An Update on the Rasmussen "Leaners" and a Look at How They Affect the Electoral College

We documented earlier this week that there may be a problem with Rasmussen's decision to report two different polling results with each release and have everyone use the newer and different, "with leaners" data when reporting it secondhand or using them in an electoral college analysis. Comparing a poll from Georgia in June that had no inclusion of leaners with a poll from July that did is problematic at the very least. Below is an updated look at the polls that Rasmussen has released since the "with leaners" distinction began appearing in press releases following July 4.

Rasmussen Polls Since w/Leaners Distinction was Added (7/9/08)*
State	Date	w/o Leaners	w/Leaners	Change	Undecideds Drop
Missouri	7/7	+5	+5	0	-10
New Jersey	7/7	+5	+3	+2	-4
Illinois	7/8	+13	+11	+2	-6**
North Dakota	7/8	0	+1	+1	-7**
Wisconsin	7/8	+13	+10	+3	-6
Louisiana	7/9	+20	+19	+1	-2
South Dakota	7/9	+4	+4	0	-4
Washington	7/9	+9	+8	+1	-6
Iowa	7/10	+10	+10	0	-9
Michigan	7/10	+8	+8	0	-5
Minnesota	7/10	+18	+17	+1	0
Kansas	7/14	+20	+23	+3	-9
North Carolina	7/15	+3	+3	0	-5
Oregon	7/15	+9	+9	0	-5
Nevada	7/16	+2	+2	0	-5
Virginia	7/16	0	+1	+1	-6
Alaska	7/17	+5	+5	0	-7
Arkansas	7/17	+10	+13	+3	-4
Georgia	7/17	+9	+11	+2	+1
Maine	7/17	+10	+8	+2	-2
Colorado	7/21	+7	+3	+4	-13
Ohio	7/21	+6	+10	+4	-7
Florida	7/22	+1	+2	+1	-7
Minnesota	7/22	+12	+13	+1	--***
New Hampshire	7/23	+6	+4	+2	-5
Pennsylvania	7/23	+5	+6	+1	-8
New Mexico	7/24	+5	+6	+1	-6
California	7/24	+12	+10	+2	-6
Avg. Change				+1.00	-5.7
*The "with leaners" distinction was added to reports that were released beginning on 7/9/08. The date on which these polls were conducted (The ones that these releases were based on) stretches back to 7/7/08. **Rasmussen has only conducted one poll in these states. Therefore, the difference was taken from between the with and without leaner numbers within the same poll in these cases. ***Previous poll had been taken after "with leaners" change had been made.

Overall then, there is still a bias toward McCain in cases where "with leaners" data is replacing w the data that does not include them. As I've said, this isn't going to hae major ramifications at the outset, but over time, once a series of polls have been conducted, that collective difference could have a huge impact on what FHQ and others are doing with their electoral college analyses. In the only instance where a state has been polled by Rasmussen more than once since the switch, the results cancelled each other out. The first poll gave McCain a one point edge with leaners while the poll that followed two weeks later saw Obama with the same advantage. Such a result likely won't be the norm, however. In Ohio, for example, using one version or the other shifted the Buckeye state's 20 electoral votes from Obama to McCain and back again. And though that is the only case of a change thus far, that list is likely to grow in the future when new polling data is released.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

So looking at the map, we see that using the without leaners data -- the type that was used prior to July 9 -- shifts the map in Obama's direction with the electoral vote tally reverting to the 298-240 margin that had been in place for most of July until the new Ohio poll surfaced last week. That four point change in Ohio triggered just a 0.34 point change in our weighted average, but that is all that is necessary to move 20 vital electoral votes from one candidate's column to the other's.

It could be said that all were arguing over is whether Ohio is a toss up favoring McCain or Obama when the real point is that the Buckeye state is a toss up. Period. It doesn't really favor anyone. That's a valid point. However, there are differences in other states -- obviously -- but one poll has not been enough to affect change in those cases. Further polling, though, may bring about that change.

Note: I don't know how regularly I'm going to update these figures, but I have built them into my spreadsheet and I'm tracking the differences. When and if any changes occur -- major or minor -- I will bring them to the attention to our readers.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/27/08)

Guam: Oh Well, So Much for Frontloading the General Election

A Game of Vice Presidential Chicken

The Electoral College Map (7/27/08)

Well, there's a lot to go over today. The latter half of the week saw a break from the 10 poll norm we had settled into over the course of the last few electoral college breakdowns with a typical amount of polling from Rasmussen (six new polls) in addition to another four swing state polling release from Quinnipiac. In total 17 new polls from 15 states were released since Wednesday. As I have mentioned in previous weeks, there seems to have been a relative settling down of FHQ's weighted averages while at the same time the polls have been fairly volatile (A state like Minnesota comes to mind. Results out of the North Star state have ranged anywhere from a 2 to 18 point lead for Obama recently.). And that pattern is continued with this new polling.

