Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Presidential Forecast - 8/6 - Delayed Reaction

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Obama leads 299-239, a gain of 2 EVs for McCain since the last forecast, and the first time Obama has been below 300 EVs since June 20th. McCain picked up some movement in Florida and Ohio, and anytime a large state changes category, it's worth about 1 EV in the overall numbers. On the other hand, NBC did their monthly update, moving 3 states in Obama's direction, including Iowa finally out of Tossup.

Remember that state polls lag behind national polls, and some projections don't update as frequently as others, so the projection could be better thought of as an average over the last 3 weeks or so.

One other note about NBC's projection. One of the things they look at is whether the campaigns are contesting a state. In NJ, 3 of the last 4 polls show a 10 point lead or less, so one could argue it should be Obama-Lean. But McCain is not contesting the state, so it's very unlikely to shift. That's one difference between the CNN and NBC type projections, and the purely poll driven projections.

Please also check out our Senate Forecast and House Forecast.

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. No changes from the previous map.

<p><strong>><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p>

Note: Only 2 states have shifted categories on the consensus map since early June and not shifted back:
6/18 FL: McCain -> Tossup
7/9 NM: Tossup -> Obama

Of special note is NC, which has shifted 4 times between McCain and Tossup.

Unanimous solid states, not shown in the table below:
Solid Obama: CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, MD, NY, RI, VT - 138 EVs. Note: MA is no longer unanimous Obama (Elec-Vote and RCP have it as OL), but has not been placed on the chart at this time.
Solid McCain: AL, ID, KS, NE, OK, TN, UT, WY - 50 EVs. Note: KY is longer unanimous McCain-Stronge (RCP has it at ML), but has not been placed on the chart at this time. (All numbers, however, are correct).

The sources are sorted by each projection's estimate of Obama's Electoral Votes (Algorithm at bottom). The states are sorted by the number of electoral votes.

DCW Presidential Forecast
State
EVsOpen LeftFHQEV.
com
RCP538
.com
Elect. Proj.RMNBCCNN.…
Date

8/6.8/6.8/6.8/3.8/6.8/6.7/22.8/6.7/24.
Obama-Strong (O)

236175185141238183210190153
Obama-Lean (OL)

284758972660632768
Tossup (T)

1021591031375012138132128
McCain-Lean (ML)

756395726731625364
McCain-Strong (M)

97949791157143165136125
Obama Total

264222243238264243273217221
McCain Total

172157192163224174227189189
Obama Est.

324305302302298298292288284

Texas
34MLMLMLMLMMMMM
Florida
27TTMLTMLTMLTT
Pennsylvania
21OTOLOLOOLOLTOL
Ohio
20TTTTTTTTT
Michigan
17OLTTTOLTOLTT
Georgia
15MLMLMLMLMMMMLML
New Jersey
15OOLOOLOOOOOL
N. Carolina
15MLTTTMLTMLMLML
Virginia
13TTTTTTTTT
Indiana
11TTTTMLMLMMLML
Missouri
11TTMLTMLTMLTT
Washington
11OOOOLOOOOOL
Arizona
10MMMMMMMMM
Minnesota
10OOOLOLOOLOOLT
Wisconsin
10OOLOOLOOLOOLOL
Colorado
9TTTTTTOLTT
Louisiana
9MMMMMMMMML
S. Carolina
8MLMLMMMMMMM
Iowa
7OLOLOOLOOLOLOLT
Oregon
7OOLOLOLOOLOOOL
Arkansas
6MMMMMMLMMML
Mississippi
6MMMMLMMMMM
Nevada
5TTTTTTTTT
New Mexico
5OOLOLTOLOLOLTT
W. Virginia
5MMMLMMMLMMML
Maine
4OOOOLOOOOOL
NH
4OLTTTOLTOLTT
Alaska
3MLMLMLMLMMMMLM
Delaware
3OOLOLOOOOOO
Montana
3TTTMLTMLMLMLML
N. Dakota
3TTTMLMLMLMLMLM
S. Dakota
3MMLTMMMLMLMLM


