The Electoral College Map (9/19/12)

The Tuesday eight weeks out from election day brought 14 new polls from 10 states. The newly added data more fully refine the outlook in several states while simultaneously rewriting it in others.

New State Polls (9/19/12)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Obama	Romney	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
California	Field Poll	9/6-9/17	+/- 3.4%	891 likely voters	58	34	6	+24	+20.02
Colorado	Quinnipiac/New York Times/CBS	9/11-9/17	+/- 2.5%	1497 likely voters	48	47	3	+1	+2.37
Florida	FOX	9/16-9/18	+/- 3.0%	829 likely voters	49	45	5	+4	+0.76
Maine	Public Policy Polling	9/17-9/18	+/- 3.5%	804 likely voters	55	39	7	+16	+15.31
Maine	Maine People's Research Center	9/15-9/17	+/- 3.35%	856 likely voters	53.5	37.3	7.3	+16.2	--
Massachusetts	WBUR/MassINC	9/15-9/17	+/- 4.4%	507 likely voters	59	31	7	+28	+19.82
Michigan	CNN	9/14-9/18	+/- 3.5%	754 likely voters	52	44	3	+8	+4.77
New Hampshire	Rasmussen	9/18	+/- 4.5%	500 likely voters	45	48	3	+3	+3.64
Ohio	FOX	9/16-9/18	+/- 3.0%	1009 likely voters	49	42	6	+7	+3.30
Virginia	Quinnipiac/New York Times/CBS	9/11-9/17	+/- 2.6%	1474 likely voters	50	46	3	+4	+3.10
Virginia	We Ask America	9/17	+/- 2.75%	1285 likely voters	48.5	45.7	4.7	+2.8	--
Virginia	FOX	9/16-9/18	+/- 3.0%	1006 likely voters	49	42	6	+7	--
Wisconsin	Quinnipiac/New York Times/CBS	9/11-9/17	+/- 2.5%	1485 likely voters	51	45	3	+6	+5.07
Wisconsin	Marquette Law School	9/13-9/16	+/- 4.0%	601 likely voters	54	40	6	+14	--

Polling Quick Hits:
California:
The Golden state falls into the refine category. The new Field poll does little to dissuade FHQ -- or anyone else for that matter -- that California is anything other than comfortably in Obama's column. The  weighted average has stretched just a touch since August as the president's shares of support in the California polls conducted in that time have consistently had the president in the upper 50s range while Romney has more or less remained stationary in the low to mid-30s.

Colorado:
While Colorado and Virginia had been hand-in-glove together for much of the year, there is seemingly a trend at work that has the two separating some. Both are toss ups favoring Obama, but Virginia is moving toward the president and Colorado is tightening some. In the averages, that has brought Colorado down to about two and a half points separating Obama and Romney, but the post-convention polling is littered with one and two point advantages for both candidates. The latest Q-poll fits that bill.

Florida:
FHQ keeps saying that the Sunshine state is the smallest of leans to Obama. It is, but the president and Mitt Romney are essentially tied there. The average has been in Obama's favor and under one percentage point for quite a while now. Florida remains the most likely state to jump the partisan line into the opposing candidate's -- Romney's in this case -- list of states. Most troubling of all from the Romney perspective is that while things are close in Florida, Obama is drifting ever closer to the 50% mark in the polling there with Romney's share keeping pace -- albeit slightly behind -- in most cases, but not all.

Maine:
Up in Maine, the two new surveys released give us a refining picture of how the presidential race looks. Not surprisingly, Obama is ahead by a margin that makes the Pine Tree state a strong Obama state. Of course, Maine is one of two states to allocate electoral college votes by congressional district, so there is some potential that Romney could take one electoral vote -- as Obama did in Nebraska in 2008 -- but that isn't likely. The margin is in lean territory in the second district in the MPRC poll, but that is just one snapshot and there doesn't seem to be any effort on the part of the Romney camp to focus any resources there.

Massachusetts:
Well, Massachusetts is still Massachusetts: still solidly blue. But this survey -- like those yesterday -- confirms the state of the race in the state in which Mitt Romney once served as governor.

