WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
This is the DemConWatch General Election Tracker, a summary of the best election projections on the web. Please also check out our Senate Tracker, and the House tracker will be introduced later this month.
Update 6/24: DCW Obama Index (explanation below) goes up 1 to 299. Various projections moved pro-Obama and pro-McCain. (Previous erroneous comment about OpenLeft removed - wrong data was included).
Map showing consensus of sources. This table will show a state Blue or Red if a majority of the sources show it Leaning or Solid for that candidate.
| DCW General Election Tracker | |||||||||||
| State | EVs | 538.com | Elect. Proj. | Open Left | EV. com | RCP | RM | CNN | NBC | FHQ | .... |
| Date | 6/24 | 6/24 | 6/24 | 6/24 | 6/24 | 6/24 | 6/18 | 6/5 | 6/22 | ||
| Obama (O) | 183 | 187 | 169 | 172 | 91 | 200 | 153 | 153 | 153 | ||
| Obama-Lean (OL) | 123 | 97 | 107 | 40 | 147 | 84 | 58 | 47 | 54 | ||
| Tossup (T) | 86 | 80 | 91 | 170 | 137 | 14 | 133 | 138 | 129 | ||
| McCain-Lean (ML) | 110 | 70 | 46 | 51 | 70 | 66 | 69 | 84 | 71 | ||
| McCain (M) | 33 | 104 | 125 | 105 | 93 | 174 | 125 | 116 | 131 | ||
| Obama Total | 306 | 284 | 276 | 212 | 238 | 284 | 211 | 200 | 207 | ||
| McCain Total | 143 | 174 | 171 | 156 | 163 | 240 | 194 | 200 | 202 | ||
| Obama Index | 344 | 319 | 309 | 299 | 291 | 287 | 280 | 276 | 275 | ||
| Texas | 34 | ML | M | M | M | ML | M | M | M | M | |
| Florida | 27 | T | T | T | T | T | ML | T | T | ML | |
| Pennsylvania | 21 | OL | OL | OL | T | OL | OL | OL | T | T | |
| Ohio | 20 | OL | OL | OL | T | T | OL | T | T | T | |
| Michigan | 17 | OL | OL | T | T | T | OL | T | T | T | |
| Georgia | 15 | ML | ML | ML | T | ML | M | ML | ML | ML | |
| New Jersey | 15 | O | O | OL | OL | OL | O | OL | OL | OL | |
| N. Carolina | 15 | T | T | T | T | T | ML | ML | ML | ML | |
| Virginia | 13 | OL | T | T | T | T | ML | T | T | T | |
| Massachusetts | 12 | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | OL | |
| Indiana | 11 | T | M | ML | ML | T | M | ML | ML | T | |
| Missouri | 11 | T | T | T | T | T | ML | T | ML | T | |
| Tennessee | 11 | ML | ML | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Washington | 11 | O | O | O | O | OL | O | OL | OL | O | |
| Arizona | 10 | ML | ML | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Minnesota | 10 | OL | OL | OL | OL | OL | O | T | OL | OL | |
| Wisconsin | 10 | OL | OL | OL | O | OL | OL | T | T | T | |
| Colorado | 9 | OL | T | OL | T | T | T | T | T | T | |
| Louisiana | 9 | ML | ML | M | ML | ML | M | ML | ML | M | |
| Kentucky | 8 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| S. Carolina | 8 | ML | ML | ML | ML | M | M | M | M | ML | |
| Conn. | 7 | O | O | O | T | OL | O | O | O | O | |
| Iowa | 7 | OL | OL | OL | OL | OL | OL | T | T | OL | |
| Oregon | 7 | OL | OL | OL | T | OL | O | OL | OL | OL | |
| Arkansas | 6 | ML | ML | M | ML | M | M | ML | ML | M | |
| Kansas | 6 | ML | M | ML | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Mississippi | 6 | ML | ML | M | ML | ML | M | M | ML | M | |
| Nebraska | 5 | ML | M | M | M | M | M | M | ML | M | |
| Nevada | 5 | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | |
| New Mexico | 5 | OL | OL | OL | OL | T | OL | ML | T | T | |
| W. Virginia | 5 | T | ML | M | ML | M | M | ML | M | M | |
| Maine | 4 | O | O | O | O | OL | O | OL | OL | O | |
| NH | 4 | OL | O | O | O | T | OL | T | T | T | |
| Alaska | 3 | T | M | ML | T | ML | M | M | M | ML | |
| Delaware | 3 | O | O | OL | OL | O | O | O | O | OL | |
| Montana | 3 | T | M | ML | ML | ML | M | ML | ML | ML | |
| N. Dakota | 3 | T | M | T | ML | M | M | M | ML | T | |
| S. Dakota | 3 | T | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| 538.com | Elect. Proj. | Open Left | EV. com | RCP | RM | CNN | NBC | FHQ | .... | ||
Notes:
538 - FiveThirtyEight
Elect. Proj. - Election Projection
EV.com - Electoral-Vote.com
RM - Rasmussen
RCP - RealClearPolitics
Here are the states that span 3 categories.
