStain said...

"What one step is that? Most LOLs have money market accounts- savings accounts don't have crap for interest. Most of those LOLs aren't even aware that they aren't insured. Well, I'll bet they'll find out real fast if WaMu goes under!"

Okay, what's the first place people go when they start to move their money past savings accounts? I guess CDs, then MM accounts. So two steps?

SuperstarJ2ThaR said...

Inkstain:

Don't think I disagree with you; at the height of his bounce, McCain couldn't capture a lead in PA. But I'm just trying to suggest an alternative reason Obama's not losing there for those who don't trust the polls.

Vanessa said...

superstar what is the extent of ed rendell's machine?

Also Pete Kent, poll released today show Obama up by a substantial Margin in Oregon.

Also, there is a growing sentiment that Sarah Palin's wax on is waxing off.

AxmxZ said...

matthew h: Right now, it's looking like it's more difficult for McCain to lose FL than win PA. However, that's right now, prior to Plouffe's $39m blitzkrieg, if I may steal the word from those who no longer need it.

It's *anyone's* guess as to what will happen once Obama's people begin 'working' FL in earnest. McCain might call their bluff and bank on them sinking money into it without return, like they did with Georgia. Or he might take the bait and pour $30-$40m of his own into the state he absolutely cannot afford to lose.

Thing is, he's screwed no matter what he does. He *can't* ignore a massive push for Fl - he might want to, being a high-stakes gambler, but no way would Schmidt et al. let him - and he and RNC simply haven't got the finances to match Obama in that state *and* maintain ample defense on every other front.

It's going to be a war of financial attrition. And without a solid ground game, plus eroding numbers among independents, McCain's odds are getting longer by the day.

InkStain said...

vernon - that statement has been out there for quite some time and he's still polling very well there. And Clinton won those states because the demographics favored her, it's not like they were surprise wins.

counsellorben said...

judas_priest said "Unless they've changed the boundaries since I lived there, Philadelphia county was the City of Philadelphia and nothing else. I grew up in Mongomery County close enough to the city that I could walk to the boundary."

Judas,

Did you grow up in Cheltenham? I grew up in East Oak Lane and now live in Cheltenham.

eve said...

Since I don't live in a swing state this won't matter but to date I have seen exactly two McCain bumper stickers. I live in Dallas. There were a zillion Bush/Cheney stickers in 2000 & 2004.

Not much enthusiasm for McCain.