Michigan:
The temptation is still to put a lot of stock in the Democrats' focus on the auto bailout in Charlotte as a reason for some post-convention surges in states with a heavy auto industry presence. Whether that is the case is beside the point. The margins in the post-convention polling of the Great Lakes state have continued to show a widening lead there. And though that has not translated to the averages in the same way, that gap instead of closing by the smallest of amounts is not stretching out some in favor of the president.

New Hampshire:
The lone bright spot for Romney in the list of polls for today is in the Granite state. Rasmussen shows a small lead (+3) for Romney and consequentially, that moves the FHQ weighted average in New Hampshire down below the four point barrier. That has created some separation between New Hampshire and the other three states it has been clustered around in the averages dating back to August (Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin). Now New Hampshire is in a group with the next two states on the list below.

Ohio:
If Massachusetts is still Massachusetts, then Ohio is still Ohio. Typically that would mean that the Buckeye state is a toss up (It is.), but in addition to that in 2012, the state also has resisted the uniform shift that would otherwise be expected to hit every state equally. Where Missouri, for example, has shifted back toward the Republicans in 2012 relative to 2008, Ohio has not. It still sits around the three point range in the direction of the president in the averages. But it should be mentioned that the FOX poll today shows a margin about double the FHQ average; in line with a Virginia or Michigan-type post-convention move toward the president.

Virginia:
As has been touched on in a couple of places above -- and was yesterday -- the polling two weeks after convention season came to a close appears to be breaking in some of the toss up states toward the president. Virginia is one of those states. And while that trend has been echoed to some extent in the national polls, it seems to be stronger on the state level. The gap in Virginia, once mired at about +2 for Obama, has suddenly begun widening, pushing the average above three points and past Colorado. Also  noteworthy is that the president's share in several of these Virginia polls has pushed north of the 50% mark. The polls may or may not continue to fluctuate, but if they do, it would be to the former Massachusetts governor's advantage to see Obama under 50% in Virginia polling. Without Virginia, Romney's routes to 270 are quite limited.

Wisconsin:

Changes (September 19)
State	Before	After
Wisconsin	Toss Up Obama	Lean Obama

FHQ is actually glad that Wisconsin jumped into -- or back into -- the Lean Obama category before we made the switch to the 4% mark and below became the new toss up category. That it will already be a lean -- if the polling holds up -- means that FHQ won't be susceptible to the "you're favoring Obama with this switch" charge. Again, that switch when it occurs -- before the debates -- is about reflecting the reality that it is tougher for either candidate to reverse the course or fully erase a defined and persistent deficit given the time remaining in the campaign. As an aside, +14 for Obama seems a bit high in Wisconsin. This is just statistical noise most likely, but it should be noted that the Marquette poll has had a good track record for Wisconsin races all year.

For once, the newly added polling data changes up the FHQ graphics. Wisconsin's shift into the Lean Obama category brings both candidates' respective lean totals to 54 electoral votes. In moving, Wisconsin flipped positions with Michigan on the Spectrum. While New Hampshire drew closer to the Ohio and Virginia, that New Hampshire through North Carolina group of toss ups has held steady. The only move recently in that group has been the Colorado/Virginia switch, the trajectory of which was alluded to above. Elsewhere, California and Maine jumped one spot each closer to the Obama end of the Spectrum.

All of this paints a picture of a decidedly constrained number of toss up states. Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin -- given recent polling -- look like reaches for Romney and that means that the battle is over that range of states described above. The seven states in the middle column from New Hampshire through North Carolina are where the action is most likely to be down the stretch in this campaign. That Romney is still being required to expend resources in North Carolina -- a state that assuming a uniform shift since 2008 "should" have shifted much more toward the Republican candidate -- is evidence of just how steep the climb is for the former Massachusetts governo. Those are resources that could be better used in other toss up states that could put Obama on the defensive. As it stands now Obama is basically back in a prevent defense for the final period. That is, perhaps, an oversimplified view of the landscape but it is indicative of the ground the Romney campaign has to make up.

...and quickly.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
VT-3 (6)2	WA-12 (158)	NH-4 (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)	VA-13 (288/263)	MT-3 (140)	KY-8 (46)
HI-4 (43)	CT-7 (184)	CO-9 (297/250)	IN-11 (137)	AL-9 (38)
CA-55 (98)	MN-10 (194)	IA-6 (303/241)	SC-9 (126)	KS-6 (29)
MA-11 (109)	OR-7 (201)	FL-29 (332/235)	LA-8 (117)	AK-3 (23)
MD-10 (119)	PA-20 (221)	NC-15 (206)	NE-5 (109)	OK-7 (20)
IL-20 (139)	WI-10 (231)	TN-11 (191)	TX-38 (104)	ID-4 (13)
ME-4 (143)	MI-16 (247)	SD-3 (180)	AR-6 (66)	WY-3 (9)
DE-3 (146)	NV-6 (253)	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.

