Thursday, August 16, 2012

The Electoral College Map (8/16/12)

Look, FHQ will not try to be that guy. The last two days have been good days for the Romney campaign in the state-level polls that have been released. However, as we mentioned yesterday -- and this is always the case -- there are caveats to these surveys when they are put in their proper context. We did not hesitate to call +5 Obama leads in Florida from Survey USA outliers and the same is true of any sudden change in the polls that breaks from pre-established norms within the polling data no matter which direction they run.

And this new collection of polls from Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are not outliers in FHQ's estimation. However, the Rasmussen surveys, like the Purple Strategies polls released on Wednesday, have tended to tilt toward Romney anyway. What may appear to be a bounce -- related to the Paul Ryan announcement or whatever -- may instead just be a normal incremental progression of a previous polling trend within those polling firms or evidence of a house effect.

...or it could very easily be a polling bounce. Things are seemingly trending upward for Romney in some of the state polls, but we'll need a bit more of a consensus from other polling firms to confirm that.

New State Polls (8/16/12)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Obama
Romney
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Florida
8/15
+/- 4.5%
500 likely voters
43
45
8
+2
+1.14
Pennsylvania
8/7-8/12
+/- 3.8%
681 registered voters
47
42
7
+5
+6.38
Wisconsin
8/13-8/14
+/- 3.0%
920 registered voters
49
45
--
+4
+5.37
Wisconsin
8/15
+/- 4.5%
500 likely voters
47
48
2
+1
--

Polling Quick Hits:
Florida:
Another day, another Romney lead in the Sunshine state. The two point advantage is the largest Romney lead there since the July Purple Strategies poll (+3). But this new Rasmussen poll comes with an asterisk. Since the last Rasmussen poll -- early July, Romney +1 -- both candidates have seen their shares of support decrease, but with Obama dipping to his lowest point since the president garnered just 41% in a May Quinnipiac poll.

Pennsylvania:
The Keystone state also appears to be tightening. The new Franklin and Marshall poll has a 12 point Obama lead from June decreasing by half now (+5 Obama when leaners are included). That sounds like a significant shift, but it the new poll (with leaners) merely brings the Frankin and Marshall polls in line with where most of the polling in Pennsylvania has been over the last couple of months. It isn't a comfortable lead for the presidential there, but it has been a lead consistently in the Lean range throughout. That has been enough to keep both campaigns away from the commonwealth recently.

Wisconsin:
If ever there was a state where a bounce should/would be expected following the tapping of Paul Ryan as GOP vice presidential nominee, one should/would expect that in the representative's home state. Now, if one were to average the two polls from CNN/ORC and Rasmussen released today, Wisconsin would definitely fit within the Toss Up category (leaning toward the president). Within the context of other polls, however, these two surveys push the Badger state to the cusp of that designation according to the FHQ weighted averages. The Rasmussen poll represents a high point for Romney. The governor has not polled this high in Wisconsin all year. That is not unlike what was witnessed in a couple of the Purple Strategies polls released a day ago. The margin in Wisconsin may be contracting some, but this poll strikes a new Romney bound in the state rather than pushing the average off its perch on the fence between categories.


None of the new data introduced today did anything to alter the outlook in the electoral college nor the dividing lines between categories of states. However, it is worth noting that the Wisconsin-Nevada-Michigan group of states are all within .09 points of each other according to the FHQ weighted averages. There is some separation between that group and Pennsylvania-Oregon; more than there is between that trio and the Toss Up providing Obama with the greatest cushion, New Hampshire. As we head into the conventions, those three states will be a good testing ground. All are on the Watch List and all are in danger from the Obama campaign's perspective of pushing over into a more competitive categorization.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
RI-4
(7)2
NJ-14
(160)
NH-4
(257)
AZ-11
(167)
MS-6
(55)
HI-4
(11)
WA-12
(172)
OH-183
(275/281)
MT-3
(156)
ND-3
(49)
NY-29
(40)
MN-10
(182)
CO-9
(284/263)
GA-16
(153)
AL-9
(46)
VT-3
(43)
NM-5
(187)
VA-13
(297/254)
WV-5
(137)
KY-8
(37)
MD-10
(53)
CT-7
(194)
IA-6
(303/241)
IN-11
(132)
KS-6
(29)
CA-55
(108)
OR-7
(201)
FL-29
(332/235)
SC-9
(121)
AK-3
(23)
MA-11
(119)
PA-20
(221)
NC-15
(206)
LA-8
(112)
OK-7
(20)
IL-20
(139)
WI-10
(231)
MO-10
(191)
NE-5
(104)
ID-4
(13)
DE-3
(142)
NV-6
(237)
TN-11
(181)
AR-6
(99)
WY-3
(9)
ME-4
(146)
MI-16
(253)
SD-3
(170)
TX-38
(93)
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.