New Polls (July 23-26)
State	Poll	Margin (With Leaners/ Without Leaners)
California	Rasmussen	+10/+12
Colorado	Quinnipiac	+2
Colorado	Frederick	+4
Florida	Rasmussen	+2/+1
Maine	Critical Insights	+20
Michigan	Quinnipiac	+4
Minnesota	Quinnipiac	+2
Minnesota	Rasmussen	+13/+12
Mississippi	Research 2000/Daily Kos	+9
New Hampshire	Rasmussen	+4/+6
New Jersey	Gannett	+14
New Mexico	Rasmussen	+6/+5
North Dakota	Research 2000/Daily Kos	+3
Pennsylvania	Rasmussen	+6/+5
South Carolina	Research 2000/Daily Kos	+13
Virginia	Public Policy Polling	+2
Wisconsin	Quinnipiac	+11

One thing you will notice that is different about the New Polls table is that all the information from Rasmussen is included: both "with leaners" and "without leaners" results. And I should note that I'll continue to use the "with leaners" data to compile the information for our electoral college maps. Fret not, though. I plan on regularly updating the differences in those two numbers from Rasmussen and will chart those changes on a separate map as warranted. The map "with leaners" will continue to be the official FHQ electoral college map, though. As of now the only change from using either set of numbers continues to be Ohio. The map below (with leaners) shows the Buckeye state's 20 electoral votes going to McCain. When the leaners are excluded, Obama takes an equally narrow lead. That is the only case where a state's electoral votes change hands or categories.

...for now. Additional future polling could--and probably will--change that.

Changes (July 23-26)
State	Before	After
South Carolina	Toss Up McCain	McCain lean

All those polls and the only change is South Carolina moving more solidly toward McCain into the Arizona senator's lean category. The last time South Carolina shifted was following the Zogby poll that gave Obama a one point edge in the Palmetto state. As I said then, I didn't really think of South Carolina as or expect it to necessarily be an Obama state come early November. I said then, and I still maintain, that South Carolina is a state that Obama can improve upon past Democratic nominee's performances, but to win it would be a tremendous coup, not to mention an indication that Obama has won a landslide victory. Even when the Zogby poll is omitted, South Carolina remains a McCain lean. This is due in large part to the fact that this most recent Research 2000 poll in the Palmetto state is the only one to place the race outside of the single digit range. This poll, then, acts to pull the average here back into the range where we would expect South Carolina to be.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Let's talk about landslides for a minute. An Obama victory that includes South Carolina may be considered a landslide but that characterization may be an exaggeration depending upon how landslide is defined. If you rank the states for each candidate (1 through 51) based on the states' current averages South Carolina would rank 34 on Obama's list. On the current map McCain has 26 states and 260 electoral votes while Obama holds leads in 24 states (and the District of Columbia) totalling 278 electoral votes. If South Carolina is the last state on the list that Obama is able to pick off from McCain (and assuming the Illinois senator wins the states between South Carolina and where his list of states ends), he would gain 101 electoral votes (That's a group of states that includes all thoes above shaded in pink and Alaska.) on the total in the map above. His advantage over McCain in that scenario would be 379-159, a margin comparable to Bill Clinton's 1992 electoral college win over the first president Bush (370-168). Was 1992 a landslide? Maybe. Maybe not. Compared to both Reagan blowouts or Nixon's thrashing of Mondale in 1972, that doesn't look so bad. But compared to the tight margins of the 2000 and 2004, it could be portrayed as such in November by the media. Is such a scenario likely? No, but I suppose it is possible.

The reality of the situation now is that this appears to be a pretty close election given the current state of the polls and where most handicappers have things pegged currently (Though this appears to be up for debate. See the discussion between Abramowitz, Mann and Sabato and Campbell.). Obama has a lead, but not an insurmountable one. By our calculations, that margin is but 18 electoral votes, 278-260. During the latter half of this past week, McCain shifted South Carolina's 8 electoral votes into his lean category. And while that brings the Arizona senator total between strong and lean states to 157, that number still falls shy of Obama's stong total of 175. It should be noted, however, that the Obama's lean and toss up electoral vote totals are both currently hovering around 50. The Illinois senator has a solid coalition of states put together, but there still may be work to do putting together a winning combination. All of those (both light blue and blue) states are state where McCain is challenging Obama.