The list of states hovering around the FHQ category cutpoints remains the same today with one exception. Wisconsin is still very much on the Lean/Toss Up Obama line, but is now on the lean side of the line instead. More importantly, if the 4% threshold was being used today to delineate the toss up and lean categories, Wisconsin would no longer be on the Watch List. The Badger state would instead be a more comfortable lean state for the president.

Also, New Hampshire, on the strength of the Rasmussen poll showing Romney slightly ahead dips below the 4% threshold and thus, comes off the Watch List.

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 Mexico	from Strong Obama	to Lean Obama
Wisconsin	from Lean Obama	to Toss Up 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:

Frequently Asked Questions about FHQ graduated weighted average methodology.
&
An Update on how to read it in 2012.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/18/12)

The Electoral College Map (9/17/12)

Campaigns in Disarray

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The Electoral College Map (9/18/12)

The bevy of state-level presidential trial heat polls released on Tuesday held some good news for both major party candidates. While Mitt Romney turned in a couple of modest and rare leads in Colorado and Florida, the president stretched pre-existing leads across a handful of toss up and lean states.

New State Polls (9/18/12)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Obama	Romney	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Colorado	Rasmussen	9/17	+/- 4.5%	500 likely voters	45	47	6	+2	+2.47
Florida	Gravis	9/15-9/16	+/- 2.5%	1728 likely voters	47.1	47.7	--	+0.6	+0.60
Massachusetts	WNEU/MassLive.com	9/6-9/13	+/- 4.6%	444 likely voters	60	38	3	+22	+19.05
Massachusetts	Public Policy Polling	9/13-9/16	+/- 3.3%	876 likely voters	57	39	4	+18	--
Massachusetts	Suffolk	9/13-9/16	+/- 4.0%	600 likely voters	61	34	4	+27	--
Michigan	Marketing Resource Group	9/12-9/13	+/- 4.0%	600 likely voters	47.5	42.3	8.0	+5.2	+4.59
New Hampshire	ARG	9/15-9/17	+/- ?.?%	463 likely voters	48	47	--	+1	+4.38
Oregon	Survey USA	9/10-9/13	+/- 4.3%	552 likely voters	50	41	5	+9	+7.96
Pennsylvania	Morning Call/Muhlenberg	9/10-9/16	+/- 4.0%	640 likely voters	50	41	4	+9	+7.17
Virginia	Washington Post	9/12-9/16	+/- 4.0%	847 likely voters	52	44	4	+8	+2.90

Polling Quick Hits:
Colorado:
Again, rare are the snapshot polling advantages Romney holds in Colorado. The bulk of the polling in the Centennial state -- recent or otherwise -- has shown the Republican nominee stuck in a range between tied with and behind the president by three or four points. The last lead Romney held was in a Q-poll from late July/early August (and that one stood out from the other Quinnipiac surveys released simultaneously). Rasmussen polls have tended to lean a point or two to the right and correcting for that house effect would put this poll -- Romney +2 -- right on par with other recent polls in Colorado.

Florida:
The Romney advantages in polls have only been slightly more frequent further east in Florida where the polling has been tighter between the Republican nominee and the Democratic incumbent. FHQ won't dwell on this one for too long other than to say 1) that Florida is as close to tied as any state on the board and 2) that the Gravis poll margin equals the spread in the FHQ weighted average of the Sunshine state -- but in the opposite direction.

Massachusetts:
Are we still talking about Massachusetts? Yes, I suppose we are. As long as the Senate race remains close -- close enough to warrant further polling -- we will continue to get presidential level numbers. As always, more data beats no data. ...even if it is only confirming what we already know.

Michigan:
There have been a couple of inter- or post-convention polls that have indicated a wider Obama lead in the Great Lakes state, but the Marketing Resource Group poll is not one of them. If anything, the poll upholds the current state of the race: somewhere in the area between a toss up state and a lean state for Obama and waiting for evidence to the contrary.

