Monday, September 17, 2012

The Electoral College Map (9/17/12)

The dawn of a new work week just seven weeks from election day brought only a couple of polls. But both added much-needed new data to the FHQ polling dataset. Things have been quiet in Wisconsin since the bevy of surveys conducted in the aftermath of the Ryan rollout. Any new data there is good data for attempting to get a handle on the state of things in the Badger state. And further south in Kentucky, well, it was good just to finally have some data from the Bluegrass state.

New State Polls (9/17/12)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Obama
Romney
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Kentucky
9/11-9/13
+/- 4.1%
606 likely voters
39
53
5
+14
+16.50
Wisconsin
9/12-9/13
+/- 3.2%
959 likely voters
49
48
3
+1
+4.52

Polling Quick Hits:
Kentucky:
Being that this is the first poll conducted and released out of Kentucky in 2012, there really is not a good baseline for comparison. The stand-in average for Kentucky had consisted of the election day voting results from each of the last three presidential elections. And this poll did a reasonable job of approximating that average. Romney leads by 14 points and Republican candidates have won the state by slightly greater margins in the 2000-2008 elections. The temptation -- because the arithmetic works out that way -- is to say that any remaining undecideds will break toward Romney in this instance. Maybe, maybe not. But if so, that would certainly bring the ultimate results in line with where they have been on election day during the last three elections. Regardless of how much Romney's total compares to past Republican performance, Kentucky is a red state and a safe one at that.

Wisconsin:
Now, regular readers will remember that in the inaugural electoral college post for 2012, FHQ mentioned that at some point following the conventions we would decrease the weight placed on all the older polls but the most recent one. The reasoning is that, as I said then, we want the averages to adapt to changing information, but not to be too reactive to it. The balance that we struck in 2008 was to cut in half the weight placed all but the most recent poll. Additionally, this is motivated by the fact that there just aren't in the middle of July that many polls anyway which in turn means more -- likely unnecessary -- volatility in averages (if a pretty steep discount is not added to older polls).

I mention this for a couple of reasons in the context of Wisconsin. First of all, FHQ has been second-guessing the timing of that statistical switch because I still don't feel like we have enough polls in most states to warrant it. Secondly, however, if there was ever a state where that change might be needed it would be Wisconsin. Granting too much significance to the older polls in the Badger state may be masking some of the changes that have taken place there since Paul Ryan was tapped as Mitt Romney's vice presidential nominee. Again, the switch is to reduce by half the overall significance of all but the most recent poll in a state. Just for fun I crunched the numbers to see what the change would look like in Wisconsin. Decreasing the emphasis on the older polls in the averages and placing full value on the most recent poll there -- the PPP survey above -- only dropped the FHQ weighted average by two tenths of a percentage point. That's hardly over-reactionary, post-switch. The gap has closed some in Wisconsin, but not enough to keep it from tipping into the Obama column as of now.

We will roll out that change in weighting at some point in the near future -- definitely before the debates, but I want to make sure that there is enough space between that change and the changing of the parameters around each category.1 Those two changes cannot be rolled out simultaneously. Well, they could, but I would like to do each separately so that I can explain the impact each has had.


Not surprisingly, the map was unaltered by the addition of these two polls. Neither did very much to change the preexisting outlook in either Kentucky or Wisconsin. The data certainly did not shift either state to the other candidate. On the Electoral College Spectrum, though, Wisconsin flipped spots with Michigan. The result is that Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada are all within three one-hundreths of a point of each other in the averages, but with a fair amount of space between that trio (plus New Hampshire) and the next state on the spectrum, Ohio.