- Alaska: 2 at Tossup, 4 at McCain-Strong. Rasmussen's own poll shows McCain only up by 4, yet they still have AK as Likely-Republican, which we convert to McCain-Strong.
- Connecticut: Only Electoral-vote.com having it as a toss-up - that likely won't last. The only poll in the last 3 months showed Obama at +3 in late May.
- Georgia: Electoral-Vote.com moves it to Tossup, based on the InsiderAdvantage poll
- Indiana: Three sources have it as a toss-up, but 2 sources have it as Strong McCain. But new SurveyUSA poll out today gives Obama a 1 pt lead.
- Minnesota: With Survey USA out on June 16 with a poll showing Obama only up by 1, CNN's projection of a Tossup doesn't look like as much of an outlier.
- Montana (NEW): 538 now has it as a Tossup. 2 Projections have it as Strong-McCain. Last poll was in April.
- New Hampshire: Three projections move this former? battleground state to Obama-Strong.
- New Mexico: Five projections have it as Obama-Lean, CNN has it at McCain-Lean.
There hasn't been a poll here since mid-May.Two recent polls show Obama up by 3 and 8 points. - North Dakota - Three have it as tossup - that won't last. Or will it? There hasn't been a state poll in ND since April.
- Oregon (NEW) - One of the few Obama states that seems to be closing, with Obama only up by 3 in the latest SurveyUSA poll. 1 Tossup, 1 Obama-Strong.
- South Dakota: 538 has it as Tossup.
- Virgina (New): 538 has it as Obama-Lean, Rasmussen at McCain-Lean
- West Virginia: 538 has it as Tossup.
- Wisconsin: Electoral-Vote.com is the first to move this former battleground state to Obama-Strong.
What is the Obama Index? The Overall DCW Obama Index is just a straight average of the Obama Index for each projection. What is the Obama Index for each projection? For all projections other than FiveThirtyEight, the Obama Index gives Obama 100% of the Electoral Votes (EVs) in a state that is solid for him, 80% of the EVs for a leaner, 50% of the EVs for a Tossup, and 20% of the EVs for state that is McCain-Lean. (And obviously 0% of the Solid McCain states). For FiveThirtyEight, we use his overall estimate of Obama's EVs. (See below for how we determine FiveThirtyEight's state projections).
FiveThirtyEight state projections determined from state winning percentage (>90%: Strong, 65-90%: Lean, 50-65%: Tossup). Obama Index for 538 based on FiveThirtyEight simulation.
Logging you in...
del.icio.us
Leah 85p · 878 weeks ago
Leah 85p · 878 weeks ago
Matt 75p · 878 weeks ago
Leah 85p · 878 weeks ago
Leah 85p · 878 weeks ago
SarahLawrence Scott · 878 weeks ago
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Georgia, Alaska, and part of Nebraska.
(Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11320_P...
This is interesting; it matches the Tracker pretty well. A few items worth noting:
--Minnesota and Oregon aren't on the list. The campaign is confident enough not to consider them battlegrounds. Hopefully that's not too confident.
--The McCain leaning Appalachian states are not on the list. That's not a surprise to me.
--A lot of the Deep South states aren't on the list.
