...but given the way Ohio Republican Party Chair is lashing out at McCain over the plan's rejection in the rules committee, that doesn't seem like a much of a chance. Nevertheless, the plan will have a final vote tomorrow as the rules committee will vote to approve the rules governing primaries and caucuses for 2012; rules which will be ratified at next week's convention.
CQ added one more piece to the puzzle today, though. States violating the "no one goes before the first Tuesday in March but Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina" rule will be penalized half their delegates in 2012. Yes, the same penalty that kept Wyoming, Florida, Michigan, South Carolina and even New Hampshire from moving ahead of February 5, 2008. No, not even the Granite state had an exemption in 2008, but all of the above will likely have all their delegations seated next week, and much more quietly than Florida and Michigan this week at the Democratic convention.
It is likely then that we will see a few more renegade states in 2012, though as I explained last night, the identity of those states will have much to do with which party actually wins the 2008 election. States with legislatures controlled by the party out of the White House are the ones more likely to move; more likely to be renegades. That, in itself, will constrain movement of the sort we saw in the lead up to 2008. But it won't completely stop it. And from the looks of, the status quo sanctions the GOP is putting forth won't either. States will forego those delegates in exchange for some level of influence over who the next presidential nominees will be.
Recent Posts:
On GOP Conventions and VP Selections
And the Ohio Plan is Dead. The Democrats Will Go It Alone on 2012 Presidential Primary Reform
The Democratic Convention Roll Call
Thursday, August 28, 2008
On GOP Conventions and VP Selections
What, during the Democratic Convention?
Yeah, let's look at what's ahead for and what's in store from the Republicans. First let's look at the St. Paul convention next week. The GOP convention is already under attack, and not just from Democrats. Tropical Storm/Hurricane Gustav is heading into the Gulf of Mexico and forecasts have it making landfall sometime early next week -- during the Republican's convention -- in the New Orleans area. Now, I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure remembering Hurricane Katrina was not at the top of the list of things to be highlighted by the Republicans next week. So already, even before the convention kicks off, there have been, now, two things that have "gone wrong" for the Republican Party. First, this developing story in the Gulf isn't helping the party of Lincoln stay on message, and second was the news that the GOP is basically doing nothing to combat frontloading ahead of the 2012 election. Now, one of those is obviously a bit higher up on the priority list at the moment. People won't truly be paying attention to the frontloading thing for another three and a half years, but given the mission of this site, FHQ finds it necessary to include it here.
Already the weather has claimed the speaking spot allotted to Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal, who has pre-emptively declared a state of emergency in his state. That's a blow to the party because the Republicans now miss out on an opportunity to show off an up-and-coming presence within their party, someone who was mentioned as a possible running mate for McCain.
Obviously, this is an unpredictable situation, but it is worth tracking as we approach the Republicans' turn in the spotlight.
----
The second topic I want to cover is the GOP VP announcement that is likely to come either today or tomorrow. Well, I suppose McCain has the option of doing it on Saturday as well, but as someone at a football school, I question the wisdom behind timing that announcement on the first full day of the college football season, not to mention a holiday weekend. Those issues aside, who is going to be the addition to the Republican ticket? Much of the recent buzz -- FHQ included -- has centered on Mitt Romney, but in the wake of the Biden selection and the Democratic convention, has that sentiment changed? David Brooks on PBS's coverage of the events last night in Denver said that Biden's performance and the course of the Democrats' convention had put the onus on McCain to shake things up with a Lieberman, or someone similar, selection. So we have three basic questions here:
1) When will the decision be announced? Today? Tomorrow? Some other time?
2) Who will it be?
3) Have the Biden selection and the Democratic convention given McCain reason to reconsider an already made choice or to alter the thought process on the matter altogether?
The comments section awaits for not only answers to those questions, but your thoughts on last night's proceedings in Denver.
H/t to Daniel for alerting me to the weather implications for the Republican convention yesterday.
NOTE: Also, I'm going to try and add in the 2000 data on the third party post from the other day. If I get to that, I'll have something up later in the day.
Recent Posts:
And the Ohio Plan is Dead. The Democrats Will Go It Alone on 2012 Presidential Primary Reform
The Democratic Convention Roll Call
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
Yeah, let's look at what's ahead for and what's in store from the Republicans. First let's look at the St. Paul convention next week. The GOP convention is already under attack, and not just from Democrats. Tropical Storm/Hurricane Gustav is heading into the Gulf of Mexico and forecasts have it making landfall sometime early next week -- during the Republican's convention -- in the New Orleans area. Now, I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure remembering Hurricane Katrina was not at the top of the list of things to be highlighted by the Republicans next week. So already, even before the convention kicks off, there have been, now, two things that have "gone wrong" for the Republican Party. First, this developing story in the Gulf isn't helping the party of Lincoln stay on message, and second was the news that the GOP is basically doing nothing to combat frontloading ahead of the 2012 election. Now, one of those is obviously a bit higher up on the priority list at the moment. People won't truly be paying attention to the frontloading thing for another three and a half years, but given the mission of this site, FHQ finds it necessary to include it here.
Already the weather has claimed the speaking spot allotted to Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal, who has pre-emptively declared a state of emergency in his state. That's a blow to the party because the Republicans now miss out on an opportunity to show off an up-and-coming presence within their party, someone who was mentioned as a possible running mate for McCain.
Obviously, this is an unpredictable situation, but it is worth tracking as we approach the Republicans' turn in the spotlight.
----
The second topic I want to cover is the GOP VP announcement that is likely to come either today or tomorrow. Well, I suppose McCain has the option of doing it on Saturday as well, but as someone at a football school, I question the wisdom behind timing that announcement on the first full day of the college football season, not to mention a holiday weekend. Those issues aside, who is going to be the addition to the Republican ticket? Much of the recent buzz -- FHQ included -- has centered on Mitt Romney, but in the wake of the Biden selection and the Democratic convention, has that sentiment changed? David Brooks on PBS's coverage of the events last night in Denver said that Biden's performance and the course of the Democrats' convention had put the onus on McCain to shake things up with a Lieberman, or someone similar, selection. So we have three basic questions here:
1) When will the decision be announced? Today? Tomorrow? Some other time?
2) Who will it be?
3) Have the Biden selection and the Democratic convention given McCain reason to reconsider an already made choice or to alter the thought process on the matter altogether?
The comments section awaits for not only answers to those questions, but your thoughts on last night's proceedings in Denver.