The Watch List remains unchanged from yesterday, but the three states mentioned above bear some watching. There was a report today of a new Mitchell Research poll out of Michigan (49-44 Obama), but the details necessary to include the poll in our averages was not available. That also brings up the Moore Consulting poll in Maine yesterday that did not have a full reporting of data either. Obama led that poll of the Pine Tree state 52-37.

The Watch List1
State
Switch
Connecticut
from Strong Obama
to Lean Obama
Georgia
from Strong Romney
to Lean Romney
Michigan
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up 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
West Virginia
from Strong Romney
to Lean Romney
Wisconsin
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up Obama
1 Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Please see:


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

2016 Starts in Tampa

Back in June FHQ gave a rundown of a bipartisan working group meeting of rules officials within both national parties concerning the 2016 delegate selection rules.1 The intent of the meeting was not necessarily to reform the system so much as bridge the gap across parties and discuss ways to streamline how Americans select their presidential nominees. As the current cycle heads into convention season, the 2016 cycles looms. That is because the RNC will vote on the rules governing the process of nominating the party's 2016 nominee in Tampa. In other words, if the parties are to do anything about the Florida/Michigan/Arizona problem it starts in less than two weeks.

Now, the word streamline above is a kind of catch-all phrase for what the group discussed at Harvard. Below is the declaration that emerged from that May meeting:

NPC 2016 Declaration
You can find more at the National Presidential Caucus blog.

--
1 See those previous posts describing the May meeting FHQ was asked to participate in at the Harvard Institute of Politics here and here.



Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

The Electoral College Map (8/15/12)

Imagine the creakiest door closing the tiniest of amounts, squeaking ever so slightly in the process. Now, FHQ doesn't know how well that approximates the impact of today's battleground state polls from Purple Strategies, but it is not that far off if only for today. Putting the fact that the FHQ weighted averages only minutely changed after the introduction of these polls aside, this was a pretty good set of survey data for the Romney campaign. The former Massachusetts governor had not led a poll in Ohio since a late May/early June Purple Strategies survey showed him ahead by three points. Similarly, Romney had not held the advantage in Virginia since a June We Ask America survey had him up five points on President Obama. [A July Quinnipiac poll had the two men tied in Virginia.]

But the question remains: While this is a good day polling-wise for the presumptive Republican ticket, is this a blip or the first evidence of a change in the tide in some of the most competitive states? Better yet, is this related to the Paul Ryan rollout as the Republican vice presidential nominee? [The Purple Strategies poll was in the field Monday and Tuesday after the Saturday announcement.] Finally, is this just some rather pedestrian state-level narrowing a la Campbell (2008)?

The answers? It will take more than a day's worth of polling from one survey research group to affect that kind of change.

That said, there is an awful lot of Romney pink in otherwise light blue (to this point) Obama states:

New State Polls (8/15/12)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Obama
Romney
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Colorado
8/13-8/14
+/- 4.0%
600 likely voters
49
46
5
+3
+2.79
Florida
8/13-8/14
+/- 4.0%
600 likely voters
47
48
5
+1
+1.33
Missouri
8/8
+/- 3.8%
663 likely voters
46.8
47.9
5.3
+1.1
+4.88
Ohio
8/13-8/14
+/- 4.0%
600 likely voters
44
46
10
+2
+3.41
Virginia
8/13-8/14
+/- 4.0%
600 likely voters
45
48
8
+3
+2.63

Polling Quick Hits:
Colorado:
There was some evidence last week that the gap in Colorado may be closing. Contrary to that and quite opposite of the dynamics within this series of polls from Purple Strategies, Obama holds on to the lead in the Centennial state. Now, to be sure, this is more a matter of maintaining the status quo -- It is right at the current FHQ weighted average. -- than anything else. Still, the polling over the last week in Colorado feels like an exercise in polling variability rather than tide turner.