Open LeftFHQEV.
com
RCP538
.com
Elect. Proj.RMNBCCNN.…

























































Notes:
538 - FiveThirtyEight - Safe and Likely mapped to Strong (O or M), Lean to Lean (OL or ML), Tossup to Tossup (T)
CNN - Safe mapped to Strong, Leaning to Lean, Tossup to Tossup
Elect. Proj. - Election Projection - Solid and Strong mapped to Strong, Moderate to Lean, Weak to Tossup
EV.com - Electoral-Vote.com - Strong mapped to Strong, Weak to Lean, Barely and Tossup to Tossup
FHQ -
FrontLoading HQ - Solid mapped to Strong, Lean to Lean, Tossup (Dem and Rep) to Tossup
NBC - Base mapped to strong,
Lean to Lean, Tossup to Tossup
OpenLeft - Solid mapped to Strong, Lean to Lean, Tossup to Tossup
RM - Rasmussen - Safe and Likely mapped to Strong, Lean to Lean, Tossup to Tossup
RCP - RealClearPolitics - Solid mapped to Strong, Lean to Lean, Tossup to Tossup

Here are the states that span 3 categories.

  • Indiana: 4 at Tossup, Rasmussen at McCain-Strong.
  • Iowa: Two at Obama-Strong, CNN still calling it a Tossup. Only July poll shows Obama up by 10.
  • Minnesota : 4 at Obama-Strong, CNN at Tossup
  • New Mexico: 1 Projection at Obama-Strong, 3 at Tossup. Only polls in July has Obama up 6. This used to be on the 3 category list, but spanning Obama-Lean to McCain-Lean.
  • North Dakota - CNN at McCain Strong, 3 at Tossup.
  • Pennsylvania: OpenLeft at Obama-Strong, 2 at Tossup. Obama averaging up 7 in 3 late July polls.
  • South Dakota: EV.com at Tossup, 3 at McCain-Strong
We're purposely ignoring Maine and Nebraska CD splits for now to keep things simple. We'll add them in later if we need to.

The overall projection is just a straight average of each projections' estimate of Electoral Votes (EVs) for each candidate. For each projection other than FiveThirtyEight, we give Obama 100% of the EVs in a state that is solid for him, 80% of the EVs for a leaner, 50% of the EVs for a Tossup, 20% of the EVs for state that is McCain-Lean, and 0% of the Solid McCain states. Exact opposite for McCain. For FiveThirtyEight, we use their overall estimate of Obama's EVs, not the state-by-state categories.


Comments (30)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Login or signup now to comment.
Matt - Did you leave Arizona on the chart because you know it will turn pink again? ;)
p.s. I just noticed that Election Projection is saying that Illinois is Strong (NOT SOLID) for Obama, that is pretty strange!
Reply
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Btw: The interactive map at RCP allows leaners... so I guess such a thing does exist ;)
Reply
Here is a great article, chart, and graph!

Popular Vote v. Electoral College (Why The Media Badly Needs A History Lesson)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/popul...
.
Reply
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

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 their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 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 have been 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 passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Reply
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
My position on replacing electoral vote with popular vote has to do with the issue of recounts. My state just completed its primary and right now we are once again looking at the possibility of a state-wide recount in one of the races (just like two years ago).

Each state currently has its own rules on when a recount will be ordered and the scope of that recount.

To go to a national popular vote (in the absence of a constittutional amendment, which has a slimmer chance of being adopted than a snowball in hell), you would need a provision on when you could have a nationwide recount of the presidential vote. (Those states that like the status quo have no reason to support a national bill establishing a recount and are equally unlikely to adopt a uniform recount law that would be tied to replacing the electoral college with the popular vote.