H/t to Daniel for alerting me to the weather implications for the Republican convention yesterday.
NOTE: Also, I'm going to try and add in the 2000 data on the third party post from the other day. If I get to that, I'll have something up later in the day.
Recent Posts:
And the Ohio Plan is Dead. The Democrats Will Go It Alone on 2012 Presidential Primary Reform
The Democratic Convention Roll Call
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
And the Ohio Plan is Dead. The Democrats Will Go It Alone on 2012 Presidential Primary Reform
Though tempers flared, the GOP rules committee rejected the Ohio Plan which would have completely reworked the timing of presidential primaries and caucuses for the 2012 cycle and beyond. What was left in the wake was anger, finger-pointing at the McCain campaign and accusations of behind-the-scenes meddling. I was always skeptical that the GOP would do anything on this front, but I didn't expect that news to come out in this way. It isn't that I thought the GOP would drag its feet on curbing frontloading, but there was dissension within the party from the point at which the committee passed the plan for a hearing at the upcoming convention back in the spring. And as I said, back when I speculated on how McCain would have fared in this year's contests under the Ohio Plan, successful nominees just don't tinker with a system in which they were successful.
What does this decision mean? It means that if the Democrats win this election, there will be no difference between the 2008 cycle and 2012. Correction: There will probably be even more frontloading as the progression toward a national primary continues. If the Democrats are successful in November, they will not be seriously interested in changing things for 2012. 2016 maybe, but not 2012. Even if McCain wins in November, I suspect the Democrats won't do too much on their part simply because they won't have the cooperation of the GOP. To completely change things will require an effort on the part of both parties to rein in the partisanship that stems from state legislatures and state parties.
What the GOP did do in Minneapolis was to close the window on frontloading a bit. Like the Democrats, they too have stressed the importance of shifting the earliest possible date on which contests could be held to the first Tuesday in March. So let's go ahead and mark Tuesday March 6, 2012 on our calendars. There will be a lot of contests that day. It won't be just Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island in the spotlight that day like in 2008.
But one question remains: What are the sanctions for violation of the potential new timing rules? There are over a dozen states that permanently moved their primary elections through action in their state legislatures. That work will have to be redone. But what is motivating states to do that work? What will they gain by moving back and what will they lose if they don't? The answers to those questions will tell us in quick order whether the calendar of contests is going to be any different in 2012 than it was this past winter and spring. And there still isn't a good answer.
UPDATE: Here are the reactions on the move from New Hampshire and from Ohio.
Recent Posts:
The Democratic Convention Roll Call
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
The Links (8/27/08)
What does this decision mean? It means that if the Democrats win this election, there will be no difference between the 2008 cycle and 2012. Correction: There will probably be even more frontloading as the progression toward a national primary continues. If the Democrats are successful in November, they will not be seriously interested in changing things for 2012. 2016 maybe, but not 2012. Even if McCain wins in November, I suspect the Democrats won't do too much on their part simply because they won't have the cooperation of the GOP. To completely change things will require an effort on the part of both parties to rein in the partisanship that stems from state legislatures and state parties.
What the GOP did do in Minneapolis was to close the window on frontloading a bit. Like the Democrats, they too have stressed the importance of shifting the earliest possible date on which contests could be held to the first Tuesday in March. So let's go ahead and mark Tuesday March 6, 2012 on our calendars. There will be a lot of contests that day. It won't be just Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island in the spotlight that day like in 2008.
But one question remains: What are the sanctions for violation of the potential new timing rules? There are over a dozen states that permanently moved their primary elections through action in their state legislatures. That work will have to be redone. But what is motivating states to do that work? What will they gain by moving back and what will they lose if they don't? The answers to those questions will tell us in quick order whether the calendar of contests is going to be any different in 2012 than it was this past winter and spring. And there still isn't a good answer.
UPDATE: Here are the reactions on the move from New Hampshire and from Ohio.
Recent Posts:
The Democratic Convention Roll Call
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
The Links (8/27/08)
The Democratic Convention Roll Call
Rob brought this issue up in the comments to last night's convention post, but the traffic has likely shifted from there and the roll call is certainly worth its own place. Here are a few things I've been able to dig up regarding the process.
1) DemConWatch has it that the floor vote will be a truncated affair. The voting will take place beforehand.
2) In fact, jack-of-all-trades, Seth Masket, who is a delegate, a blogger and a political scientist confirms that the Colorado delegation voted this morning at the delegation breakfast.
What we'll see tonight is a part of the deal hammered out between the Clinton and Obama teams. We'll get a limited number of states announcing their results and then they'll move on. I'd guess the New York delegation plays a prominent role.
Regardless, the roll call will take place between 5 and 7pm ET, so C-SPAN will be where I'll be able to catch it. I don't know what the cable news outlets have been doing (gavel-to-gavel coverage?). Bill Clinton is on at 9pm and Biden follows during the latter half of the 10pm hour.
[See the full schedule of the night here.]
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
The Links (8/27/08)
Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention
1) DemConWatch has it that the floor vote will be a truncated affair. The voting will take place beforehand.
2) In fact, jack-of-all-trades, Seth Masket, who is a delegate, a blogger and a political scientist confirms that the Colorado delegation voted this morning at the delegation breakfast.
What we'll see tonight is a part of the deal hammered out between the Clinton and Obama teams. We'll get a limited number of states announcing their results and then they'll move on. I'd guess the New York delegation plays a prominent role.
Regardless, the roll call will take place between 5 and 7pm ET, so C-SPAN will be where I'll be able to catch it. I don't know what the cable news outlets have been doing (gavel-to-gavel coverage?). Bill Clinton is on at 9pm and Biden follows during the latter half of the 10pm hour.
[See the full schedule of the night here.]
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
The Links (8/27/08)
Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention
The Electoral College Map (8/27/08)
This is certainly a step back from the multitude of polls that were released during the latter half of last week, but 11 polls from 8 states isn't too shabby. And six of those eight states are toss ups here at FHQ. There is the potential, then, for some movement on both our electoral college projection map and on the Electoral College Spectrum.
In most cases, these polls confirm what we already know about the state of the races in each. Texas remains comfortably in McCain's column, though perhaps not as comfortably as recent electoral history would lead us to believe. In Rhode Island the story is similar. This is just the fifth poll in the state and the only one since the end of June, It, nonetheless, is in line with where FHQ's weighted average was with the 21 point margin in Brown University's poll.