The Watch List*
State	Switch
Arizona	from Strong McCain	to McCain lean
Florida	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
Georgia	from McCain lean	to Strong McCain
Minnesota	from Strong Obama	to Obama lean
Mississippi	from McCain lean	to Strong McCain
Nevada	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up McCain
New Mexico	from Obama lean	to Toss Up Obama
North Carolina	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
Ohio	from Toss Up McCain	to Toss Up Obama
Virginia	from Toss Up McCain	to Toss Up Obama
*Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

And the Watch List? Well, North Dakota, South Carolina and Wisconsin have exited. The first is firmly within the toss up category, but favors McCain enough that new (and negative to McCain) polling won't necessarily move North Dakota into Obama territory. South Carolina, after a brief stay in the toss up category, is now firmly within the McCain lean area. And Wisconsin edges above the cut off point, but solidly within the Obama lean category. New Mexico is the only addition to the list. The Land of Enchantment's weighted average has been around 6 points (similar to Wisconsin) for a while now. Recently, it has been just above six, but with the new poll (Rasmussen +6) comes in just under that line. And that puts it on the watch. Essentially, Wisconsin and New Mexico switched places.

I'll be back later today with an updated look at the recent Rasmussen numbers and some other stuff too.


Recent Posts:
Guam: Oh Well, So Much for Frontloading the General Election

A Game of Vice Presidential Chicken

Is Obama Getting a Bounce from His Trip Abroad? A Different Approach

Guam: Oh Well, So Much for Frontloading the General Election

There's actually quite a bit of Guam news this morning. Well, any bit of news from Guam is usually quite a bit of news. But I'm one to talk: I've featured the island in at least three posts this election cycle. Anyway, Ballot Access News is reporting that the acting Guamanian governor (Lt. Gov. Michael W. Cruz) vetoed the bill that would have moved the island's straw vote for president from November to coincide with its primary election in September.

Here's the news from the web page of Guam's governor:

Acting Governor Michael W. Cruz vetoed Bill No. 287 yesterday which would have moved Guam's "straw poll" vote for President and Vice-President of the United States from the general election to the primary election.

"It seems conducting the "straw poll" hours before the rest of the United States begins voting would garner more attention than conducting a "straw poll" during the primary election," Acting Governor Cruz said. "If Guam is going to conduct a "straw poll" we should vote the same as all other American citizens which is during the general election."

Although residents of Guam do not officially vote for these positions, Guam has been conducting what is called a "straw poll" casting of ballots for the President and Vice-President hours before the rest of the United States begins voting.

That's interesting not only because of the veto news, but because it answers one of the questions that emerged from the post concerning bill #287 in the first place. Namely, when does Guam actually vote? On election day, which would be prior to the mainland US or after the rest of the US votes. Guamanians seem to take pride in being the first to vote. Hmmm, Guam as a bellwether. Interesting.

It is funny that this news should come out now because the answer to this question was actually independently verified by a Guam (or former Guam) resident who stumbled on that post. Here are his or her comments which actually contain some useful information about the island's ideological and demographic make up:

Hey there! I saw this blog through a google search and I was deeply intrigued. To answer the questions posted on the comments, yes.. Guam does vote a straw poll during election day..... but... as Guam is a day ahead of the mainland US (hence the term, "Where America's Day Begins," we actually do this voting almost a whole day before the US Mainland does their General Election. I myself am privy to this fact as I, being a Liberal Democrat, was part of the 33% Guamanian minority who voted for Kerry in 2004. As I am currently on Hawaii, I plan on making this vote "count" for Obama (As if that matters in this solidly blue state... har har). This year we may see a break of this pattern though (i.e. the Guam straw poll being predictive of the US General Election results). Guam is a peculiar territory.... deeply rooted in Catholic beliefs. If anything, I would brand the electorate there EXTREMELY socially conservative (even the Democrats there are Pro-Life), yet EXTREMELY economically liberal (even the Republicans there support HUGE governement spending on social programs and hiring their close family friends to run them). Obama himself won the island by 7 votes..... and counting the super-delegates in the island, Hillary pulled ahead (you see, Hillary was a symbol to Guam voters as a "What can you do for ME" kinda politician). Obama, does not seem to play to this pandering as much as Hillary.... this may in turn hurt him in the Guam straw poll, but may very well help him in the US Mainland GE. Here's to a hope of broken PATTERNS!!!

And so ends today's lesson on Guam. Any questions?


Recent Posts:
A Game of Vice Presidential Chicken

Is Obama Getting a Bounce from His Trip Abroad? A Different Approach

Is Florida a Swing State?

A Game of Vice Presidential Chicken

The clock is ticking on both presidential candidates to select running mates and there is even less for them than you might think. Sure the Democratic convention kicks off one month from today, leaving the candidates just over four weeks to make a selection. However, sixteen of those days will be devoted to the Olympic games and may not be the most opportune time to make such an announcement. With the games starting two weeks from today, both McCain and Obama will have to either fit their decisions into that two week window or make an announcement during the Olympic period.

