New State Polls (11/1/12)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Obama
|
Romney
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colorado
|
10/29
|
+/- 4.4%
|
750 likely voters
|
47
|
50
|
1
|
+3
|
+1.59
| |
Colorado
|
10/26-10/31
|
+/- 3.5%
|
764 likely voters
|
50
|
48
|
1
|
+2
|
--
| |
Colorado
|
10/29-10/31
|
+/- 3.4%
|
839 likely voters
|
49
|
48
|
2
|
+1
|
--
| |
Florida
|
10/28-10/29
|
+/- 4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
48
|
47
|
5
|
+1
|
+0.31
| |
Indiana
|
10/24-10/25
|
+/- 4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
41
|
55
|
4
|
+14
|
+12.30
| |
Indiana
|
10/29-10/30
|
+/- 4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
39
|
57
|
4
|
+18
|
--
| |
Iowa
|
10/28-10/29
|
+/- 2.9%
|
1142 likely voters
|
50
|
44
|
4
|
+6
|
+2.62
| |
Iowa
|
10/30
|
+/- 4.0%
|
750 likely voters
|
48
|
49
|
1
|
+1
|
--
| |
Iowa
|
10/29-10/31
|
+/- 3.4%
|
891 likely voters
|
50
|
47
|
2
|
+3
|
--
| |
Nevada
|
10/23-10/25
|
+/- 3.4%
|
909 likely voters
|
50
|
46
|
3
|
+4
|
+3.99
| |
Nevada
|
10/23-10/29
|
+/- 2.9%
|
1212 likely voters
|
50
|
46
|
2
|
+4
|
--
| |
New Hampshire
|
10/28-10/29
|
+/- 3.1%
|
1242 likely voters
|
49
|
47
|
3
|
+2
|
+3.19
| |
North Carolina
|
10/22-10/30
|
+/- 5.0%
|
403 registered voters
|
45
|
46
|
9
|
+1
|
+1.53
| |
Ohio
|
10/30-10/31
|
+/- 2.7%
|
1281 likely voters
|
46
|
49
|
--
|
+3
|
+2.88
| |
Rhode Island
|
10/24-10/27
|
+/- 4.0%
|
601 likely voters
|
54
|
33
|
8
|
+21
|
+23.61
| |
Virginia
|
10/8-10/9
|
+/- 4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
44
|
51
|
4
|
+7
|
+1.71
| |
Washington
|
10/18-10/31
|
+/- 3.9%
|
632 likely voters
|
57
|
36
|
3
|
+21
|
+13.70
| |
Washington
|
10/28-10/31
|
+/- 4.2%
|
555 likely voters
|
54
|
40
|
--
|
+14
|
--
| |
Wisconsin
|
10/25-10/29
|
+/- 5.0%
|
402 likely voters
|
52
|
43
|
--
|
+9
|
+4.52
| |
Wisconsin
|
10/28-10/29
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1065 likely voters
|
49
|
46
|
3
|
+3
|
--
| |
Wisconsin
|
10/29
|
+/- 4.0%
|
750 likely voters
|
49
|
49
|
2
|
0
|
--
| |
Wisconsin
|
10/30-10/31
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1074 likely voters
|
49
|
47
|
--
|
+2
|
--
| |
Again, things aren't budging much, nor should we expect them to move, whether drastically or otherwise, all that much between now and next Tuesday. There may be a few outliers on the board above, but the ordering of states seen below in the Electoral College Spectrum remains unchanged among the toss up states. Those three tiers that we have been talking about for over a week now are still there: Tier one (Florida, Colorado, Virginia), Tier two (New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa) and Tier three (Wisconsin, Nevada). Those tier one states had been slightly tipped toward Romney in the polling over the last couple of weeks -- particularly in Florida -- but now appear to be virtually tied. Again, that's in recent polling. In the FHQ averages, the president continues to hold small and shrinking advantages in each. Florida is basically tied and Virginia and Colorado are in the 1-2 point range; well within reach for the Romney campaign. The tier three states look like Obama states at this point. That is probably truer in Nevada than in Wisconsin as there are a handful of public polls that have Obama up by large margins pitted against other polling in the Badger state showing a very tight race.
The real action -- at least through the lens of the FHQ weighted averages -- is in that middle tier; tier two. Those three states are now in a range (in the averages) of 2.5 and 3.5 points in the president's favor. It should be noted that Ohio is by far the biggest state in that group and holds the power to tip the election in one direction or the other that Iowa and New Hampshire just do not hold in the electoral college.
The map (changes since 10/31): No change. Obama: 332, Romney: 206.
The Electoral College Spectrum (changes since 10/31): No change among the toss up states.
Indiana trades places with South Carolina.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
VT-3
(6)2
|
WA-12
(158)
|
NH-4
(257)
|
GA-16
(167)
|
MS-6
(58)
|
HI-4
(10)
|
NJ-14
(172)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
SD-3
(151)
|
KY-8
(52)
|
NY-29
(39)
|
CT-7
(179)
|
IA-6
(281/263)
|
SC-9
(148)
|
AL-9
(44)
|
RI-4
(43)
|
NM-5
(184)
|
VA-13
(294/257)
|
IN-11
(139)
|
KS-6
(35)
|
MD-10
(53)
|
MN-10
(194)
|
CO-9
(303/244)
|
TN-11
(128)
|
AR-6
(29)
|
MA-11
(64)
|
OR-7
(201)
|
FL-29
(332/235)
|
NE-5
(117)
|
AK-3
(23)
|
IL-20
(84)
|
PA-20
(221)
|
NC-15
(206)
|
WV-5
(112)
|
OK-7
(20)
|
CA-55
(139)
|
MI-16
(237)
|
AZ-11
(191)
|
TX-38
(107)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
WI-10
(247)
|
MO-10
(180)
|
ND-3
(69)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
NV-6
(253)
|
MT-3
(170)
|
LA-8
(66)
|
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 Watch List (changes since 10/31): No change.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Toss Up Romney
| |
Georgia
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Montana
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Nevada
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Toss Up 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. Montana, for example, is close to being a Lean Romney state, but the trajectory of the polling there has been moving the state away from that lean distinction.
| |||
Please see:
No comments:
Post a Comment