Florida:
Mitt Romney leads in Florida, and that is the governor's first advantage in the Sunshine state since July, but that was in a Purple Strategies survey that had him ahead by a slightly larger margin. Relative to that poll, the margin in Purple Strategies polls in Florida has drawn closer by a couple of points. And that is all Obama gain. Romney held steady at 48% while Obama's share of the response increased from 45% to 47%. [That is true to the direction of the Colorado movement as well, though both candidates' shares increased there poll over poll.] In context, Romney's share in this poll is where it has been when it has been at its zenith, while Obama is right in the heart of his polling range in Florida.

Missouri:
Changes (August 15)
StateBeforeAfter
MissouriLean RomneyToss Up Romney
The one surprise FHQ hinted at via Twitter earlier was in Missouri where a Chilenski Strategies poll echoing the +1 Romney margin from the latest Survey USA poll of the Show Me state was released. I am still not convinced that Missouri is this close or that deserves to be in the Toss Up category. These two surveys demonstrate to FHQ that Missouri is still underpolled, and while that may be the reality, a range is beginning to solidify there in terms of the margins between the two candidates. These two polls to this point represent the highest highs for Obama and the lowest lows (especially in the case of the Survey USA poll) for Romney.

Ohio:
If the trends in Colorado and Florida from one Purple Strategies poll to the other ran concomitantly to each other then the same is true of Ohio and Virginia in the aggregate at least. In Ohio, the president's share of support dropped off by four points while Mitt Romney's rate of support mostly held steady.

Virginia:
In Virginia, the opposite was true. Obama held steady while Romney's share of support in the Old Dominion increased by four points relative to the last Purple Strategies poll in the commonwealth in July. The 48% level of support is also the highest Romney has enjoyed there. The governor's 46% share in Ohio is at a similar crest (though one We Ask America poll in June had him higher at 48%).

All told, it is a good day for Romney, but with some interesting caveats/trends underneath the surface.


Together the new information does little to alter the outlook in the electoral college. Missouri slips back over into the Toss Up Romney category (...but only just so). There is still a great distance between the North Carolina on one end of the Toss Up Romney spectrum and Missouri on the other. On the Electoral College Spectrum, Colorado and Virginia switch places with each other again, a move emblematic of the shifts within all of these polls: Colorado and Florida moving toward the president (comparing Purple Strategies polls) and Ohio and Virginia shifting toward Romney. FHQ does not want to take too micro a view of all of this, but if this ends up a close election, these sorts of shifts among the most competitive states matter in the electoral college calculus.

...particularly if the develop into longer terms trends (something only time will tell).

The Electoral College Spectrum1
RI-4
(7)2
NJ-14
(160)
NH-4
(257)
AZ-11
(167)
MS-6
(55)
HI-4
(11)
WA-12
(172)
OH-183
(275/281)
MT-3
(156)
ND-3
(49)
NY-29
(40)
MN-10
(182)
CO-9
(284/263)
GA-16
(153)
AL-9
(46)
VT-3
(43)
NM-5
(187)
VA-13
(297/254)
WV-5
(137)
KY-8
(37)
MD-10
(53)
CT-7
(194)
IA-6
(303/241)
IN-11
(132)
KS-6
(29)
CA-55
(108)
OR-7
(201)
FL-29
(332/235)
SC-9
(121)
AK-3
(23)
MA-11
(119)
PA-20
(221)
NC-15
(206)
LA-8
(112)
OK-7
(20)
IL-20
(139)
WI-10
(231)
MO-10
(191)
NE-5
(104)
ID-4
(13)
DE-3
(142)
NV-6
(237)
TN-11
(181)
AR-6
(99)
WY-3
(9)
ME-4
(146)
MI-16
(253)
SD-3
(170)
TX-38
(93)
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.