The real action is in the toss up states, though. Even though there were no shifts -- between candidates or categories -- there was some some rearranging as far as how states were positioned relative to each other. None of these toss up states through these polls really performed outside of what our expectations would be at this point. The possible exceptions are Colorado, Florida and Pennsylvania. The five point margin in the Suffolk poll of Colorado is about twice what we have it in our average. And that margin certainly differs from the tightening in the Centennial state that we have seen in recent polling. In Florida and Pennsylvania the story is slightly different. While the 7 point margins in the Strategic Vision and Quinnipiac polls, respectively, show wider margins than our average would otherwise indicate, they are not out of line with other polls in either state. Pennsylvania has been consistently within the mid-single digit range in Obama's favor since he claimed the Democratic nomination. And Florida had shown a similar margin in McCain's favor as recently as the end of June. The Sunshine state has since seemed more competitive, but this result is not as out of whack as the Suffolk poll in Colorado.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
The result is that the map retains its 298-240 electoral vote margin, giving Obama a slight lead overall. Most of that margin can be accounted for by the difference in the Strong and Lean tallies on each side. In Democratic strong and lean states, Obama has 222 electoral votes, while McCain, in his strong and lean states has 154 electoral votes. That 68 electoral vote deficit mirrors pretty closely, though not exactly, the 58 electoral vote margin that the map shows today. But that's 222 electoral votes and not 272 for Barack Obama in those strong and lean states. In other words, the toss up states still matter. If any one candidate claims the momentum down the stretch, those 14 states, in whole or in part, could move in the direction of the candidate with the momentum. And as the Electoral College Spectrum below shows, Obama still needs to maintain a lead in three or four of those Obama toss ups to clear the 270 electoral vote barrier. Due to that lead in strong and lean states, though, the Illinois senator still has more paths to victory than does his Republican counterpart from Arizona.
Obama maintains the ability to cede some of those toss up state and still win the election. McCain, at this point, does not have that luxury. Even if McCain is able to keep or sway the three most competitive states -- Nevada, Ohio and Virginia -- in his direction, he still falls short of 270 electoral votes. The spectrum does look largely similar to the rankings on Sunday. Florida and Alaska flip-flopped -- Yeah, that means something different in this context, doesn't it? -- positions, but that is the only shift. I will note that Pennsylvania is continuing to move further into the blue. As of now, the Keystone state is close to surpassing Michigan as the final toss up state on Obama's side. Biden effect? Eh, I'll hold off on making that claim for the moment.
On the Watch List, there isn't much to talk about. Florida's trip off the list was short-lived as it has returned to a position closer to switching to a McCain lean state. But the Sunshine state is still within Obama's reach. Not as close as a state like Virginia though. I suspect Obama will continue to spend in Florida, but some of those resources may be shifted in Virginia's direction at some point. Let's recall that McCain has yet to do any spending in Florida. Obama, then, has made up some ground, but has yet to bring the Sunshine state into his column. The flip side of this is that there is likely a pretty large contingent of Clinton voters in the state that, if won over during this week's convention, could make a difference. Only one act of the unity effort is complete, though. Act two is tonight and act three follows tomorrow night from Invesco Field. Both may tell us something about how successful Obama is at pulling those Clinton folks into the Democratic fold.
Recent Posts:
The Links (8/27/08)
Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention
An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008
| New Polls (Aug. 24-27) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin (With Leaners/ Without Leaners) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado | Suffolk | +5 | |
| Florida | Kitchens/Chamber of Commerce | +3 | |
| Florida | Quinnipiac | +4 | |
| Florida | Strategic Vision | +7 | |
| Michigan | EPIC/MRA | +2 | |
| North Carolina | Public Policy Polling | +3 | |
| Ohio | Columbus Dispatch | +1 | |
| Ohio | Quinnipiac | +1 | |
| Pennsylvania | Quinnipiac | +7 | |
| Rhode Island | Brown | +21 | |
| Texas | Rasmussen | +10/+9 | |
In most cases, these polls confirm what we already know about the state of the races in each. Texas remains comfortably in McCain's column, though perhaps not as comfortably as recent electoral history would lead us to believe. In Rhode Island the story is similar. This is just the fifth poll in the state and the only one since the end of June, It, nonetheless, is in line with where FHQ's weighted average was with the 21 point margin in Brown University's poll.
The real action is in the toss up states, though. Even though there were no shifts -- between candidates or categories -- there was some some rearranging as far as how states were positioned relative to each other. None of these toss up states through these polls really performed outside of what our expectations would be at this point. The possible exceptions are Colorado, Florida and Pennsylvania. The five point margin in the Suffolk poll of Colorado is about twice what we have it in our average. And that margin certainly differs from the tightening in the Centennial state that we have seen in recent polling. In Florida and Pennsylvania the story is slightly different. While the 7 point margins in the Strategic Vision and Quinnipiac polls, respectively, show wider margins than our average would otherwise indicate, they are not out of line with other polls in either state. Pennsylvania has been consistently within the mid-single digit range in Obama's favor since he claimed the Democratic nomination. And Florida had shown a similar margin in McCain's favor as recently as the end of June. The Sunshine state has since seemed more competitive, but this result is not as out of whack as the Suffolk poll in Colorado.
[Click Map to Enlarge]The result is that the map retains its 298-240 electoral vote margin, giving Obama a slight lead overall. Most of that margin can be accounted for by the difference in the Strong and Lean tallies on each side. In Democratic strong and lean states, Obama has 222 electoral votes, while McCain, in his strong and lean states has 154 electoral votes. That 68 electoral vote deficit mirrors pretty closely, though not exactly, the 58 electoral vote margin that the map shows today. But that's 222 electoral votes and not 272 for Barack Obama in those strong and lean states. In other words, the toss up states still matter. If any one candidate claims the momentum down the stretch, those 14 states, in whole or in part, could move in the direction of the candidate with the momentum. And as the Electoral College Spectrum below shows, Obama still needs to maintain a lead in three or four of those Obama toss ups to clear the 270 electoral vote barrier. Due to that lead in strong and lean states, though, the Illinois senator still has more paths to victory than does his Republican counterpart from Arizona.