The consensus is that Obama will make the first move because the Democratic convention is first. McCain is at a disadvantage here because the GOP convention gets underway just a week after the Democrats' gathering in Denver. In other words he can't fall back on the time between conventions as a viable time in which to make his VP selection public. Viewed from this angle, reports of McCain potentially making his decision this week make that possibility seem less farfetched (going before Obama, perhaps would make it more unusual).

So we have a predicted order of selections, and the timing has yet to be determined, but is severly constrained at this point. Let's talk about the Olympics as an obstacle to these decisions (And the games are not supposed to be political.) for a moment. During the last two cycles the Olympics had no real effect on vice presidential selection. In 2000, the Sydney games were not until mid-September, after both conventions and both VP selections. In 2004, Bush already had his man in Cheney and Kerry had countered that soon after he wrapped up the Democratic nomination by selecting John Edwards. But even though, the Olympics didn't play a role in the VP decisions in 2004 they may have had an effect on the presidential race. And I haven't seen this discussed anywhere. However, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth released their controversial ad on August 5, 2004, just eight days prior to Athens games commencing. Now, that leaves three weeks, one before the games and two during, for that to percolate before Kerry could/would effectively respond (He did file a complaint with the FEC during the games.). Did those games stand in the way of an effective response though? And what does that mean for the VP selections to come?

Well, the Olympics are a distraction and just enough of a distraction to allow for something underground like the Swift Boat ad to spread. However, something like a VP announcement would likely be viewed as a political move during an apolitical event. So while the Swift Boat Veterans may have been able to get away with it, McCain (or Obama) likely would not. It isn't that the games would overshadow the announcement so much that the announcement would be a move contrary to the overarching tenor of the games.

If Obama is supposed to go first then, he may be playing a game of brinksmanship with McCain and his campaign now. To stretch the decision out this far either forces McCain to move first or decide at a bad time (during the games or the Democratic convention). Nate Silver covered this earlier in the week when the report of McCain's imminent announcment surfaced, but didn't include the Olympics angle. But McCain is up against it on this one. Obama is holding all the cards and, if he is the one to move first, could hold them until the eve of the games. The flipside, of course, is that Obama forces a move out of McCain but leaves himself little time to respond or respond effectively. As adept as the Obama campaign has seemed though, it would appear unlikely that they would be playing such a game of chicken without some contingency plans. There are only so many rabbits McCain can pull out of that VP hat.

[Update: Chris Cillizza over at The Fix has more on the implications of the Olympics on VP selection.]

Thanks to Rob Shewfelt for getting the ball rolling on this one in the comments to the Florida post (linked below.).


Recent Posts:
Is Obama Getting a Bounce from His Trip Abroad? A Different Approach

Is Florida a Swing State?

The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners"

Is Obama Getting a Bounce from His Trip Abroad? A Different Approach

This may be less an approach than an observation, but I've spent a fair amount of time looking at the Rasmussen polls recently; especially the distinction between the "leaners" and "without leaners" data. And while polls thus far have indicated that the trip has yet to yield any noticeable bounce for the Illinois senator, there is some evidence, coincidental though it may be, that there is something positive to take away from the trip. Let me show you what I'm talking about. First, let's look at the table from the other day's post examining the Rasmussen reporting switch, but let's organize the states chronologically (based on when they were conducted) instead of alphabetically (And I'll add in the new polls from New Hampshire, New Mexico and Pennsylvania as well.):

Rasmussen Polls Since w/Leaners Distinction was Added (7/9/08)*
State	w/o Leaners	w/Leaners	Change	Undecideds Drop
Missouri	+5	+5	0	-10
New Jersey	+5	+3	+2	-4
Illinois	+13	+11	+2	-6**
North Dakota	0	+1	+1	-7**
Wisconsin	+13	+10	+3	-6
Louisiana	+20	+19	+1	-2
South Dakota	+4	+4	0	-4
Washington	+9	+8	+1	-6
Iowa	+10	+10	0	-9
Michigan	+8	+8	0	-5
Minnesota (7/10)	+18	+17	+1	0
Kansas	+20	+23	+3	-9
North Carolina	+3	+3	0	-5
Oregon	+9	+9	0	-5
Nevada	+2	+2	0	-5
Virginia	0	+1	+1	-6
Alaska	+5	+5	0	-7
Arkansas	+10	+13	+3	-4
Georgia	+9	+11	+2	+1
Maine	+10	+8	+2	-2
Polls below this point were conducted after Obama left to go abroad (7/19/08).
Colorado	+7	+3	+4	-13
Ohio	+6	+10	+4	-7
Florida	+1	+2	+1	-7
Minnesota (7/22)	+12	+13	+1	--***
New Hampshire	+6	+4	+2	-5
Pennsylvania	+5	+6	+1	-8
New Mexico	+5	+6	+1	-6
Avg. Change			+0.96	-5.5
*The "with leaners" distinction was added to reports that were released beginning on 7/9/08. The date on which these polls were conducted (The ones that these releases were based on) stretches back to 7/7/08. **Rasmussen has only conducted one poll in these states. Therefore, the difference was taken from between the with and without leaner numbers within the same poll in these cases. ***Previous poll had been taken after "with leaners" change had been made.

