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.
DCW Presidential Forecast | |||||||||||
State | EVs | Open Left | FHQ | EV. com | RCP | 538 .com | Elect. Proj. | RM | NBC | CNN | .… |
Date | 8/6. | 8/6. | 8/6. | 8/3. | 8/6. | 8/6. | 7/22. | 8/6. | 7/24. | ||
Obama-Strong (O) | 236 | 175 | 185 | 141 | 238 | 183 | 210 | 190 | 153 | ||
Obama-Lean (OL) | 28 | 47 | 58 | 97 | 26 | 60 | 63 | 27 | 68 | ||
Tossup (T) | 102 | 159 | 103 | 137 | 50 | 121 | 38 | 132 | 128 | ||
McCain-Lean (ML) | 75 | 63 | 95 | 72 | 67 | 31 | 62 | 53 | 64 | ||
McCain-Strong (M) | 97 | 94 | 97 | 91 | 157 | 143 | 165 | 136 | 125 | ||
Obama Total | 264 | 222 | 243 | 238 | 264 | 243 | 273 | 217 | 221 | ||
McCain Total | 172 | 157 | 192 | 163 | 224 | 174 | 227 | 189 | 189 | ||
Obama Est. | 324 | 305 | 302 | 302 | 298 | 298 | 292 | 288 | 284 | ||
Texas | 34 | ML | ML | ML | ML | M | M | M | M | M | |
Florida | 27 | T | T | ML | T | ML | T | ML | T | T | |
Pennsylvania | 21 | O | T | OL | OL | O | OL | OL | T | OL | |
Ohio | 20 | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | |
Michigan | 17 | OL | T | T | T | OL | T | OL | T | T | |
Georgia | 15 | ML | ML | ML | ML | M | M | M | ML | ML | |
New Jersey | 15 | O | OL | O | OL | O | O | O | O | OL | |
N. Carolina | 15 | ML | T | T | T | ML | T | ML | ML | ML | |
Virginia | 13 | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | |
Indiana | 11 | T | T | T | T | ML | ML | M | ML | ML | |
Missouri | 11 | T | T | ML | T | ML | T | ML | T | T | |
Washington | 11 | O | O | O | OL | O | O | O | O | OL | |
Arizona | 10 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
Minnesota | 10 | O | O | OL | OL | O | OL | O | OL | T | |
Wisconsin | 10 | O | OL | O | OL | O | OL | O | OL | OL | |
Colorado | 9 | T | T | T | T | T | T | OL | T | T | |
Louisiana | 9 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | ML | |
S. Carolina | 8 | ML | ML | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
Iowa | 7 | OL | OL | O | OL | O | OL | OL | OL | T | |
Oregon | 7 | O | OL | OL | OL | O | OL | O | O | OL | |
Arkansas | 6 | M | M | M | M | M | ML | M | M | ML | |
Mississippi | 6 | M | M | M | ML | M | M | M | M | M | |
Nevada | 5 | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | |
New Mexico | 5 | O | OL | OL | T | OL | OL | OL | T | T | |
W. Virginia | 5 | M | M | ML | M | M | ML | M | M | ML | |
Maine | 4 | O | O | O | OL | O | O | O | O | OL | |
NH | 4 | OL | T | T | T | OL | T | OL | T | T | |
Alaska | 3 | ML | ML | ML | ML | M | M | M | ML | M | |
Delaware | 3 | O | OL | OL | O | O | O | O | O | O | |
Montana | 3 | T | T | T | ML | T | ML | ML | ML | ML | |
N. Dakota | 3 | T | T | T | ML | ML | ML | ML | ML | M | |
S. Dakota | 3 | M | ML | T | M | M | ML | ML | ML | M | |
Open Left | FHQ | EV. com | RCP | 538 .com | Elect. Proj. | RM | NBC | CNN | .… |
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
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.

Leah 85p · 869 weeks ago
p.s. I just noticed that Election Projection is saying that Illinois is Strong (NOT SOLID) for Obama, that is pretty strange!
Leah 85p · 869 weeks ago
Leah 85p · 868 weeks ago
Popular Vote v. Electoral College (Why The Media Badly Needs A History Lesson)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/popul...
.
mvymvy 39p · 868 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 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
tmess2 70p · 868 weeks 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.
Flabath 9p · 868 weeks ago
Flabath 9p · 868 weeks ago
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? :)
Leah 85p · 868 weeks ago
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/538-on-cou...
.
SLCScott 74p · 868 weeks ago
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)
Chad_Nielson 57p · 868 weeks ago
However, my solution to that is just to move away from this screwball state for good. God bless America!
Leah 85p · 868 weeks ago
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campai...
.
Flabath 9p · 868 weeks ago
Leah 85p · 868 weeks ago
Here is an interesting article that you might want to read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/the-m...
.
AnnoyedAtThsSys 16p · 868 weeks ago
http://people-press.org/report/443/presidential-r...
Leah 85p · 868 weeks ago
has Alaska as a Toss-Up!
Leah 85p · 867 weeks ago
It's only 3 EVs but every little bit helps ;)
Leah 85p · 867 weeks ago
Leah 85p · 867 weeks ago
One change they made was moving Minnestosa to Toss-up.