WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
Obama makes a nice comeback, 278-260, an increase of 8 EVs from our last forecast. But the gain is mostly from one source, 538.com, which increased from 258 to 306.5 EVs, moving from our worst projection to our best. 538 is basically following the national polls, where Obama has moved from a 2 pt deficit to a 3 pt lead, on average, in the last few days. But Open Left, who just 3 days ago was basically in sync with 538, now differs by almost 40 EVs. Why?
Obama's national poll surge has not--repeat, not--resulted in a clear electoral college lead. There has been enough state polling over the past few days that it would have been picked up by now. - Open LeftExcept that we've seen consistently that state polls seem to lag 1-2 weeks behind the national polls. I would expect the state polls to start being more favorable to Obama next week, assuming his national lead holds.
Which leads me to the following conclusion: I think the projections which include some "special sauce", especially NBC and CNN, are beginning to show their value by not bouncing all over the place. CNN especially has shown the most consistency, being at 273 in June, moving slowly up to 291 after the Democratic convention, and has since moved back down to 283. Sure, they were maddening when they were showing NM as McCain-Lean when the polls were clearly showing otherwise. But there is something to be said that they have had 7 states always as Tossups throughout: CO, FL, MI, NV, NH, OH, VA.
Colorado remains our tipping point state.
Map changes: Towards McCain: WI: OL-> T. Towards Obama: FL: ML->T; MI, NM: T->OL; NC: M->ML.
Please also check out our Senate Forecast and House Forecast.
The sources are sorted by each projection's estimate of Obama's Electoral Votes (Algorithm at bottom). The states are sorted from Obama-Strong to McCain -Strong. The right column shows a running total of Obama's EVs. States in 3 or more categories: IN, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NM, NC, OH, PA, WV, WI - 12 states, the highest number since we've been tracking this.
| DCW Presidential Forecast | |||||||||||
| State | EVs | 538 .com | FHQ | CNN | EV. com | RM | NBC | Open Left | RCP | Elect. Proj. | EVs |
| Date | 9/20. | 9/19. | 9/19. | 9/20. | 9/19. | 9/15. | 9/19. | 9/20. | 9/15. | ||
| Obama-Strong (O) | 260 | 157 | 160 | 153 | 193 | 172 | 164 | 157 | 154 | ||
| Obama-Lean (OL) | 33 | 65 | 63 | 62 | 66 | 61 | 55 | 45 | 43 | ||
| Tossup (T) | 45 | 156 | 115 | 139 | 32 | 78 | 85 | 120 | 141 | ||
| McCain-Lean (ML) | 30 | 11 | 75 | 38 | 58 | 67 | 88 | 59 | 26 | ||
| McCain-Strong (M) | 170 | 149 | 125 | 146 | 189 | 160 | 146 | 157 | 174 | ||
| Obama Total | 293 | 222 | 223 | 215 | 259 | 233 | 219 | 202 | 197 | ||
| McCain Total | 200 | 160 | 200 | 184 | 247 | 227 | 234 | 216 | 200 | ||
| Obama Est. | 307 | 289 | 283 | 280 | 273 | 273 | 268 | 265 | 264 | ||
| California | 55 | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | 55 |
| Conn. | 7 | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | 62 |
| DC | 3 | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | 65 |
| Hawaii | 4 | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | 69 |
| Illinois | 21 | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | 90 |
| Maryland | 10 | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | 100 |
| Massachusetts | 12 | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | 112 |
| New York | 31 | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | 143 |
| Rhode Island | 4 | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | 147 |
| Vermont | 3 | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | 150 |
| Delaware | 3 | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | OL | 153 |
| Maine | 4 | O | O | OL | T | O | O | O | O | O | 157 |
| New Jersey | 15 | O | OL | OL | OL | O | O | OL | OL | OL | 172 |
| Iowa | 7 | O | OL | OL | OL | OL | OL | O | OL | OL | 179 |
| Oregon | 7 | O | OL | O | OL | OL | OL | OL | OL | OL | 186 |
| Washington | 11 | O | OL | OL | OL | O | OL | OL | OL | OL | 197 |
| New Mexico | 5 | O | OL | OL | OL | T | OL | OL | OL | T | 202 |
| Minnesota | 10 | O | OL | T | T | O | OL | T | T | T | 212 |
| Michigan | 17 | O | T | T | OL | OL | T | OL | T | T | 229 |
| Pennsylvania | 21 | O | T | OL | T | OL | OL | T | T | T | 250 |
| Wisconsin | 10 | O | OL | T | T | OL | T | T | T | T | 260 |
| NH | 4 | OL | T | T | T | OL | T | T | T | T | 264 |