Kentucky budged even less, or in a less consequential way, perhaps. The Bluegrass state switched spots with Alabama and neither is anything other than a very safe Romney state.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
VT-3
(6)2
WA-12
(158)
NV-6
(257)
MO-10
(166)
MS-6
(55)
RI-4
(10)
NJ-14
(172)
OH-183
(275/281)
GA-16
(156)
ND-3
(49)
NY-29
(39)
NM-5
(177)
CO-9
(284/263)
MT-3
(140)
KY-8
(46)
HI-4
(43)
CT-7
(184)
VA-13
(297/254)
IN-11
(137)
AL-9
(38)
MD-10
(53)
MN-10
(194)
IA-6
(303/241)
SC-9
(126)
KS-6
(29)
CA-55
(108)
OR-7
(201)
FL-29
(332/235)
LA-8
(117)
AK-3
(23)
IL-20
(128)
PA-20
(221)
NC-15
(206)
NE-5
(109)
OK-7
(20)
MA-11
(139)
NH-4
(225)
TN-11
(191)
TX-38
(104)
ID-4
(13)
DE-3
(142)
MI-16
(241)
SD-3
(180)
AR-6
(66)
WY-3
(9)
ME-4
(146)
WI-10
(251)
AZ-11
(177)
WV-5
(60)
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 281 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.

Wisconsin moved slightly away from the Lean/Toss Up Obama line but remains on the Watch List below. It is still all about watching for when/if Florida jumps to Romney's side of the ledger and when/if the margins in the four toss up states huddled on the Lean/Toss Up Obama line. Collectively, those five are the ones to watch when expecting new polling releases.

The Watch List1
State
Switch
Connecticut
from Lean Obama
to Strong Obama
Florida
from Toss Up Obama
to Toss Up Romney
Michigan
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
Minnesota
from Lean Obama
to Strong Obama
Nevada
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
New Hampshire
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
New Mexico
from Strong Obama
to Lean Obama
Wisconsin
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
1 The Watch list shows those states in the FHQ Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. The List is not a trend analysis. It indicates which states are straddling the line between categories and which states are most likely to shift given the introduction of new polling data. Michigan, for example, is close to being a Lean Obama state, but the trajectory of the polling there has been moving the state away from that lean distinction.

--
1 To reflect the increased difficulty of a trailing candidate closing the margin in any given state, FHQ in 2008 lowered the upper and lower bounds on the categories. A strong state will change from being any average greater than 10 to any margin greater than nine. Lean states will be defined as states with averages between 4-9 instead of 5-10. That means that a toss up state is any state with a margin less than 4 points. Deeper into October those categories will be redefined (lower) again. The rationale is that it is harder to make up five points in October than it is to make up three or four points. Candidates at that point are running out of time to move the needle that much on the state level (much less nationally).

Please see:


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:45 PM 3 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Campaigns in Disarray

FHQ's Twitter feed was littered last night and this morning with reactions to the POLITICO story indicating infighting and disarray within the Romney campaign. Most seemed to either simply link to it or attack it for shortcomings like how inner circle those quoted in the story really were.

FHQ's reaction? I would place it somewhere between "meh" and "Sir, I'm not impressed."

This just isn't much of a story given the context of the race. If a general election presidential race is not exactly tied then there is a major party candidate who is ahead and a major party candidate who is behind. The 2012 presidential race is not exactly tied. Obama is slightly ahead nationally and ahead by varying degrees in enough states to total 332 electoral votes as of now. That means that Mitt Romney is slightly behind in this race.

And historically those candidates who are slightly behind can face an awful lot of scrutiny. When campaign strategic actions by underdog campaigns don't exactly move the needle, people (voters, the press, etc.) wonder why. When a series of those sorts of actions fall flat, those same people wonder what's wrong. That is where we are in this race. People are wondering what's wrong.

This is not something that is new. It hints at a structural mechanism in American presidential elections.

I humbly submit:
Kerry campaign shifts gear into attack mode 
Candidate seen setting agenda as debates near 
By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff  |  September 26, 2004 
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- The perception of a Democratic presidential campaign in disarray remained so widespread Wednesday morning that Senator John F. Kerry got unsolicited advice from a woman attending a town hall meeting on Social Security: Beef up your rapid-response team, the retired lawyer suggested. 
The remark prompted laughter, including from the candidate himself. But the Kerry campaign was already undergoing a transformation. 
Between a speech Monday in New York that gave a point-by-point accounting of continued problems in Iraq, and a speech Friday in Philadelphia that accused President Bush of taking his eye off the real terrorist threat, Osama bin Laden, the Kerry campaign seized control of the political dialogue during a week that was supposed to have been dominated by the incumbent as he visited the United Nations and invited Iraq's prime minister to the White House.
... 
And it goes on.