New Hampshire:
While there is some evidence of widening leads for the president in some states, there also the additional snapshots showing the opposite. Obviously, Colorado and Florida fit that bill above, but New Hampshire does as well. Of course, Romney held leads in the most recent polls in those two states. He trails the president in New Hampshire, but by a smaller margin. Most of the August and onward polling in the Granite state has been in the 3-6 point range in favor of the president. Whether this is a blip from ARG or the beginning of a new pattern in New Hampshire remains to be seen, but it does differ from much of what we have seen out of New Hampshire.

Oregon:
The Beaver state, like Wisconsin, is one of those states that was close in 2000 and 2004, but broke open -- and toward Obama -- in 2008. While the margin in Wisconsin has tighten some following the rollout of Paul Ryan as the Republican vice presidential nominee, Oregon, through the comparatively smaller number of surveys to have been conducted there, has not. The pendulum has swung back some toward the Republicans, but the gap has consistently been in the mid- to upper single digits for Obama. That is still the case in the latest Survey USA poll.

Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania has been polled more frequently than Oregon, and while there has been some fluctuation in that series of surveys, the overall averages are largely similar. Both states are firmly lodged in the heart of the Lean Obama category. There are polls that come along showing the Keystone state within five or fewer points, but the preponderance of the data throughout the summer -- including this Muhlenberg poll -- suggests that the margin in Pennsylvania is somewhere north of six points; an uphill climb for Romney.

Virginia:
Take what was just written about Pennsylvania and reverse it for Virginia. There have been some polls with wider margins for the president in the Old Dominion, but most of them fall below that three or four point level. This is not to suggest that this Washington Post poll is an outlier, but the jury is still out on whether the distance between Obama and Romney is growing in Virginia. That said, the poll is not inconsistent with some other polls that have come out of the state. Noticeably, however, Obama's share of support in this poll is cresting above the 50% mark. If that in any way becomes the new normal of the rest of the campaign, that narrows Romney's list of paths to 270 even further.

Now, as we shift the focus from the individual polls to the aggregate outlook, there is very little change. The map remains as it was a day ago, but the Electoral College Spectrum shuffled a bit; most noticeably with the four Obama toss up states where the Romney campaign would like the president to play defensee down the stretch. New Hampshire has drawn closer and Michigan has shifted slightly back toward the president. All four states are within nearly two tenths of a point of each other in the FHQ weighted averages and Nevada, Wisconsin and Michigan are all within eight one-hundredths of each other.

Other shifts include a Virginia/Colorado flip-flop and Massachusetts switching places with Illinois.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
VT-3 (6)2	WA-12 (158)	NH-4 (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)	VA-13 (288/263)	MT-3 (140)	KY-8 (46)
HI-4 (43)	CT-7 (184)	CO-9 (297/250)	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)
MA-11 (119)	PA-20 (221)	NC-15 (206)	NE-5 (109)	OK-7 (20)
IL-20 (139)	MI-16 (237)	TN-11 (191)	TX-38 (104)	ID-4 (13)
DE-3 (142)	WI-10 (247)	SD-3 (180)	AR-6 (66)	WY-3 (9)
ME-4 (146)	NV-6 (253)	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.

Looking at the Watch List, things again remain unchanged. Those four toss ups above along with Florida are still the states to watch the most closely.

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:

Frequently Asked Questions about FHQ graduated weighted average methodology.
&
An Update on how to read it in 2012.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/17/12)

Campaigns in Disarray

The Iowa Caucuses: Still Not Going Anywhere

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

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	Survey USA/Courier-Journal	9/11-9/13	+/- 4.1%	606 likely voters	39	53	5	+14	+16.50
Wisconsin	Public Policy Polling	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:

Frequently Asked Questions about FHQ graduated weighted average methodology.
&
An Update on how to read it in 2012.

Recent Posts:
Campaigns in Disarray

The Iowa Caucuses: Still Not Going Anywhere

The Electoral College Map (9/16/12)

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

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.

Recent Posts:
The Iowa Caucuses: Still Not Going Anywhere

The Electoral College Map (9/16/12)

The Electoral College Map (9/15/12)

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

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.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/16/12)

The Electoral College Map (9/15/12)

The Electoral College Map (9/14/12)

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.