| The Electoral College Spectrum* | ||||
| HI-4 (7)** | WA-11 (165) | CO-9*** (269/278) | FL-27 (373/192) | KS-6 (64) |
| VT-3 (10) | MN-10 (175) | NH-4*** (273/269) | MO-11 (384/165) | ID-4 (58) |
| RI-4 (14) | DE-3 (178) | OH-20 (293/265) | SC-8 (154) | NE-5 (54) |
| IL-21 (35) | OR-7 (185) | NV-5 (298/245) | SD-3 (146) | AR-6 (49) |
| CT-7 (42) | NJ-15 (200) | VA-13 (311/240) | TX-34 (143) | TN-11 (43) |
| ME-4 (46) | IA-7 (207) | ND-3 (314/227) | GA-15 (109) | KY-8 (32) |
| MD-10 (56) | WI-10 (217) | MT-3 (317/224) | MS-6 (94) | AL-9 (24) |
| CA-55 (111) | NM-5 (222) | NC-15 (332/221) | WV-5 (88) | OK-7 (15) |
| NY-31 (142) | MI-17 (239/316) | IN-11 (343/206) | AZ-10 (83) | WY-3 (8) |
| MA-12 (154) | PA-21 (260/299) | AK-3 (346/195) | LA-9 (73) | UT-5 (5) |
| *Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. **The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, McCain won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (all Obama's toss up states, but Michigan), he would have 299 electoral votes. Both candidates numbers are only totaled through their rival's toss up states. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics. ***The line between Colorado and New Hampshire is the where Obama crosses (or McCain would cross) the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
Obama maintains the ability to cede some of those toss up state and still win the election. McCain, at this point, does not have that luxury. Even if McCain is able to keep or sway the three most competitive states -- Nevada, Ohio and Virginia -- in his direction, he still falls short of 270 electoral votes. The spectrum does look largely similar to the rankings on Sunday. Florida and Alaska flip-flopped -- Yeah, that means something different in this context, doesn't it? -- positions, but that is the only shift. I will note that Pennsylvania is continuing to move further into the blue. As of now, the Keystone state is close to surpassing Michigan as the final toss up state on Obama's side. Biden effect? Eh, I'll hold off on making that claim for the moment.
| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Florida | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Georgia | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Minnesota | from Obama lean | to Strong Obama | |
| Mississippi | from Strong McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Nevada | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| New Mexico | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Ohio | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Virginia | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Washington | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Wisconsin | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| *Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. | |||
On the Watch List, there isn't much to talk about. Florida's trip off the list was short-lived as it has returned to a position closer to switching to a McCain lean state. But the Sunshine state is still within Obama's reach. Not as close as a state like Virginia though. I suspect Obama will continue to spend in Florida, but some of those resources may be shifted in Virginia's direction at some point. Let's recall that McCain has yet to do any spending in Florida. Obama, then, has made up some ground, but has yet to bring the Sunshine state into his column. The flip side of this is that there is likely a pretty large contingent of Clinton voters in the state that, if won over during this week's convention, could make a difference. Only one act of the unity effort is complete, though. Act two is tonight and act three follows tomorrow night from Invesco Field. Both may tell us something about how successful Obama is at pulling those Clinton folks into the Democratic fold.
Recent Posts:
The Links (8/27/08)
Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention
An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008
The Links (8/27/08)
Hey, political scientists like to have their egos stroked too. Below, Karl Rove weighs in on Hillary Clinton's convention speech and discusses convention bounces, citing Tom Holbrook along the way.
Hat tip to Melissa for the heads up.
UPDATE: And Kayla sends us a video from ABC showing some anecdotal evidence of speech effects from Clinton's address last night. Now a question: Were the delegates more easily swayed than swing voters/Hillary supporters not in the hall last night? On the one hand, they are loyal to Clinton, but as a result are they more likely to follow the New York senator's wishes than folks who, while they supported her, may not be as likely to go along with her on this one?
Recent Posts:
Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention
An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008
The Pre-Convention Swoon Revisited
Hat tip to Melissa for the heads up.
UPDATE: And Kayla sends us a video from ABC showing some anecdotal evidence of speech effects from Clinton's address last night. Now a question: Were the delegates more easily swayed than swing voters/Hillary supporters not in the hall last night? On the one hand, they are loyal to Clinton, but as a result are they more likely to follow the New York senator's wishes than folks who, while they supported her, may not be as likely to go along with her on this one?
Recent Posts:
Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention
An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008
The Pre-Convention Swoon Revisited
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Some Good One-Liners Tonight at the Democratic Convention
You have to do something to break up this "tension," right?
Fmr. Virginia Governor and Current Senate candidate, Mark Warner, on McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time:
Ohio Governor, Ted Strickland on what the surplus Bush inherited in 2001:
I've been sidetracked all day, so I've missed the opportunity to ask, but what are everyone's thoughts thus far (pre-Clinton address).
Recent Posts:
An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008
The Pre-Convention Swoon Revisited
The Electoral Map (8/24/08)
Fmr. Virginia Governor and Current Senate candidate, Mark Warner, on McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time:
"That's not a maverick; that's a sidekick."
Ohio Governor, Ted Strickland on what the surplus Bush inherited in 2001:
"George Bush took office on third base and stole second."This is the type of stuff that I recall from four years ago...at the GOP convention. One cut at Kerry and the Democrats after another. It is the type of playful mocking the Democrats were hesitant to use in the post-9-11 environment. Having said that, mocking is an equal opportunity employer; the Republicans will have their fair share next week. 2008 isn't 2004 and it is more fun that way.
I've been sidetracked all day, so I've missed the opportunity to ask, but what are everyone's thoughts thus far (pre-Clinton address).
Recent Posts:
An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008
The Pre-Convention Swoon Revisited
The Electoral Map (8/24/08)
An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008
When Zogby released their interactive poll results for the ten states they label battlegrounds over the weekend I considered once again looking at where Bob Barr was doing well. After the 34 state polling release in early July, we saw that Barr was faring quite well -- perhaps too well -- in some states that would make John McCain's job that much more difficult. Instead of doing that again, though, I thought I'd see what kind of data I could gather that would help us gain a better idea of how both Barr and Nader would potentially affect the upcoming general election.
With that in mind, I brought together a few different elements:
1) State polls charting a three or four way race.
2) National polls with either a three or four candidates included.
3) The share of the 2004 general election vote that both Nader and the Libertarian Party nominee, Michael Badnarik, received.