Now, this is not meant to be yet another connect-the-dots-to-2004 post. That is a story/discussion for another time. [Truth be told, FHQ has drawn that parallel enough already.] No, the intent here is to point out just how difficult it can be to defeat an incumbent president in an environment that is not necessarily favorable but one in which silver linings can be found (...whether in terms of the economy growing (but not quickly enough) or razor-thin approval/disapproval margins that benefit the president). The fundamentals continue to point toward a close election on November 6, and the polling to some extent reflects that as well. The problem from the Romney perspective -- now -- is that when those two things are combined -- the fundamentals and the polling -- the major issue that surfaces is that the polling has been so very consistent throughout the summer and heading down the stretch in this race. That is a tough but not insurmountable obstacle to overcome.

Is the Romney campaign embroiled in discord? FHQ is dubious. The Romney campaign is in the same position plenty of underdog candidates/campaigns have been: behind and looking for the right combination of things to right the ship. There isn't an easy out and as FHQ mentioned earlier, time is running short.


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 2:45 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

The Iowa Caucuses: Still Not Going Anywhere

FHQ has never been a proponent of the tweet and run approach to Twitter, but in a rush on Friday I fell victim to the practice when responding to a Charlie Mahtesian tweet (and post) on the impact of the resignation of a pro-Ron Paul presidential elector in Iowa. Let me flesh out my elementary schoolyard, "No it isn't" response.

First of all, the story was that one of the members of the elected slate of Iowa Republican presidential electors resigned her post after suggesting that she might use her electoral college vote to send a message to Romney/the RNC for treating Paul -- from her point of view -- unfairly during the primary phase of the presidential campaign. That's all well and good. Talk of faithless electors is like talk of electoral college ties: premature and the chances of either happening beyond just entertaining talking points are infinitesimally small.

No, where FHQ took issue with Mahtesian, and by extension his piggybacking on a Craig Robinson post at The Iowa Republican, is on the contention that this is a blow to Iowa and/or the first in the nation status of its caucuses. Is this another in a string of black eyes for Iowa? Perhaps, but that is in the eye of the beholder.  Sure the "trouble" stretches back through June when Paul backers overwhelmed the state convention winning the majority of delegate slots to the national convention in Tampa and back further into January when Romney won the caucuses on caucus night only to have Santorum emerge victorious when the vote was certified two weeks later.

There is, however, a difference between black eyes and black eyes that actually yield some sanction on the state party in Iowa and its caucuses. The former is apparent. The latter is not.

Iowa and its caucuses are not going anywhere.

Given Craig Robinson's former position with and proximity to the Republican Party of Iowa, he may have more inside dope than I do. But if Tampa accomplished anything in terms of the 2016 delegate selection rules, it was to further bolster -- to further insulate -- the institution of the Iowa caucuses as first on the calendar. Some may quibble with me and suggest that the redefinition of the delegate binding mechanism in the new RNC rules will create some tension in the Iowa/New Hampshire relationship due to the way New Hampshire's primary law is written. But Iowa basically gets an exemption there (see the last clause of that statute -- That describes Iowa without naming Iowa.). The new protections for the carve out states means that...

1) They are not penalized if any non-carve out states thumb their noses at the new, stiffer penalties, forcing Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina to jump to dates any time before February and...

2) If that holds, then there will be just four states -- the carve outs -- jockeying for calendar position in a February window that stretches from February 1-20. [Michigan and Arizona have primaries scheduled for February 23, 2016 and Michigan has already received a waiver to hold its primary then without penalty.] That means there will be far less competition for slots or at least a lesser number of competitors vying for them. In turn, that makes it even more likely that Iowa would find its way to the front of the calendar.