Above that yellow line, Louisiana is the only state where the "with leaners" distinction favored Obama. But since Obama started his trip overseas, and incidentally this is where the coincidence potentially comes in, four of the seven polls to be released show Obama with the edge when leaners are included. Does this mean that leaners are starting to break for Obama? And, further, does the trip have anything to do with it?

Are leaners breaking toward Obama?
It certainly looks that way. Are these simply Obama states in the first place, though? With the exception of Florida, all seven states are states that are Obama states in FHQ's most recent look at the electoral college (Well, Ohio changes sides depending on whether you use Rasmussen's leaners or without leaners data.). But that wasn't the case in the polls taken before Obama left. Of the 12 states where there was a difference between the with leaners and without leaners numbers, six were Obama states and all six saw drops in the margin when leaners were added. The other eight states, where there was no difference in the margins once leaners were added, were equal parts McCain and Obama states and all broke in McCain's direction. It seems then, that it isn't just a matter of the states polled since Obama left being Obama states.

Fine, just more than half of the seven states where polls have been conducted since Obama left have leaners favoring him now (Well, that does quintuple the number of states that were in that category in the first place.). That is a switch, but does that mean that the trip is what triggered the change? Maybe, maybe not. Rasmussen's own daily tracking poll does have Obama bouncing. And the "with leaners" numbers at least appear to show Obama gaining among that group in states where respondents have been surveyed since Obama left at the outset of last weekend. Coincidence it may be, but it is an interesting way of going about assessing whether Obama has gained anything out of this trip. If this is evidence--and even I'm skeptical of that--of Obama getting a boost from this overseas tour, then it is among the group in the middle that is likely to decide this election.


Recent Posts:
Is Florida a Swing State?

The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners"

The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)

Is Florida a Swing State?

The answer to that question depends on several things. However a few things stand out as factors that could affect Florida's status in 2008 as a toss up state. First of all the Sunshine state is one that as been trending Republican. A simple look at partisanship within the state legislature over the last thirty plus years provides a clear illustration of this. Clear Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature gave way to Republican control in the mid-1990s. Following the elections in 2006, the GOP held an almost 2 to 1 advantage in both the Florida House and Senate (No wonder Democrats had no other recourse than to go along with the January 29 presidential primary that a GOP-controlled state government initiated.). The flip side of this is that voter registration in Florida during 2008 has favored Democrats by an advantage of over 6.5 to 1. Whether these two factors cancel each other out depends in large part on whether these newly registered Democrats actually become voters in November (and vote for Obama). Even if the newly registered don't turn out in high numbers, though, will GOP turnout be as depressed as their registration numbers have been? Neither issue is likely to be even close to determined until those 72 hour get-out-the-vote campaigns kick in as the calendar turns to November.

While we cannot definitively determine how each side will do on the turnout front in Florida, there are a couple of issues that the candidates will have to navigate there that will help us gain a glimpse into how close Florida may turn out to be. For McCain, if the Arizona senator continues to push offshore drilling as an answer to high gas prices. The latest Rasmussen poll out of the state (released yesterday) showed nearly 3/5ths of Floridians surveyed were in favor of drilling while only a third still favored keeping the ban in place. Despite that though, McCain has dropped in the Sunshine state of late at the very time when he is pushing his drilling plan the hardest. That may be coincidental because that downswing may have more to do with the issue that Obama must overcome in order to make Florida a true swing state.

On some level, Obama's trip abroad this week has sought to address his issue in Florida. The carefully managed trip through Israel and the West Bank when viewed through the lens of the Jewish American vote makes a lot of sense. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-Israel comments have made some in the Jewish community wary of Obama. That is compounded by the fact that many of them (in Florida and elsewhere) supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Obama, then, is faced with having to woo a vital portion of the traditional Democratic coalition back into the fold. His ability to gain that segment's votes in Florida, thus keeping them from defecting to McCain or Nader, will have a lot to say in whether Florida will be close in November. I don't have access to the premium material on Rasmussen's site, but would be interested to see how the Jewish preferences came out in yesterday's poll that had Obama ahead in the Sunshine state.