In the absence of such a recount provision, the proposal is fundamentally flawed.
Reply
oh my god, this is the screwiest system i have ever tried to log in to, hi all uplandpoet here again, as to the pop vote, there are problems with the current system and there would be problems with a new system, but arguing to effectively diminish the votes of some parts of america is veery undemocratic, no matter the reason! the EC does serve a useful function, but it could be improved to approach a more pop vote representastion without giving up the functionit serves of representing both the people and the states, but whatever the argument for either system, changing it in the middle of the race would be insane and isnt going to happen.
Reply
hey, we have to break up long comments now? ok, here is the rest:
I am much more concerned aboutt his downward trend for Obama, the Edwards slop over, and if the Clintons are going to try to act like Samson at the convention, are they really gonna put her name in? can Obama, who admittedly has a nice fat lead in EV at the moment, reignite the electorate post labor day and kick the old man down the road? and who are these 9% or so undecided? are they racists who hate to admit they are so dumb they are gonna vote for mccain instead of a black man? are they hillaryt supporters who honestly cant decide if their rage is going to lead them to vote for an anti feminists? can people really still not know who they are voting for?
these are the burning questions! matt, do you have all the answers? :)
Reply
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
538's Nate Silver on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith video:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/538-on-cou...

.
Reply
First, I'll point out that mvymvy is basically spamming us--it's the same post that's appeared on multiple threads of multiple blogs under the name "Susan." Some blogs have banned further repetitions of it.

But on the merits...

Other commenters are gradually bringing me around on the notion that a popular vote system might work. But NOT the NationalPopularVote way! That proposal gives the Presidency to the winner of a PLURALITY of votes, not the majority. Admittedly, that often happen under our current system, but at least it requires a majority of electoral votes, ensuring some kind of diversity. It's too easy for me to imagine a plurality popular vote system encouraging a lot of candidates to throw their hat in the ring, with the result that some 20% extremist wins. Yes, I know that doesn't happen often for governors and senators, but I think the temptation to mess with a Presidential election is particularly strong, and potentially particularly damaging.

IF we go to a national popular vote, it needs some kind of run-off provision (can be instant run-off), which requires action at the federal level, if not a constitutional amendment.

But I'm still very sympathetic to Leah's argument, although I'd use different states as an example. It would be easy for the high-population, urban, coastal states to dominate an election--places like my state of New York. That can cause real resentment from more sparsely populated parts of the country. While people may not like their own state being taken for granted, at least most of their "categories" are in play somewhere. For instance, if you're a farmer or an inner-city resident or a Latino or an older person or a Jew or an evangelical or a Muslim or an atheist or a hunter or whatever, we can all point to battleground states where people with some shared interests are being courted. But with a national popular vote, it would be more possible to throw away whole constituencies.

--Scott (formerly SarahLawrence Scott)
Reply
As a citizen of Utah, I would like my vote to have some meaning at some point in my life.

However, my solution to that is just to move away from this screwball state for good. God bless America!
Reply
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Clinton supporters at Democratic meeting fail in bid to end caucus system
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campai...
.
Reply
Chad, and co. I think the point is that when you live in a hard rock one party state, you have a special opportunity to help change the map, not overnight, but over a period of years, through volunteering with your local party, possibly running as a local candidate for office as a member of the minority party. At the local level people dont vote party, yet if you run for town council as a dem, then get elected, and build popular support, then move up to state legislature and so on, if enough folks do that, you move the state, and maybe move your party as well toward being more responsive to the needs of your state so that (let's just say) a bunch of white mormons can feel more comfortable voting democratic. it is how the process works, then, when you get the state to a marginally tossup condition, you get the once in a lifetime candidate like Obama that shakes things up and pushes your state over the top into your party's column. ok, maybe a black candidate isnt the once in a lifetime guy for utah, but you know what i mean, maybe we will get a blonde haired blue eyed mormon progressive democrat someday:)
Reply
Matt-
Here is an interesting article that you might want to read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/the-m...

.
Reply
What about this, is anybody but me worried? this is the country that elected Bush, after all -
http://people-press.org/report/443/presidential-r...
Reply
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Wooo hooo - http://www.pollster.com/polls/2008president/
has Alaska as a Toss-Up!
Reply
FHQ has moved Alaska as a Toss-up also. I hope Obama turns Alaska BLUE!
It's only 3 EVs but every little bit helps ;)
Reply
Matt - the majority of the sources have an update for Aug 14th - I am hoping that we get a DCW update this evening - or tomorrow night :)
Reply
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
WOW - even RCP has changed their map today!
One change they made was moving Minnestosa to Toss-up.
Reply

Comments by