--Arkansas isn't on the list.
If you really want to read between the lines, this might give some indication of what they're thinking about for VP...
Will · 878 weeks ago
Matt, Can you start a historical Obama index graph? My tracking so far shows a slow steady improvement in Obama's polling. It has gone from a dead heat after he became the presumptive nominess to a 101 electoral vote lead with no tossup states if you just use the RCP numbers. Keep up the good work.
susan · 878 weeks ago
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 19 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
SarahLawrence Scott · 878 weeks ago
In my opinion, this proposal is poorly conceived. The problem is that it does not ensure that the candidate favored by the majority would be elected, but rather than that favored by the plurality. I can't think of a major political system that guarantees the winner of the plurality to be the winner. Direct election systems use run-offs, a few systems use "instant run-offs," and parliamentary systems use coalitions. Our current system already comes perilously close to a system that elects the winner of a plurality; indeed, that's what's happened in many recent elections.
Why is that a problem? Because plurality-based systems run the risk of having a candidate with strong but narrow appeal win over those who would govern the whole country. If four broadly acceptable candidates split the vote, for instance, a candidate with only 20% support could win. Don't think that could happen here? The National Popular Vote proposal is a change that might encourage that kind of election. If we had one now, for instance, couldn't you imagine Bloomberg, Paul, and others joining the race? And in such an election we might end up very far from the people's choice.
Could that happen under our current system? Yes--in a sense it has, with both Bush and Clinton winning their first terms without getting a majority. But it's harder to imagine a really narrowly focused candidate winning, because it's much harder to imagine most states splitting in such a way so as to favor the same narrow candidate. More likely, different states would go different ways, and we =don't= give the Presidency to someone with a plurality of electoral votes.
A real popular vote system needs to have a run-off provision of some form, and that probably requires a constitutional amendment. I'm opposed to that for other reasons, but at least it doesn't suffer from the plurality problem.
--Scott
Leah 85p · 878 weeks ago
Obama 146 Solid 92 Leaning
Leah 85p · 878 weeks ago
Leah 85p · 878 weeks ago
For example Election Projection has FOUR categories Solid, Strong, Mod, Weak. But for Election Projection DCW shows Texas as SOLID for McCain and Michigan and Wisconsin as LEANER s--- but on the Election Projection site all three are considered 'Strong' . The 'solids' and 'tossups' are easy to figure out but I am not sure what the heck ya'll are doing with the rest. Does that make sense? :)
Matt 75p · 878 weeks ago
Leah 85p · 878 weeks ago
SarahLawrence Scott · 878 weeks ago
Of course, early next week we should start to see the effect of today's Unity event... :D
--Scott
SarahLawrence Scott · 878 weeks ago
Leah 85p · 878 weeks ago
"Weak" - less than 5%
"Mod" - 5% to less than 10%
"Strong" - 10% to 15%
"Solid" - greater than 15%
Going by those numbers it looks like Solid and Strong should be considered to be the same. Mod should be the leaner and weak the toss up. But DCW has Michigan as OL in the graph for Election Projection (I picked that state as an example because it hasn't changed this week). So what are the percentages that DCW is using when deciding what the cut off is ?
SarahLawrence Scott · 878 weeks ago
538 claims to have finally settled down. Combining that with assigning DCW categories based on the labels that 538 uses gives the following changes from the current DCW table:
Alaska T to ML
Arkansas ML to M
Arizona ML to M
Kansas ML to M
Minnesota OL to O
Missouri T to ML
Mississippi ML to M
Montana T to ML
North Carolina T to ML
North Dakota T to ML
Nebraska ML to M
South Carolina ML to M
South Dakota T to ML
Tennessee ML to M
Texas ML to M
Virginia OL to T
Wisconsin OL to O
West Virginia T to ML
For the most part, this shifts 538 much more toward the consensus of the other sources--which, of course, means it's away from an Obama blowout.
Leah 85p · 878 weeks ago
Btw look at 538 Wisconsin 7.9 (likely) and West Virginia 7.7 (lean)
It looks like you can't go by the percentage numbers there on that website.
It might be better to go by the colors on the map instead :)
Matt 75p · 878 weeks ago