Regardless, how these issues work out, they will help us to determine whether Florida will, in fact, be a toss up state in the general election.


Recent Posts:
The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners"

The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)

The Electoral College Map (7/20/08)

The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners" [Update]

Yeah, what is the deal with that switch? On its simplest level, the chart below looks at the difference in the Rasmussen poll margins based on whether leaners were included in the data. That distinction seems to have been instituted following July 4. The polls that started coming out on July 9 began to use the language "with leaners" to describe the alternate numbers to what was in the headline. "With leaners" data gives McCain about a one point bump when we look at how the margin between McCain and Obama is affected based on whether leaners are included. It has been rare that Obama has gained once "leaners" are included with those who directly answer the candidate preference question. Interestingly, the two polls today gave the Illnois senator a boost once leaners are included.

Rasmussen Polls Since w/Leaners Distinction was Added (7/9/08)*
State	w/o Leaners	w/Leaners	Change	Undecideds Drop
Alaska	+5	+5	0	-7
Arkansas	+10	+13	+3	-4
Colorado	+7	+3	+4	-13
Florida	+1	+2	+1	-7
Georgia	+9	+11	+2	+1
Illinois	+13	+11	+2	-6**
Iowa	+10	+10	0	-9
Kansas	+20	+23	+3	-9
Louisiana	+20	+19	+1	-2
Maine	+10	+8	+2	-2
Michigan	+8	+8	0	-5
Minnesota (7/10)	+18	+17	+1	0
Minnesota (7/22)	+12	+13	+1	0
Missouri	+5	+5	0	-10
Nevada	+2	+2	0	-5
New Jersey	+5	+3	+2	-4
North Carolina	+3	+3	0	-5
North Dakota	0	+1	+1	-7**
Ohio	+6	+10	+4	-7
Oregon	+9	+9	0	-5
South Dakota	+4	+4	0	-4
Virginia	0	+1	+1	-6
Washington	+9	+8	+1	-6
Wisconsin	+13	+10	+3	-6
Avg. Change			+1.08	-5.4
*The "with leaners" distinction was added to reports that were released beginning on 7/9/08. The date on which these polls were conducted (The ones that these releases were based on) stretches back to 7/7/08. **Rasmussen has only conducted one poll in these states. Therefore, the difference was taken from between the with and without leaner numbers within the same poll in these cases.

The problem here is not one of the changes in the margins though. It is one of comparison. You can't directly compare the new "leaner" data to past Rasmussen polls that did not include the respondents that meet that description. Obviously if leaners are pushed in any one direction, the number of undecideds decreases. So, if we look at the data concerning undecideds plus those supporting other candidates (not McCain or Obama) in the most recent polls and in the one immediately prior to the inclusion of leaners, we get a better sense of how much the undecided total has dropped. We can look at this within each poll; looking at the with and without leaners numbers, but what we are trying to capture is the problem of comparing the new, with leaners polls with the old, without leaner polls. And what we see is that on average, the percentage of undecideds drops by more than five points per poll when leaners are included in the topline numbers. Now, we expect to see the number of undecideds drop this time of year...naturally. But we don't expect that decrease to be manufactured. And the catch is that everyone (FHQ included) has been using Rasmussen's "with leaners" numbers since the switch. The result is that comparisons and subsequent analyses--whether used for electoral college projections or not--are open to a potential bias.

In our case, here at FHQ, I took the liberty of changing data to reflect the "without leaners" view across all the Rasmussen data. I altered the margins of these 24 polls then, to pull them in line with the pre-switch polling methodology. The effect that had on our state-by-state averages was negligible. The only change was that Ohio slipped back into Obama's column (Due to the new Rasmussen poll in the Buckeye state, Ohio has moved from an Obama toss up to a McCain toss up.). Again though, that isn't the real issue. One poll among many in the average is not all that consequential. However, when we continue to compile "with leaner" polls, they collectively have the potential to skew our examination of the electoral college. And that just so happens to be contrary to what we want to accomplish with this endeavor. So let's just lop off the Rasmussen data and be done with it. Well, that deprives us of a valuable source of data. Since Rasmussen made the switch (post-July 4) there have been 43 new polls. 24 of those polls have been from Rasmussen. That's approaching 60% of the data. I don't then, want to throw Rasmussen out. What we can do is continue what we've begun here: to chart how much of a difference the "with leaners" data has on our electoral college projections. And as we do with the monthly examinations of how the averages have changed from state to state, we can observe these differences periodically as well. After a month or so, we will then be able to see if there is any significant bias attendant to including the leaner data and how large that impact is.