| Colorado | 9 | OL | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | 273 |
| Ohio | 20 | OL | T | T | T | ML | T | T | T | T | 293 |
| Nevada | 5 | T | T | T | T | T | T | ML | T | T | 298 |
| Virginia | 13 | T | T | T | T | T | T | ML | T | T | 311 |
| Florida | 27 | T | T | T | T | ML | ML | ML | ML | T | 338 |
| Indiana | 11 | ML | T | ML | T | ML | ML | T | T | M | 349 |
| Missouri | 11 | ML | T | ML | ML | M | ML | ML | ML | ML | 360 |
| Montana | 3 | ML | T | ML | ML | M | ML | ML | ML | M | 363 |
| N. Carolina | 15 | M | T | ML | ML | M | ML | ML | ML | M | 378 |
| W. Virginia | 5 | ML | ML | ML | T | M | M | ML | M | ML | |
| Louisiana | 9 | M | M | ML | ML | M | M | ML | M | M | |
| N. Dakota | 3 | M | ML | M | M | M | M | M | ML | M | |
| Alaska | 3 | M | ML | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Arizona | 10 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | ML | |
| Arkansas | 6 | M | M | ML | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Georgia | 15 | M | M | ML | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Alabama | 9 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Idaho | 4 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Kansas | 6 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Kentucky | 8 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Mississippi | 6 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Nebraska | 5 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Oklahoma | 7 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| S. Carolina | 8 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| S. Dakota | 3 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Tennessee | 11 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Texas | 34 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Utah | 5 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| Wyoming | 3 | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | |
| 538 .com | FHQ | CNN | EV. com | RM | NBC | Open Left | RCP | Elect. Proj. | .... | ||
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
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.
Logging you in...
del.icio.us
tmess2 70p · 860 weeks ago
What I would like to see from the sites and 538 sometimes notes it in the commentary would be a list in order of the states with how much they are currently differing from the national numbers. In other words, how much above 50% nationally does one candidate have to reach to swing this state the other way. Given the volatility of the national poll, the "swinginess" of the states is more important than how a state currently plays.
SLCScott 74p · 860 weeks ago
"This Balance of Power Calculator aggregates data from a variety of sources to provide a comprehensive assessment of the state-by-state race for the White House. Data inputs include the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in a state, an average of the latest polling from other firms (the “538 Average”), Rasmussen Markets data, Intrade market data, the aggregated rankings of selected analysts, the state’s voting history and national trends."
They don't actually say they put that into a formula. Looking at their past shifts, it looks to me like they're really doing the same thing as CNN or NBC, except that they'll explicitly attribute changes to one of the factors. Otherwise they wouldn't have 10 states shift on the same day, as they did on August 22. As I've said before, I like having some of the subjective projections in the DCW list, as they bring in factors that are difficult to quantify.
Matt 75p · 860 weeks ago
lck 19p · 860 weeks ago
http://election.princeton.edu/
or at the very least , check it out. They also have an interesting map with the sizes of the states distorted to show their EV weight. I followed this site 4 years ago (different incarnation) and it was quite accurate. (Another nice benefit: they show Obama way ahead.)
Oregon Dem · 860 weeks ago
tmess2 70p · 860 weeks ago
I think once we get closer to the election and typically have two or three polls in the major states each week, electoral vote is more reliable because they only consider the "current" polls whereas some of the others assume that "dated" polls still have value.
Matt 75p · 860 weeks ago
SLCScott 74p · 860 weeks ago
I went through Pollster.com and classified states as follows:
Solid for a candidate if the pollster.com average is above 50.