While there is a limited amount of data for the current cycle at both the national and state levels, the picture of a multiple candidate race can be augmented by the 2004 data. That provides a better sense of who does well and where. Since late May when Barr was nominated to represent the Libertarian Party, there have been 30 polls in 15 different states that include Barr and/or Nader in them. And during that same period there have been 18 national polls with either three or four candidates included. Again, this is a limited amount of information, but if we combine that data in a regression with the 2004 election results for Nader and the Libertarian Party, we get much closer to being able to predict if not how well both will do in November, then at least an idea of which states fall where in the pecking order.
Let's look at each separately.
[Click to Enlarge]
After the regression, we can plot the predicted vote share for, in this instance, Bob Barr against the vote share the Libertarian Party received in the 2004 presidential election. For the sake of clarity, I've only included the points for the 14 toss up states in our most recent electoral college projection, but rest assured the model includes all fifty states. On the lower left are toss up states where Barr does not take up too much of the the vote share on the right side of the ideological spectrum. That's good news for McCain in states like New Hampshire and Florida because the conventional wisdom holds that a Libertarian nominee would pull more from the Republican than Democratic nominee.
On the other side of the graphic, though, there are a couple of states where there may be cause for concern for the McCain camp. Both Alaska and Indiana give over three and a quarter points to Barr. That may not sound like much, but when two regularly solid Republican states require some amount of defense, the Republican nominee would be better served if he didn't have to fend off attacks on two fronts. And tucked away there in the middle of the pack are our three closest states, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. As tight as each of these are no amount of support for Barr would be welcomed by the Arizona senator, and two or more points may be enough to swing any of the three toward Obama and the Democrats.
The situation is a bit different in the Nader context.
[Click to Enlarge]
For starters, the same group who supported Nader in 2004 seem to be behind him again in 2008. Not the same exact people, but at least at this state a similar number of people. That can be contrasted with the Libertarian example above. The party of smaller and less interventionist government appears to have a much firmer footing in 2008 than it did just four years ago. Some or all of that may have to do with disaffected Ron Paul supporters who will hold their own gathering simultaneous to the GOP convention next week. It is a group that is certainly more energized during this cycle. But back to Nader. There is such a small range of vote share values across these toss up states. Nader is close to getting nearly two percent from each of these fourteen states (and for that matter all states since this is the same range in which the lean and strong states would fall as well.). And then there is the question that has been asked since 2000: Who are these Nader voters? Are they people who are only voting for Nader and thus not taking votes away from Barack Obama? Or does Nader represent a refuge for Democrats who won't pull the lever for the Illinois senator anyway? The former seems more plausible than the latter. Nader's share of the vote shrunk from 2000 to 2004 as Democrats, burned by the 2000 experience took a more pragmatic approach into the voting booth with them in 2004. Nader didn't really hurt Kerry; he wasn't even on the ballot in Ohio. And 2008, at least at this early juncture appears to be shaping up similarly to 4 years ago rather than 8 years ago.
I shouldn't short the Nader graphic, though. It is interesting that Indiana is among the strongest states predicted for Barr and is on the opposite end in the Nader example. If Nader were to pull votes away from Obama, the Hoosier state is a place where the Illinois senator would get the best of both worlds: a minimal Nader effect, but a comparatively large Barr effect.
Now, both accounts above come with some caveats. First, polls this time of year, both national and state, tend to overstate the position of third party candidates in the race. As we get closer to November, we'll start to see some movement toward one or the other of the two major party candidates. Diminished or not though, we do get from this a sense of which states are most likely to be affected by these third party candidacies. We can begin, for example, to look on this as a companion to the electoral college spectrum.
Another issue is that this model is far from inclusive. We are dealing with a limited number of variables here, so we aren't dealing with the full world of factors. [Misspecification alert!] However, this does get us moving in the proper direction at least; especially in that it bring more information to the table than simply the minimal amount of three and four way polling that is available.
Recent Posts:
The Pre-Convention Swoon Revisited
The Electoral Map (8/24/08)
Swoon? What Swoon? A Look at the Changes During Pre-Convention August
With that in mind, I brought together a few different elements:
1) State polls charting a three or four way race.
2) National polls with either a three or four candidates included.
3) The share of the 2004 general election vote that both Nader and the Libertarian Party nominee, Michael Badnarik, received.
While there is a limited amount of data for the current cycle at both the national and state levels, the picture of a multiple candidate race can be augmented by the 2004 data. That provides a better sense of who does well and where. Since late May when Barr was nominated to represent the Libertarian Party, there have been 30 polls in 15 different states that include Barr and/or Nader in them. And during that same period there have been 18 national polls with either three or four candidates included. Again, this is a limited amount of information, but if we combine that data in a regression with the 2004 election results for Nader and the Libertarian Party, we get much closer to being able to predict if not how well both will do in November, then at least an idea of which states fall where in the pecking order.
Let's look at each separately.
[Click to Enlarge]After the regression, we can plot the predicted vote share for, in this instance, Bob Barr against the vote share the Libertarian Party received in the 2004 presidential election. For the sake of clarity, I've only included the points for the 14 toss up states in our most recent electoral college projection, but rest assured the model includes all fifty states. On the lower left are toss up states where Barr does not take up too much of the the vote share on the right side of the ideological spectrum. That's good news for McCain in states like New Hampshire and Florida because the conventional wisdom holds that a Libertarian nominee would pull more from the Republican than Democratic nominee.
On the other side of the graphic, though, there are a couple of states where there may be cause for concern for the McCain camp. Both Alaska and Indiana give over three and a quarter points to Barr. That may not sound like much, but when two regularly solid Republican states require some amount of defense, the Republican nominee would be better served if he didn't have to fend off attacks on two fronts. And tucked away there in the middle of the pack are our three closest states, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. As tight as each of these are no amount of support for Barr would be welcomed by the Arizona senator, and two or more points may be enough to swing any of the three toward Obama and the Democrats.
The situation is a bit different in the Nader context.
[Click to Enlarge]For starters, the same group who supported Nader in 2004 seem to be behind him again in 2008. Not the same exact people, but at least at this state a similar number of people. That can be contrasted with the Libertarian example above. The party of smaller and less interventionist government appears to have a much firmer footing in 2008 than it did just four years ago. Some or all of that may have to do with disaffected Ron Paul supporters who will hold their own gathering simultaneous to the GOP convention next week. It is a group that is certainly more energized during this cycle. But back to Nader. There is such a small range of vote share values across these toss up states. Nader is close to getting nearly two percent from each of these fourteen states (and for that matter all states since this is the same range in which the lean and strong states would fall as well.). And then there is the question that has been asked since 2000: Who are these Nader voters? Are they people who are only voting for Nader and thus not taking votes away from Barack Obama? Or does Nader represent a refuge for Democrats who won't pull the lever for the Illinois senator anyway? The former seems more plausible than the latter. Nader's share of the vote shrunk from 2000 to 2004 as Democrats, burned by the 2000 experience took a more pragmatic approach into the voting booth with them in 2004. Nader didn't really hurt Kerry; he wasn't even on the ballot in Ohio. And 2008, at least at this early juncture appears to be shaping up similarly to 4 years ago rather than 8 years ago.