The only problem with this argument is that the RNC also passed at its convention new rules to give the body the opportunity to amend its rules between conventions given a three-fourths vote. That may be what is troubling to Mr. Robinson and other Iowa Republicans about this latest episode with Paul backers within the state party. If Iowa continues to cross the line in the eyes of the RNC, the new and favorable (to Iowa) rules/penalties may be changed and Iowa may find itself on the outside looking in on a first in the nation contest elsewhere in 2016.

Of course, there are a couple of reasons why that won't happen. If Romney wins, Republicans/RNC will very likely leave well enough alone in terms of 2016 rules. In-parties simply have not been motivated to alter their delegate selection rules in the post-reform era. Now, when they become out-parties that quickly changes. But assuming a Romney win, the status quo rules will govern the de facto Republican nomination process. If, however, Obama is reelected, that does not lead to the Iowa Republican caucuses being given the heave ho. No, an Obama victory on November 6 means that both parties will have active nomination races in 2016, and barring an unforeseen challenge to Iowa's position on the Democratic side, Iowa Democrats will have the first contest on the 2016 Democratic presidential primary calendar. FHQ is hard-pressed to envision the RNC changing their rules and throwing Iowa Republicans under the bus in that scenario, thus opening the door to a Florida-in-2008-in-the-Democratic-race division. Quite the contrary, Republicans will not want to stir that hornets' nest at a time when they -- at least in this scenario -- are still trying to take back the White House.

Iowa is safe for 2016.

...perceived black eyes and all.


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 1:15 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Sunday, September 16, 2012

The Electoral College Map (9/16/12)

Sunday was slow on the polling front, but then again, that is typical for most Sundays. The one poll that did come down the pike was a Public Policy Polling survey out of Virginia. As polling releases go, you could do worse than a poll from the Old Dominion, but it did not -- whether using the two party version or the one that included third party nominees -- in any structural way change the thinking about the state of the race in the commonwealth.

New State Polls (9/16/12)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Obama
Romney
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Virginia1
9/13-9/16
+/- 3.1%
1021 likely voters
49
45
3
+4
+2.39
1 The poll numbers used from the Public Policy Polling survey of Virginia include Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, Green Party nominee, Jill Stein, and Constitution Party nominee (and former Virginia congressman), Virgil Goode. All three third party candidates collectively received the support of 4% of the respondents. The data from that version of the question are included in FHQ's database because all three candidates are on the Virginia ballot.

Obama led the two candidate race 51% to 46% over Romney. That would have raised each candidate's FHQ weighted average and would have pushed the FHQ weighted average margin in the commonwealth to 2.44 points in the president's favor.

Polling Quick Hits:
Virginia:
Looking back on the polling that has been conducted in Virginia in 2012, the striking thing is how consistent it has been. Sure, there has been the occasional poll showing a tie or with Romney in the lead, but the bulk of results have consistently indicated a race that favors the president by a margin anywhere from one to four points. That is certainly the case with this latest poll (if the third party inclusive version is included). That ushers to the fore a couple of thoughts:

1) Romney is running out of time to make up ground in Virginia and elsewhere where the pattern of polling consistency is similar. A day that passes without the FHQ weighted average margin in Virginia shifting in the direction of Mitt Romney is a day lost for the former Massachusetts governor. In other words, there has to be a break in the consistency of the polling both nationally and on the state level.

2) The obvious comeback to that thought is that while Romney is trailing, Obama did not appear to get any bump out of convention season in Virginia as was the case nationally or in a number of other states.  Part of that is a function of how many post-convention polls were conducted nationally in several other toss up states. We have a more robust picture in that polling than we do in Virginia. The other piece of the puzzle again comes back to the notion of polling consistency. Bounce or not and all things being equal, a candidate would rather be ahead by 1-4 points than not if polling consistency is the word. What has disappeared from the equation are the polling leads of more than five points for the president. As registered voter samples have been supplanted by likely voter samples, those sorts of leads have been fewer and farther between if not nonexistent in the polling done in August and after.