The Watch List remains the same in terms of the line up of states, but Missouri now moves from being a Lean but almost a Toss Up to a Toss Up but nearly a Lean. The Show Me state bears watching, but only to see if the establishing range of polls continues. If the latest polls are any indication of Obama's best showing there, then the president will be on the outside looking in in Missouri on election night.

The Watch List1
State
Switch
Connecticut
from Strong Obama
to Lean Obama
Georgia
from Strong Romney
to Lean Romney
Michigan
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up 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
West Virginia
from Strong Romney
to Lean Romney
Wisconsin
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up Obama
1 Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Please see:


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 6:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

The Electoral College Map (8/14/12)

Well, FHQ wishes we could tell you that a group of new polls from a couple of Watch List states changed the presidential race in some way. But we can't. Sure, the weighted averages fluctuated some in both New Hampshire and Ohio, but both are still toss ups favoring Obama and none of the five new polls did anything to change that today.

[Actually FHQ is ambivalent toward the ups and downs of the polls. We just try to track the stuff and provide a little context. Changes do make for more varied writing though.]

New State Polls (8/14/12)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Obama
Romney
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
New Hampshire
8/7-8/8
<+/- 3%
1591 likely voters
50
44
6
+6
+4.78
New Hampshire
8/1-8/12
+/- 4.2%
550 likely voters
49
46
4
+3
--
New Hampshire
8/9-8/12
+/- 3.0%
1055 likely voters
51
45
5
+6
--
Ohio
8/9-8/12
+/- 3.2%
 961 likely voters
48
45
6
+3
+3.75
Ohio
8/13
+/- 4.5%
500 likely voters
45
45
4
0
--

Polling Quick Hits:
New Hampshire:
A couple of +6 polls in the Granite state for Obama (both from PPP, but one privately done) kind of stacks the deck for the president there in terms of the averages. For the sake of transparency, if the private PPP survey was dropped the New Hampshire weighted average would dip to 4.3. But a poll with a publicly released data is a poll. The private poll is included in the averages as well. Together what the two PPP polls show is that the president has the advantage, but one that has fallen from +12 when the company last surveyed the state in May. Of course, that survey was a bit of an outlier in the context of other time-proximate polls. A +6 seems to be the upper end of the range for Obama in New Hampshire at the moment whereas the new Granite State Poll from UNH/WMUR is closer to the lower bound of the range at +3 for the president. The latter poll does have Romney at his high water mark in polling of the state overall.

Ohio:
After a couple of late July polls from We Ask America and Quinnipiac seemed to show a growth in the president's lead in the Buckeye state, the latest polls from PPP and Rasmussen there look to fit right in with where the polling in Ohio had been before that blip. In other words, Ohio, like New Hampshire, is competitive, but provides the president with a consistent cushion. Neither PPP nor Rasmussen saw much in the way of movement for either candidate in Ohio since they last polled voters in the state in June and July respectively. Obama's share dropped by a couple of points in the Rasmussen poll in August over July, but in the scope of all the Ohio polls that feels more like polling variation rather than anything like a significant decrease. However, time will tell the tale on that one.


Perhaps I should not have led this post off by saying that the introduction of these polls made no significant difference in the grand scheme of things. [Are people still reading?] But that is the truth. The steady state of the 2012 presidential race continues. New Hampshire and Ohio both remain toss ups favoring the president and maintain their positions on the Electoral College Spectrum. There is more daylight between New Hampshire and Ohio than there is between New Hampshire and Michigan, but that is little consolation here. New Hampshire may be flirting with moving into the Lean Obama category, but it may/will oscillate a great deal around that Toss Up/Lean line between now and November. And that may also prove true for Michigan and Ohio.