A belated thanks to reader, SarahLawrenceScott, for getting the ball rolling on this examination.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)

The Electoral College Map (7/20/08) [Update]

The Electoral College Map (7/16/08)

The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)

Ten seems to have been the magic number for polling during the last few iterations of these electoral college projections. This is now the third straight breakdown with ten new polls to add to the mix. And for the first time in a while there are some actual changes to discuss. Of the ten new polls in eight states, most fall in line with what we have seen from the other polls in other states during July: they confirm what we already knew. However, there is one alteration, and a big one it is.

New Polls (July 21-23)
State	Poll	Margin
Alaska	Rasmussen	+5
Colorado	Rasmussen	+3
Florida	ARG	+2
Georgia	Rasmussen	+11
Michigan	EPIC/MRA	+2
New Hampshire	UNH	+3
New Hampshire	ARG	+2
North Carolina	Civitas	+3
Ohio	Public Policy Polling	+8
Ohio	Rasmussen	+10

Ohio shifts its 20 electoral votes from Obama to McCain. This is based in large part on the Rasmussen poll that has the Arizona senator up by 10 points in the Buckeye state. That ten point lead is an anomaly when compared with the most recent polls out of the state, especially in contrast to the 8 point lead the PPP poll handed Obama in the state just two days prior. Some saw this and wanted to know why. I don't have a problem with asking why, but in this case I didn't really flinch because Ohio has been so close throughout FHQ's tracking of the electoral college since March. My thinking was that if Obama gets an 8 point poll from one firm, McCain was just as likely to get an 8 point (or in this case, 10 point) advantage in another poll. That's just the nature of Ohio. And yes, I say this even though the majority of polls recently have been trending in Obama's direction. Ohio is simply that close.

Changes (July 21-23)
State	Before	After
Ohio	Toss Up Obama	Toss Up McCain

These widely differing numbers--just a couple of days apart--do point out a weakness in the weighted average we use here. With all the weight on the newest poll--the one favoring McCain--Ohio's electoral votes move into his column. Well, why don't you put equal weight on both of those new polls since they basically average each other out? I thought about that, but opted to stay true to the measure established. Our rule here is to only give equal weight to more than one poll if they surface on the same day. With that said though, let's be transparent here and report the results if we had decided to move in that direction. As it stands, the Rasmussen poll is the most recent poll in Ohio and is given the extra weight. That's the formula and it puts the average for Ohio at 0.174 in McCain's favor. If we throw that PPP poll that gave the edge to Obama into the "added weight" pile, Ohio stays in Obama's column with the average basically remaining stationary at 0.167 in the Illinois senator's direction.

In other words, no matter how you look at it, Ohio is a toss up state. It remains the closest state to flipping between candidates, followed closely by Nevada and Virginia. And those three are pretty much in line with what FiveThirtyEight.com (see right hand column and scroll down) calls their Tipping Point states: those states most likely to be the states that put either candidate over the top in the electoral college total. Nevada, Ohio and Virginia make up three of the top five. Colorado and Michigan round out that list there, but aren't as close in the FHQ average. In fact both have been off the Watch List for a few weeks now.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

For the time being then, Ohio and its 20 electoral votes shift over to McCain, altering each candidate's electoral totals for the first time in July. In the process the race becomes closer. Well, the race may not be any closer but the electoral vote totals for McCain and Obama are closer. The fact remains though, that we are talking about a shift from one toss up category to the other. These states and their electoral votes are still very much in play (14 states and 167 electoral votes). That hasn't changed. McCain's lean and strong totals are still less together than Obama's strong category by itself, and that continues to put McCain at a disadvantage. However, to see any state, much less Ohio, switch in his direction is a positive for the McCain campaign given how much things have moved in Obama's direction (on the whole) since the beginning of June.

The Watch List*
State	Switch
Arizona	from Strong McCain	to McCain lean
Florida	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
Georgia	from McCain lean	to Strong McCain
Minnesota	from Strong Obama	to Obama lean
Mississippi	from McCain lean	to Strong McCain
Nevada	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up McCain
North Carolina	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
North Dakota	from Toss Up McCain	to Toss Up Obama
Ohio	from Toss Up McCain	to Toss Up Obama
South Carolina	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
Virginia	from Toss Up McCain	to Toss Up Obama
Wisconsin	from Obama lean	to Toss Up Obama
*Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

So the Watch List adds Georgia and retains Ohio, though the potential switch is from McCain to Obama instead of vice versa in the Buckeye state. Of the 12 states now on the list, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada and North Dakota (in that order) are the ones most likely to change sides as opposed simply changing categories. And with a new poll out in Virginia this morning, we already have something to look at for Sunday's edition.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/20/08) [Update]