I shouldn't short the Nader graphic, though. It is interesting that Indiana is among the strongest states predicted for Barr and is on the opposite end in the Nader example. If Nader were to pull votes away from Obama, the Hoosier state is a place where the Illinois senator would get the best of both worlds: a minimal Nader effect, but a comparatively large Barr effect.
Now, both accounts above come with some caveats. First, polls this time of year, both national and state, tend to overstate the position of third party candidates in the race. As we get closer to November, we'll start to see some movement toward one or the other of the two major party candidates. Diminished or not though, we do get from this a sense of which states are most likely to be affected by these third party candidacies. We can begin, for example, to look on this as a companion to the electoral college spectrum.
Another issue is that this model is far from inclusive. We are dealing with a limited number of variables here, so we aren't dealing with the full world of factors. [Misspecification alert!] However, this does get us moving in the proper direction at least; especially in that it bring more information to the table than simply the minimal amount of three and four way polling that is available.
Recent Posts:
The Pre-Convention Swoon Revisited
The Electoral Map (8/24/08)
Swoon? What Swoon? A Look at the Changes During Pre-Convention August
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Pre-Convention Swoon Revisited
I don't necessarily want to reprise the post and the resulting discussion here, but I thought it was important to update Saturday's examination of the August poll movement to reflect all the data we have through August. I'm treating the Biden announcement as part of the convention. Therefore, any polls conducted prior to August 23 are included in the analysis below. In other words, all the polls covered in yesterday's electoral college projection post plus the Epic/MRA Michigan and Columbus Dispatch Ohio polls are rolled into this update. The Suffolk poll from Colorado is omitted because the survey period extended through yesterday. No, the Biden announcement was not part of the convention, but with its proximity to the Democractic convention, it will be difficult to parse out those differences in the polls, ex post facto. As such, we will treat the two -- in relation to state level polling -- as one in the same.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
The map above provides a much the same picture we saw just two days ago. In fact, none of the states where polling had been conducted prior to Saturday, saw any change to the intensity of their shifts thus far during August. However, both Utah and Wyoming were shaded in based on the large margins the Mason-Dixon polls in each gave John McCain. Neither really provides any substantial break from the conventional wisdom though. If anything the relative "tightness" of both to this point in the race was notable.
There are three other states that I kind of gave short shrift to the other day that I'd like to take the opportunity to address here in the absence of an in-depth analysis of the toss up states. Iowa, Minnesota and New Mexico are trending toward Johm McCain since the beginning of August. We've mentioned Minnesota's recent trends before, but they're worth noting again. The Land of 10,000 Lakes has seen a decided tightening in two of the three August polls. Both stand out as anomalous in the overall progression of polling in Minnesota. The slim two point lead in the Survey USA poll, as Scott mentioned, may have something to do with the way the firm is screening its sample. Indeed, the most recent Survey USA poll of Minnesota was in June during Obama's jump in the the polls in most states. While most polling firms showed an Obama lead in the mid- to upper teens, Survey USA had the race in a dead heat with Obama up by a scant one point margin. Minnesota and Survey USA may be like oil and water then. Still that only "explains away" one of those recent narrow leads for Obama in Minnesota. The other was the four point margin Rasmussen found in their latest sample of the North Star state. That one I won't dwell on, but I will say that when you take into account the high numbers of the "bounce" period -- and then peppered throughout the summer -- with the uncharacteristically low numbers we've seen recently, you get an average very similar to the one FHQ has overall now; one in the upper single digits.
In Iowa the story is a bit different. Other than a 17 point margin in a February Selzer poll, the range of polling has been between 2 and 10 points within no discernible pattern emerging. This one has settled in and remains fairly static within the area of a 6 to 7 point edge for Obama. New Mexico is essentially a fringe toss up state, propped up by two favorable Zogby Interactive polls. When those are removed New Mexico does move into the toss up region but it is on par with a state like Missouri on the flip side of the Electoral College Spectrum. It is possible that McCain moves in and picks off New Mexico, but at this point that is the equivalent to Obama pulling Missouri into his column. The probability of those two things happening simultaneously in November is quite small, but one candidate winning both would be a clear signal that the momentum down the stretch has swung decidedly in that candidate's direction.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral Map (8/24/08)
Swoon? What Swoon? A Look at the Changes During Pre-Convention August
Obama-Biden
[Click Map to Enlarge]The map above provides a much the same picture we saw just two days ago. In fact, none of the states where polling had been conducted prior to Saturday, saw any change to the intensity of their shifts thus far during August. However, both Utah and Wyoming were shaded in based on the large margins the Mason-Dixon polls in each gave John McCain. Neither really provides any substantial break from the conventional wisdom though. If anything the relative "tightness" of both to this point in the race was notable.
There are three other states that I kind of gave short shrift to the other day that I'd like to take the opportunity to address here in the absence of an in-depth analysis of the toss up states. Iowa, Minnesota and New Mexico are trending toward Johm McCain since the beginning of August. We've mentioned Minnesota's recent trends before, but they're worth noting again. The Land of 10,000 Lakes has seen a decided tightening in two of the three August polls. Both stand out as anomalous in the overall progression of polling in Minnesota. The slim two point lead in the Survey USA poll, as Scott mentioned, may have something to do with the way the firm is screening its sample. Indeed, the most recent Survey USA poll of Minnesota was in June during Obama's jump in the the polls in most states. While most polling firms showed an Obama lead in the mid- to upper teens, Survey USA had the race in a dead heat with Obama up by a scant one point margin. Minnesota and Survey USA may be like oil and water then. Still that only "explains away" one of those recent narrow leads for Obama in Minnesota. The other was the four point margin Rasmussen found in their latest sample of the North Star state. That one I won't dwell on, but I will say that when you take into account the high numbers of the "bounce" period -- and then peppered throughout the summer -- with the uncharacteristically low numbers we've seen recently, you get an average very similar to the one FHQ has overall now; one in the upper single digits.