The bottom line is that Obama continues to hold a lead in the majority of competitive states and that is fueling his August lead in the electoral college outlook. The president simply has cushion now, but not a strong enough one to preclude any sort of Romney surge in polling or the averages over the next few months.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
RI-4
(7)2
NJ-14
(160)
NH-4
(257)
AZ-11
(167)
MS-6
(55)
HI-4
(11)
WA-12
(172)
OH-183
(275/281)
MT-3
(156)
ND-3
(49)
NY-29
(40)
MN-10
(182)
VA-13
(288/263)
GA-16
(153)
AL-9
(46)
VT-3
(43)
NM-5
(187)
CO-9
(297/250)
WV-5
(137)
KY-8
(37)
MD-10
(53)
CT-7
(194)
IA-6
(303/241)
IN-11
(132)
KS-6
(29)
CA-55
(108)
OR-7
(201)
FL-29
(332/235)
SC-9
(121)
AK-3
(23)
MA-11
(119)
PA-20
(221)
NC-15
(206)
LA-8
(112)
OK-7
(20)
IL-20
(139)
WI-10
(231)
MO-10
(191)
NE-5
(104)
ID-4
(13)
DE-3
(142)
NV-6
(237)
TN-11
(181)
AR-6
(99)
WY-3
(9)
ME-4
(146)
MI-16
(253)
SD-3
(170)
TX-38
(93)
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.

The margin in Ohio decreased just enough to push the Buckeye state off of the Watch List. It was just a few hundredths of a percentage point from moving off of the list anyway. Regardless, that is the only change below today. New Hampshire remains on.

The Watch List1
State
Switch
Connecticut
from Strong Obama
to Lean Obama
Georgia
from Strong Romney
to Lean Romney
Michigan
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up Obama
Missouri
from Lean Romney
to Toss Up 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
West Virginia
from Strong Romney
to Lean Romney
Wisconsin
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up Obama
1 Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Please see:


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Do the RNC Rules Allow a VP Selection to Be Dumped by the Convention?

Sure they do.

But of course, that won't happen in Tampa. And FHQ is not suggesting that it is a possibility. Rather, this is in answer to Jonathan Bernstein's follow up to Seth Masket on the influence of party over the vice presidential selection.

First the rules:
In the 2008 Rules of the Republican Party -- the rules governing the 2012 nomination process and convention -- Rule 40 covers nominations. Yes, the same Rule 40 that came up back in March and was the basis for all the talk about Ron Paul controlling a plurality of delegates in at least five states. The same is true for vice presidential nominations, but the procedure there is less regulated than for presidential nominations. By that I mean that delegates are not bound on the vice presidential roll call votes in the same way that they are on presidential roll call votes for nomination (...something Jon Ward covers here). I am not suggesting that there will be any Ron Paul delegate mischief or any other efforts to second guess Romney and oust Paul Ryan from the ticket in Tampa. Instead, the point is to show that it is possible.

Now the implications:
Within the framework of the party -- writ large -- influencing the selection of a vice presidential nominee, this merely adds another layer. But that is certainly a layer that strengthens the party's hand. It really is not unlike a president's decision in selecting a nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. There is a more than adequate supply of able jurists in the pool, but only a constrained number of them will ever be considered by any given president. There is a calculus to the decision and presidents can push the envelope -- ideologically speaking or in some other manner -- but the extent of said pushing goes only so far as the administration's perception of what/who is likely to get the requisite 60 votes in the US Senate for confirmation.

Similarly, Presumptive Nominee Romney wants/wanted to select a running mate that was palatable to members of the Republican Party. Any of the finalists -- Ryan, Portman, Pawlenty -- would have accomplished that. Additionally, there was a reason certain trial balloons failed: They weren't passable in a convention setting. FHQ has attempted to raise the issue of breaking from the script moments at the Republican convention in Tampa. Mostly that was within the context of the role of Ron Paul delegates. But the same rule applies in this case. Selecting, for example, a pro-choice running mate like Rice or Sandoval would have been vetoed -- in Bernsteinian? Berenstain? terms -- by the convention. It may not have been enough to derail the ultimate nomination of that type of candidate, but it definitely would ruin the harmonious party atmosphere with which the two national parties like to leave conventions.

The last thing any party or nominee wants is discord within the party before, during or after a convention. And that is the power of party in this particular political decision.



Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 1:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)