Lean for a candidate if the candidate is the only one to have reached 50 in a poll since McCain became the presumptive nominee in March (Zogby Interactive doesn't count).
Toss-up if neither of the above apply.
The idea is that if a state consistently polls 50-47, regardless of the methodology of the poll or the state of the national race, it's very hard for the trailing candidate to win. But if a state has a lot of polls like 46-40, but the leading candidate never breaks 50, the trailing candidate has a chance.
The results:
Solid McCain:ID, UT, AZ, WY, AK, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC, TN, KY
Solid Obama: CA, IA, IL, NY, VT, ME, MA, RI, CT, DE, MD, DC, HI
Lean McCain: MT, MO, AR, IN, NC, FL
Lean Obama: WA, OR, CO, MN, WI, MI, PA, NJ
Toss-ups: NV, NM, OH, WV, VA, NH
There are a couple of intriguing things buried in there. West Virginia as a toss up is startling. It's true McCain broke 50 in late February, which is just before my cut-off, so it could easily be called a McCain lean. But still, I wonder if Obama should have put some more resources there. Maybe it's not too late.
Also notable is that Colorado is an Obama lean but New Mexico is a toss-up. Obama winning Colorado and losing New Mexico is not a popular parlay, but it's not out of the question.
Those are the most notable surprises, although there are a few others that caught my eye (Maine and North Dakota are safe, New Jersey, Arkansas, and Washingon not entirely so).
Oh, and if you want the bottom line, this method yields 164 Obama-strong, 100 Obama lean, 52 toss-up, 73 McCain lean, and 149 McCain solid, for a total of 264 to 222 and an Obama estimate of 285.
At any rate, it's a little different way of looking at it, so I decided to share. :)
uplandpoet · 860 weeks ago
SLCScott 74p · 860 weeks ago
I think it's worth it to send Clinton (either one) there for a day, and to run some ads.
Assuming that people are closed minded when they're showing indications of keeping an open mind is a good way to squander an opportunity.
uplandpoet · 860 weeks ago
they certainly OUGHT to be giving obama a look in the beautiful state of WVA, and they vote D for most statewide offices, so maybe you are right, but....
Chad_Nielson 57p · 860 weeks ago
BTW: WOOT SLC!
Chad_Nielson 57p · 860 weeks ago
UUbuntu 33p · 860 weeks ago
The downside of this methodology is that we won't get a good sense of stability in the predicted result. So we feel jerked around with the poll watching. But applying non-mathematical overlays onto the data will only make the trends more stable and not more accurate.
SLCScott 74p · 860 weeks ago
That would be true if we had a large, controlled data set. But in US Presidential elections we don't. The system has too many variables compared to the amount of data; it's not possible to model it without making lots of assumptions. Those a priori assumptions are just as subjective as the subjective judgement used in the non-mathematical projections. The advantage of the mathematical projections is that they are unbiased, in the sense that once the a priori rules are set, the projection can't be finessed to favor one candidate, make the race look closer than it is, or support earlier analyses.
As for 538's model in particular, I love reading Nate's stuff, but his model seems over-leveraged to data. A poll in say, South Carolina can have the following effects:
--changes the model's perception of the overall state of the race
--changes the model's perception of similar states
--changes the model's perception of how various demographics are leaning
That's a triple whammy that might cause North Carolina results to jump, for instance. And the South Carolina poll that triggered it all might be an outlier. Giving 600 people in a poll the ability to switch the whole country around seems like bad statistics to me.
The test of this is in the 538 results. 538 aims to be different from some other projections by accurately predicting the result on Nov. 4, rather than the state of the electorate now. And yet it has swung from one extreme to the other and back again. That means that at some point it failed badly at its stated goal.
My suspicion is that Nate will seriously retool the 538 model to get rid of this swinginess before 2012, but for now 538 is an exercise in overstating the importance of outlying state polls.
UUbuntu 33p · 859 weeks ago
But (I believe) that most of the "bounciness" of the prediction is reflective of the fact that the national and state polls range from McCain +2 to Obama +4, and that's probably where the final vote will lie.
Chad_Nielson 57p · 860 weeks ago
greenwoodindy · 859 weeks ago
Matt 75p · 859 weeks ago