In Iowa the story is a bit different. Other than a 17 point margin in a February Selzer poll, the range of polling has been between 2 and 10 points within no discernible pattern emerging. This one has settled in and remains fairly static within the area of a 6 to 7 point edge for Obama. New Mexico is essentially a fringe toss up state, propped up by two favorable Zogby Interactive polls. When those are removed New Mexico does move into the toss up region but it is on par with a state like Missouri on the flip side of the Electoral College Spectrum. It is possible that McCain moves in and picks off New Mexico, but at this point that is the equivalent to Obama pulling Missouri into his column. The probability of those two things happening simultaneously in November is quite small, but one candidate winning both would be a clear signal that the momentum down the stretch has swung decidedly in that candidate's direction.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral Map (8/24/08)
Swoon? What Swoon? A Look at the Changes During Pre-Convention August
Obama-Biden
Sunday, August 24, 2008
The Electoral Map (8/24/08)
Wow! Thirty-five polls in 21 states certainly augmented our database of existing polling between Wednesday and Sunday. And what's more is that we have a good idea about what the race looks like in several swing states that received a handful of polls each. Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia all had multiple polls surface over the latter half of the week. Of those, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia were all on the Watch as of last Wednesday.
However, despite being inundated with new data, little changed. Surprisingly, Nevada, which has been so close to a tie lately, did not shift into McCain territory even with that 6 point Mason-Dixon margin included. For every 6 point margin there, -- in either direction -- there are three polls that show it as a race that is within 3 or fewer points. In other words, the underlying message on Nevada is that the Silver state is a statistical dead heat, given the margin of error in these polls. Since May there have been eight polls conducted in the state and two have shown six point McCain leads -- the most recent one and the oldest one in that group -- but the other six have resulted in smaller gaps in the results within the margin of error. Nevada, then, is the most closely contested race according to FHQ's metric. But Ohio is not far behind (Neither, for that matter, is Virginia, but I'll hold of on the Old Dominion for the time being.). In fact, as I alluded to in my look at the August polling trends, Ohio shifted back in the direction of the Illinois senator based on the inclusion of the 5 point advantage last weekend's Zogby Interactive poll showed in the Buckeye state. Some have issues with the methodolgy behind Zogby's online polls, but even if those two results -- the one in June and current one -- were changed to exact ties, McCain would only barely take the lead by just under a quarter of a point. The positive is that the poll is not the most recent -- Rasmussen's poll of the Buckeye state is -- so it isn't being given that extra amount of weight that the most recent poll is. And the back and forth in Ohio only further cements it as one of the closest races. But that isn't terribly groundbreaking news.
Nevada and Ohio, then, along with Virginia represent a trio of states which are all within a quarter of a point of being a tie/switching sides and all three will factor heavily into the electoral math of each candidate. And though Obama has a nice cushion "strong" state electoral votes (165 EVs), the back and forth of any of those three can change that outlook quickly. Obama could lose all three and scrape out 273 electoral votes, but if all three go to McCain, that certainly calls into question the direction the overall momentum is going in to bring about that result. If those three are all going for McCain, for example, are other swings states moving too?
[Click Map to Enlarge]
And the Electoral College Spectrum gives us a glimpse into the tenuous lead (even though it is 58 EVs) Obama holds at the moment. The Illinois senator has an advantage in all of the states through Nevada, but tightening polls there and in Colorado, New Hampshire and Ohio mean that the job isn't finished -- not that the Obama campaign thought it was. Then again, the perception is that generic Democrat X should/would be well ahead of the generic GOP counterpart and that raises ever so slighty the bar for Obama.
The quirk of this iteration of the Spectrum is that it brings the 269-269 tie possibility into focus. Due to the rank ordering of states, the Victory Line is at a point wedged between Colorado and New Hampshire. Both candidates then, would have to pick up both those states in order to surpass 270 electoral votes. As it stands now, Obama has an edge in all the states to the left of Nevada -- including both Colorado and New Hampshire. That means that McCain would have to pick off not only Nevada and Ohio but Colorado and New Hampshire as well to get to 270. That isn't an insurmountable task, but it is a byproduct of Pennsylvania moving toward Obama. And that causes McCain to have to work in more states, not that the Arizona senator isn't already. That doesn't change the fact that having to go after more states is a more difficult task than getting more total electoral votes in one place like Pennsylvania. There has been some talk out there that Pennsylvania native and currently Delaware senator, Joe Biden, will help Obama lock up Pennsylvania. That may come to pass, but it was probably already good that the Keystone state was heading in the direction of Obama.
Finally, while the three close states mentioned above, remain on the Watch List, the list was trimmed by a couple of notable states this time around. Both North Carolina and Florida inched closer to Obama given the new polls while remaining slight leans to McCain. Minnesota also rejoined the list based on the 10 point margin in the latest MPR poll, but just barely.
I'll be back later with an update of the pre-convention August polling shifts. In the meantime, get ready for convention season.