It seems like a no brainer to conclude given the latest Virginia poll confirming what we already knew/thought about the race there, that the new data did not structural change the outlook in the Old Dominion from the vantage point of the FHQ weighted averages. That is indeed the case. Both the map and the Electoral College Spectrum remain unchanged from Saturday. Virginia, like every toss up state but North Carolina, tips toward the president as of now. The consistency of the map and the overall ordering of the toss up states has been marked.

FHQ does not want to over-visit the consistency well, but we will continue to make the point until there is a break -- decided or not -- in the pattern. Certainly Florida is the first line of defense for Obama. Those 29 electoral votes are huge in the calculus of 270. Remove that piece from the equation and it becomes harder to swing other states where Obama's leads have proven to be greater and even more resilient than in Florida. While Florida is huge, it is somewhat superfluous to the president. Ohio is not. All the states on the left of the Spectrum through Ohio is all the president really needs. That is cutting it as fine as it gets, but that would get Obama over 270. Needless to say, the president's campaign keeping both Florida and Ohio blue makes the Romney camp's task of getting to the 270 electoral vote threshold herculean. Romney would have to win some states that have to this point been even deeper in the Obama column.

But that "to this point" clause in that last sentence is important. The election is not held today and there is some time for the Romney camp to put a dent in the Obama leads across the overwhelming majority of toss up states.

...but that time is running out and he is fighting not only time but a pattern of polling consistency that has taken root over the summer and through convention season.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
VT-3
(6)2
WA-12
(158)
NV-6
(257)
MO-10
(166)
MS-6
(55)
RI-4
(10)
NJ-14
(172)
OH-183
(275/281)
GA-16
(156)
ND-3
(49)
NY-29
(39)
NM-5
(177)
CO-9
(284/263)
MT-3
(140)
AL-9
(46)
HI-4
(43)
CT-7
(184)
VA-13
(297/254)
IN-11
(137)
KY-8
(37)
MD-10
(53)
MN-10
(194)
IA-6
(303/241)
SC-9
(126)
KS-6
(29)
CA-55
(108)
OR-7
(201)
FL-29
(332/235)
LA-8
(117)
AK-3
(23)
IL-20
(128)
PA-20
(221)
NC-15
(206)
NE-5
(109)
OK-7
(20)
MA-11
(139)
NH-4
(225)
TN-11
(191)
TX-38
(104)
ID-4
(13)
DE-3
(142)
WI-10
(235)
SD-3
(180)
AR-6
(66)
WY-3
(9)
ME-4
(146)
MI-16
(251)
AZ-11
(177)
WV-5
(60)
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 281 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.

As we head into a new week, the list of states where polling may trigger a change in categories continues to be stuck in a holding pattern. FHQ will fall back on the familiar "Florida and the four states on the Lean/Toss Up Obama line" mantra. If we are looking for a state-level manifestation of a break in the aforementioned pattern, those are the states to watch.

The Watch List1
State
Switch
Connecticut
from Lean Obama
to Strong Obama
Florida
from Toss Up Obama
to Toss Up Romney
Michigan
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
Minnesota
from Lean Obama
to Strong Obama
Nevada
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
New Hampshire
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
New Mexico
from Strong Obama
to Lean Obama
Wisconsin
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
1 The Watch list shows those states in the FHQ Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. The List is not a trend analysis. It indicates which states are straddling the line between categories and which states are most likely to shift given the introduction of new polling data. Michigan, for example, is close to being a Lean Obama state, but the trajectory of the polling there has been moving the state away from that lean distinction.

Please see:


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, September 15, 2012

The Electoral College Map (9/15/12)

Saturday brought new polling data from three very blue states. The conclusion? Each is still either safely in the Democratic column or leaning strongly -- and consistently -- in that direction.

New State Polls (9/15/12)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Obama
Romney
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Illinois
9/4-9/10
+/- 2.77%
1261 registered voters
47.1
33.8
16.0
+13.3
+18.96
New Jersey
9/9-9/12
+/- 4.0%
600 likely voters
51
37
12
+14
+12.66
Pennsylvania
9/9-9/12
+/- 4.0%
600 likely voters
50
39
11
+11
+7.04

Polling Quick Hits:
Illinois:
Other than the fact that this poll found an unusually high number of undecideds and that the president was under the 50% mark in a registered voter sample in his home state, there isn't much to say about this one. Those are noteworthy numbers in isolation, but the overall pattern has been pretty clear; even in a state where there has been just one poll utilizing a likely voter sample.

