New State Polls (7/23/12)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Obama
|
Romney
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
California
|
7/16-7/17
|
+/- 3.4%
|
812 likely voters
|
51.9
|
32.6
|
10.3
|
+19.3
|
+19.36
| |
Minnesota
|
7/17-7/19
|
+/- 4.3%
|
552 likely voters
|
46
|
40
|
7
|
+6
|
+11.06
| |
Poll Quick Hits:
California:
I don't know that there is all that much to say about a survey of the Golden state showing the Democratic nominee up by nearly 20%. There isn't much. The Pepperdine poll appears to lowball both candidates' shares in the previous polls in California while still capturing a margin between the two major party candidates that is consistent with much of the survey work conducted in the state prior to July.
Minnesota:
The Survey USA poll in the Land of 10,000 Lakes was more revealing, though perhaps not to the extent that some may suggest, than the California poll above. On its surface, it is tempting to lump Minnesota in with neighboring and more competitive states like Iowa and Wisconsin -- and that may ultimately prove to be the case -- but we just don't have a solid enough body of evidence to reach that conclusion as of yet. On the one hand, Iowa was closer than Minnesota was closer than Wisconsin in the 2008 election, but on the other, the six polls in Iowa and five in Minnesota do not necessarily provide the confidence in the current FHQ weighted average that the 22 polls in Wisconsin to this point do. What has been made clear in the last week or so is that there is a group of strong Obama states that probably deserve more polling in the coming weeks. Minnesota, New Mexico and Washington are all hovering around the +10 Obama range. The averages have been brought closer due to the influence of new polling information -- albeit in a shallow, intra-state pool -- and additional data from other polling firms may help to build a more robust picture of either a tightening race or one that in those states keeps them on solid ground for the president. If it is the former, the Romney campaign may be able to play offense to some extent and force Obama to reconsider continued resource expenditures in, say, North Carolina (post-Charlotte convention). The Tarheel state is endangered on the president's board as the lone red state within range for the Democrat.
On this Monday 15 weeks before election day, the map remains unchanged in terms of state classifications. However, Minnesota jumped up a couple of spots on the Electoral College Spectrum to join the aforementioned Washington/New Mexico group at the periphery of the Lean Obama category. There is some separation after those three states and Connecticut and New Jersey, but there has been limited polling in the Nutmeg state to this juncture in the general election race. This is why the Watch List is helpful. It affords the opportunity to see which states are close to switching categories.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
RI-4
(7)2
|
NJ-14
(160)
|
NH-4
(257)
|
IN-11
(159)
|
ND-3
(55)
|
NY-29
(36)
|
CT-7
(167)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
MT-3
(148)
|
MS-6
(52)
|
HI-4
(40)
|
MN-10
(177)
|
CO-9
(284/263)
|
WV-5
(145)
|
AL-9
(46)
|
VT-3
(43)
|
WA-12
(189)
|
VA-13
(297/254)
|
GA-16
(140)
|
KY-8
(37)
|
MD-10
(53)
|
NM-5
(194)
|
IA-6
(303/241)
|
SC-9
(124)
|
KS-6
(29)
|
CA-55
(108)
|
OR-7
(201)
|
FL-29
(332/235)
|
LA-8
(115)
|
AK-3
(23)
|
MA-11
(119)
|
PA-20
(221)
|
NC-15
(206)
|
NE-5
(107)
|
OK-7
(20)
|
IL-20
(139)
|
WI-10
(231)
|
MO-10
(191)
|
AR-6
(102)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
NV-6
(237)
|
AZ-11
(181)
|
TX-38
(96)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
MI-16
(253)
|
TN-11
(170)
|
SD-3
(58)
|
UT-6
(6)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 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, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 272 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
And even though Minnesota is not on the Watch List, it is not all that far away either. Therein lies one potential problem with the methodology FHQ utilizes. Again, if you will go back to the initial 2012 electoral college post, I described the tradeoff between a responsive average and one that bounces around too much, prone to outlier polls. In that post I discussed that it would likely be after the conventions before FHQ began to even further discount past polls. In 2008 around a similar point, the discount on the past surveys was doubled. That obviously gives more weight to the most recent poll. And that will be an appropriate action after the 2012 conventions. But now is probably a bit too soon.
Yet, just as an exercise, let's have a look at the impact such a move would have on the averages of a couple of states: Florida and Minnesota. By increasing the discount on the past polls in Florida and placing more relative weight on the most recent poll (+5 Obama, Survey USA poll from late last week), the average increases from +1.21 to +1.44 in the president's favor. A similar move in Minnesota, alternatively, has a greater impact, reducing the margin from +11.07 to +9.68. Substantively, that may not be a big change in the big picture, but it would shift Minnesota from a Strong Obama state to a Lean Obama state by the FHQ measure.
The difference? Well, the weighting of various polls matters, but so too do the number of polls conducted in a state. The far greater number of polls in Florida gives a better indication that the Sunshine state does ever so slightly favor the president at the moment. The scant polling in Minnesota, however, leaves an incomplete picture or at least one that is more vulnerable to outlier polls. The point here is not to say that either way is right. Rather, the idea is to be transparent about what is reflected in the figures and the methodology behind them.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Georgia
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Michigan
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
Missouri
|
from Toss Up Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Nevada
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
New Mexico
|
from Strong Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
North Carolina
|
from Toss Up Romney
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
Washington
|
from Strong Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
West Virginia
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
1 Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