Recent Posts:
Swoon? What Swoon? A Look at the Changes During Pre-Convention August
Obama-Biden
More on the Effort to Curb 2012 Frontloading
| New Polls (Aug. 20-24) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin (With Leaners/ Without Leaners) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Cronkite/ASU | +10 | |
| Arizona | Mason-Dixon | +6 | |
| California | Rasmussen | +13/+14 | |
| Colorado | Mason-Dixon | +3 | |
| Colorado | Zogby Interactive | +6 | |
| Colorado | Quinnipiac | +1 | |
| Florida | ARG | +1 | |
| Florida | Zogby Interactive | +3 | |
| Indiana | Rasmussen | +6/+4 | |
| Kansas | Survey USA | +23 | |
| Maryland | Rasmussen | +10/+12 | |
| Michigan | Zogby Interactive | +9 | |
| Michigan | Selzer | +7 | |
| Minnesota | Minnesota Public Radio | +10 | |
| Mississippi | Rasmussen | +13/+13 | |
| Missouri | Public Policy Polling | +10 | |
| Nevada | Mason-Dixon | +6 | |
| Nevada | Zogby Interactive | +1 | |
| Nevada | Research 2000 | +1 | |
| New Hampshire | Zogby Interactive | +4 | |
| New Hampshire | Rasmussen | +1/+1 | |
| New Hampshire | ARG | +1 | |
| New Mexico | Mason-Dixon | +4 | |
| New Mexico | Zogby Interactive | +9 | |
| New Mexico | Rasmussen | +4/+6 | |
| North Carolina | Zogby Interactive | +8 | |
| North Carolina | Insider Advantage | +2 | |
| Ohio | Zogby Interactive | +5 | |
| Pennsylvania | Zogby Interactive | +9 | |
| Pennsylvania | Rasmussen | +3/+5 | |
| Tennessee | Rasmussen | +25/+24 | |
| Utah | Mason-Dixon | +39 | |
| Virginia | Public Policy Polling | +2 | |
| Virginia | Zogby Interactive | +2 | |
| Wyoming | Mason-Dixon | +37 | |
However, despite being inundated with new data, little changed. Surprisingly, Nevada, which has been so close to a tie lately, did not shift into McCain territory even with that 6 point Mason-Dixon margin included. For every 6 point margin there, -- in either direction -- there are three polls that show it as a race that is within 3 or fewer points. In other words, the underlying message on Nevada is that the Silver state is a statistical dead heat, given the margin of error in these polls. Since May there have been eight polls conducted in the state and two have shown six point McCain leads -- the most recent one and the oldest one in that group -- but the other six have resulted in smaller gaps in the results within the margin of error. Nevada, then, is the most closely contested race according to FHQ's metric. But Ohio is not far behind (Neither, for that matter, is Virginia, but I'll hold of on the Old Dominion for the time being.). In fact, as I alluded to in my look at the August polling trends, Ohio shifted back in the direction of the Illinois senator based on the inclusion of the 5 point advantage last weekend's Zogby Interactive poll showed in the Buckeye state. Some have issues with the methodolgy behind Zogby's online polls, but even if those two results -- the one in June and current one -- were changed to exact ties, McCain would only barely take the lead by just under a quarter of a point. The positive is that the poll is not the most recent -- Rasmussen's poll of the Buckeye state is -- so it isn't being given that extra amount of weight that the most recent poll is. And the back and forth in Ohio only further cements it as one of the closest races. But that isn't terribly groundbreaking news.
| Changes (Aug. 20-24) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio | Toss Up McCain | Toss Up Obama | |
Nevada and Ohio, then, along with Virginia represent a trio of states which are all within a quarter of a point of being a tie/switching sides and all three will factor heavily into the electoral math of each candidate. And though Obama has a nice cushion "strong" state electoral votes (165 EVs), the back and forth of any of those three can change that outlook quickly. Obama could lose all three and scrape out 273 electoral votes, but if all three go to McCain, that certainly calls into question the direction the overall momentum is going in to bring about that result. If those three are all going for McCain, for example, are other swings states moving too?
[Click Map to Enlarge]And the Electoral College Spectrum gives us a glimpse into the tenuous lead (even though it is 58 EVs) Obama holds at the moment. The Illinois senator has an advantage in all of the states through Nevada, but tightening polls there and in Colorado, New Hampshire and Ohio mean that the job isn't finished -- not that the Obama campaign thought it was. Then again, the perception is that generic Democrat X should/would be well ahead of the generic GOP counterpart and that raises ever so slighty the bar for Obama.
| The Electoral College Spectrum* | ||||
| HI-4 (7)** | WA-11 (165) | CO-9*** (269/278) | AK-3 (373/168) | KS-6 (64) |
| VT-3 (10) | MN-10 (175) | NH-4*** (273/269) | MO-11 (384/165) | ID-4 (58) |
| RI-4 (14) | DE-3 (178) | OH-20 (293/265) | SC-8 (154) | NE-5 (54) |
| IL-21 (35) | OR-7 (185) | NV-5 (298/245) | SD-3 (146) | AR-6 (49) |
| CT-7 (42) | NJ-15 (200) | VA-13 (311/240) | TX-34 (143) | TN-11 (43) |
| ME-4 (46) | IA-7 (207) | ND-3 (314/227) | GA-15 (109) | KY-8 (32) |
| MD-10 (56) | WI-10 (217) | MT-3 (317/224) | MS-6 (94) | AL-9 (24) |
| CA-55 (111) | NM-5 (222) | NC-15 (332/221) | WV-5 (88) | OK-7 (15) |
| NY-31 (142) | MI-17 (239/316) | IN-11 (343/206) | AZ-10 (83) | WY-3 (8) |
| MA-12 (154) | PA-21 (260/299) | FL-27 (370/195) | LA-9 (73) | UT-5 (5) |
| *Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. **The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, McCain won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (all Obama's toss up states, but Michigan), he would have 299 electoral votes. Both candidates numbers are only totaled through their rival's toss up states. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics. ***The line between Colorado and New Hampshire is the where Obama crosses (or McCain would cross) the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
The quirk of this iteration of the Spectrum is that it brings the 269-269 tie possibility into focus. Due to the rank ordering of states, the Victory Line is at a point wedged between Colorado and New Hampshire. Both candidates then, would have to pick up both those states in order to surpass 270 electoral votes. As it stands now, Obama has an edge in all the states to the left of Nevada -- including both Colorado and New Hampshire. That means that McCain would have to pick off not only Nevada and Ohio but Colorado and New Hampshire as well to get to 270. That isn't an insurmountable task, but it is a byproduct of Pennsylvania moving toward Obama. And that causes McCain to have to work in more states, not that the Arizona senator isn't already. That doesn't change the fact that having to go after more states is a more difficult task than getting more total electoral votes in one place like Pennsylvania. There has been some talk out there that Pennsylvania native and currently Delaware senator, Joe Biden, will help Obama lock up Pennsylvania. That may come to pass, but it was probably already good that the Keystone state was heading in the direction of Obama.
| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Georgia | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Minnesota | from Obama lean | to Strong Obama | |
| Mississippi | from Strong McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Nevada | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| New Mexico | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Ohio | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Virginia | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Washington | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Wisconsin | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| *Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. | |||
Finally, while the three close states mentioned above, remain on the Watch List, the list was trimmed by a couple of notable states this time around. Both North Carolina and Florida inched closer to Obama given the new polls while remaining slight leans to McCain. Minnesota also rejoined the list based on the 10 point margin in the latest MPR poll, but just barely.
I'll be back later with an update of the pre-convention August polling shifts. In the meantime, get ready for convention season.
Recent Posts:
Swoon? What Swoon? A Look at the Changes During Pre-Convention August
Obama-Biden
More on the Effort to Curb 2012 Frontloading
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)