New Jersey:
The new addition to the series of New Jersey polls commissioned by the Philadelphia Inquirer greatly mimicked the toplines from the Rutgers/Eagleton poll released from the Garden state earlier this week. Obama simply has not been below the 50% mark in the scant number of New Jersey polls conducted since July. Half of the 12 polls conducted before August saw the president under 50% in New Jersey, but never below 48%. Those are the numbers of a blue state.

Pennsylvania:
The Keystone state is the one state alluded to above that is closer than the others states on today's list, but still not seemingly within reach for Mitt Romney. That is not to suggest that the Republican nominee cannot win in Pennsylvania, rather it is to say that the evidence thus far indicates that Romney faces an uphill climb there in the stretch run. The important factor with a state like Pennsylvania is that while polling there has only really been as close as three points a handful of times, you have to look at these and other polls in the aftermath of the conventions with some level of caution. There has been some movement toward Obama in that period, but the polling this week may be a more important indicator than what trickled out this last week. Will the bump recede and by how much? That question is probably better asked of the Toss Up states, but Pennsylvania is worth eyeing on the periphery (but comfortably within the Lean Obama category).


None of the poll introduced to the dataset today did anything to change the position each held prior to the polls. Illinois and New Jersey are deeply blue and Pennsylvania -- along with Oregon -- has anchored the Lean Obama category all along. On the Electoral College Spectrum, Pennsylvania and New Jersey both were stationary, while a surprisingly close poll out of Illinois closed the gap enough to push the Land of Lincoln down the far left column past both Maryland and California. That is more housekeeping than anything else as Illinois is not likely to drift into anything other than Strong Obama territory.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
VT-3
(6)2
WA-12
(158)
NV-6
(257)
MO-10
(166)
MS-6
(55)
RI-4
(10)
NJ-14
(172)
OH-183
(275/281)
GA-16
(156)
ND-3
(49)
NY-29
(39)
NM-5
(177)
CO-9
(284/263)
MT-3
(140)
AL-9
(46)
HI-4
(43)
CT-7
(184)
VA-13
(297/254)
IN-11
(137)
KY-8
(37)
MD-10
(53)
MN-10
(194)
IA-6
(303/241)
SC-9
(126)
KS-6
(29)
CA-55
(108)
OR-7
(201)
FL-29
(332/235)
LA-8
(117)
AK-3
(23)
IL-20
(128)
PA-20
(221)
NC-15
(206)
NE-5
(109)
OK-7
(20)
MA-11
(139)
NH-4
(225)
TN-11
(191)
TX-38
(104)
ID-4
(13)
DE-3
(142)
WI-10
(235)
SD-3
(180)
AR-6
(66)
WY-3
(9)
ME-4
(146)
MI-16
(251)
AZ-11
(177)
WV-5
(60)
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 281 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.

On a maintenance of the status quo day, The Watch List, too, remained unchanged. Florida is still the most likely state to jump the partisan line toward Romney and the four states -- Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire and Wisconsin -- on the line between the Lean Obama and Toss Up Obama categories are still plainly worth watching. There is still some distance between those states and the other Toss Up Obama states between Ohio and Florida.

The Watch List1
State
Switch
Connecticut
from Lean Obama
to Strong Obama
Florida
from Toss Up Obama
to Toss Up Romney
Michigan
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
Minnesota
from Lean Obama
to Strong Obama
Montana
from Lean Romney
to Strong Romney
Nevada
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
New Hampshire
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
New Mexico
from Strong Obama
to Lean Obama
Wisconsin
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
1 The Watch list shows those states in the FHQ Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. The List is not a trend analysis. It indicates which states are straddling the line between categories and which states are most likely to shift given the introduction of new polling data. Michigan, for example, is close to being a Lean Obama state, but the trajectory of the polling there has been moving the state away from that lean distinction.

Please see:


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)