The Electoral College Map (7/16/08)

The 30/30 Rule: Obama's Chances in Georgia...and across the South

The Electoral College Map (7/20/08) [Update]

Things are starting to settle in to place in the McCain-Obama race, or that has been the mark of the polls during July at least. No poll has come along that has fundamentally changed the averages in any state enough push it from McCain to Obama or vice versa, much less alter its distinction whether favoring the Arizona senator or the Illinois senator. That being said, this is another electoral college breakdown with new data that does little to change what we knew of the landscape prior to when it was revealed. That is not to say that things won't change; I'm of a mind that they will, but as FHQ reader, Scott, pointed out--eloquently, I might add--in the comments to the last electoral college analysis, both McCain and Obama have established national polling ceilings and floors that have remained relatively persistent across polling firms and over time. The interesting thing is that of the ten new polls since last Wednesday, 60% of them represent new data from states currently (Well, formerly in some cases. See below.) on FHQ's Watch List. And even with that much possibility for change nothing happened. Of those six Watch List states, half came off the list and half held firm.

New Polls (July 16-20)
State	Poll	Margin
Alaska	Research 2000/Daily Kos	+10
Arkansas	Rasmussen	+13
Kansas	Rasmussen	+23
Maine	Rasmussen	+8
Nevada	Rasmussen	+2
New Jersey	Strategic Vision	+9
North Carolina	Rasmussen	+3
Oregon	Rasmussen	+9
Virginia	Rasmussen	+1
Washington	Survey USA	+16

Watch List aside--at least for now--each candidate had five polls in his favor. And each acted in a manner as to confirm what we already knew about the race for the White House in each state. McCain holds slim leads in the mid/South-Atlantic states and continues to do well in the heartland. Obama, on the other hand, remains strong in traditionally blue states in the northeast and northwest. And while that may be true, the underlying electoral college numbers remain unchanged. Obama continues to maintain a 298-240 electoral vote advantage over McCain with no states shifting categories in either direction.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

As for the Watch List (the list of states most likely to change categories in the event of new polling), Alaska, Oregon and Washigton all come off. Alaska and Oregon became more firmly "lean" states favoring McCain and Obama, respectively while Washigton barely crossed the threshhold to keep it off the list for the time being. Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia just continue to look like toss up states. And that cannot be welcome news for the Arizona senator, since all were carried by Bush four years ago. If just those three states shifted from red to blue with the rest of the 2004 map remaining unchanged, it would be enough to essentially reverse the 286-252 margin that Bush won by over Kerry. Of course, that doesn't include the other Bush 2004 states that are already favoring Obama now.

The Watch List*
State	Switch
Arizona	from Strong McCain	to McCain lean
Florida	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
Minnesota	from Strong Obama	to Obama lean
Mississippi	from McCain lean	to Strong McCain
Nevada	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up McCain
North Carolina	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
North Dakota	from Toss Up McCain	to Toss Up Obama
Ohio	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up McCain
South Carolina	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
Virginia	from Toss Up McCain	to Toss Up Obama
Wisconsin	from Obama lean	to Toss Up Obama
*Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

What we know, then, hasn't changed all that much from before. We may be in the midst of a calm before the storm though; a time when everyone is on vacation (at least from the race for the presidency) and not putting too much stock into the race--or less than they did before. So, we have emerged from a period of activity in the polls following Obama's clinching of the Democratic nomination that set the stage for the general election. It will be interesting to track the movement between now and when the conventions kick off following the Olympics. I will be surprised to see any wholesale changes from what has been established up to now prior to that point. There may be some movement on the margins, but nothing earth-shattering.

As I think about this more, I wonder if the excitement surrounding the Democratic nomination race deprived McCain of an opportunity to effectively define Obama in a way that would help him to shift the race in his direction. Some have argued that the Arizona senator missed his chance during late April and through May. At that point, though, it was hard to get a word in a edgewise, much less define the Illinois senator for the fall campaign. Once Obama wrapped things up though, the public--the non-political junkies excluded--largely eschewed the campaign due to fatigue, waiting to pick back up in the fall before the election. If that is the case--that people were wrapped up in the Democratic race and then collectively tired of politics once the nominee had been determined--then we're talking about an environment that, like the other indicators of presidential success, does not favor John McCain. While on the national level, the two are still close, the state level picture gives the edge to Obama currently. And McCain doesn't seem to have a way to reverse this during a typically crucial period (the summer) anytime before the conventions in late August and September.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/16/08)

The 30/30 Rule: Obama's Chances in Georgia...and across the South

Can the World Position Itself for the Next President Before the Actual Election? In 2008, it won't be easy.