Rasmussen 2012 Trial Heats (Nov. '09): Another Tie for Romney Against Obama

There's nothing like Black Friday for a 2012 polling dump. Earlier this week, Rasmussen provided us with its first glance at the 2012 presidential trial heats since July and back in the summer, the firm only included Romney and Palin against Obama. This time they have added Mike Huckabee to the mix, and more interestingly, Lou Dobbs as a third party candidate. But we'll get to that moment. I'll give you the numbers and figures to start and return later to add in the analysis.

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 45%
Huckabee: 41%
Other: 6%
Not Sure: 8%

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 46%
Palin: 43%
Other: 9%
Not Sure: 3%

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 44%
Romney: 44%
Other: 6%
Not Sure: 5%

Pollster: Rasmussen
Margin of Error: +/- 3.5%
Sample: 800 likely voters (nationwide)
Conducted: November 24, 2009

[Click to Enlarge]

[Click to Enlarge]

[Click to Enlarge]

Not surprisingly, Lou Dobbs hurts the Republican candidates more so than the president when he is included in the line of questioning in the survey. Romney is hit the hardest; losing 10% off his total from the two candidate question. But the former Massachusetts governor had the most to lose since he did the best of the Republicans against Obama in the two candidate polling.

And here's one more from Democracy Corps [pdf] with Dobbs and Nader included as third party candidates.

[Click to Enlarge]

Pollster: Democracy Corps
Margin of Error: +/- 3%
Sample: 1000 (2008 election) voters (nationwide)
Conducted: November 12-16, 2009


Recent Posts:
Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

Reconciling the 2012 Work of the Democratic Change Commission and the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee

Pawlenty: Running for 2012, But Will He Be Running in 2012?

[UPDATE: Ah, here are the Rasmussen numbers on Pawlenty in 2012.]

If the Minnesota governor follows these numbers (or if they stay the same as 2012 approaches), the answer to that will perhaps be no.

PPP's tweeting about them, Pollster is reporting them, but Rasmussen isn't sharing them. Apparently, somewhere behind the pay wall, Rasmussen is showing in its latest survey of Minnesota that Governor Tim Pawlenty would only have the votes of 42% of Minnesotans if he were to run for president and win the Republican nomination in 2012. 46% would not vote for him. No, that's not necessarily a vote for Obama because the president's name was not used in the question, but it does provide a sense of just how blue Minnesota is.

Here's the question:

Suppose Governor Tim Pawlenty runs for President in 2012 and wins the Republican nomination. If Pawlenty was the Republican Presidential candidate, would you vote for him?
Yes 42%
No 46%

This isn't a true trial heat, but it would have been interesting to have seen how the answers to the two questions (the one above and a head-to-head with Obama) would have differed. My hunch is that the difference would have been similar to the difference between polling an incumbent (for any office) against both an actual named opponent or a generic, unnamed one. Look, for instance, at Sen. Burr's numbers in the latest Public Policy Polling survey of the 2010 race for Senate in North Carolina. Burr performs better against named opposition than against Generic Democrat X and I would assume that Pawlenty's numbers above would decrease if we were talking about a ballot question pitting the Minnesota governor against President Obama.

That said, these numbers aren't all that bad. Sure, Tim Pawlenty has the name recognition in his home state that he lacks elsewhere, but in a state where Obama is still garnering higher approval than disapproval numbers -- though that margin has shrunk -- I wouldn't rank this as an awful showing for the governor.

What we're really missing here is a time trend. Rasmussen keeps asking different questions about Pawlenty in regards to the 2012 presidential race in these Minnesota polls. In March, we got this:

Should Tim Pawlenty run for President in 2012?

22% Yes
61% No
17% Not sure

And in May, Rasmussen asked something slightly different:

How likely is it that Governor Pawlenty will run for President?

17% Very likely
42% Somewhat likely
24% Not very likely
5% Not at all likely
11% Not sure

Fine, how likely is it that Governor Pawlenty will win the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012?

7% Very likely
30% Somewhat likely
39% Not very likely
16% Not at all likely
8% Not sure

No, those aren't flattering numbers for someone in their own state, but this is exactly the reason Pawlenty is making the moves he is in relation to 2012 (starting a PAC, traveling the nation, raising money, etc.). Put simply, he is at a disadvantage relative to the other prospective Republican candidates (Huckabee, Palin and Romney).


Recent Posts:
FHQ Friday Fun: You Can't Beat Louisiana Politics

A Late Start for New Hampshire 2012: Pawlenty will be the First

Do Even "Fairly" Drawn Congressional Districts Favor Republicans?

Today's 2012 Presidential Trial Heats In-Depth

We were all treated to a double helping of 2012 general election presidential polling today (...if you like that sort of thing.). Public Policy Polling's numbers were expected, but Rasmussen had some numbers on prospective match ups between Obama and Palin/Romney as well. One of my complaints last week about the 2012 trial heats was that only PPP had conducted any thus far in the admittedly (very) early stages of 2012 election cycle. If you are going to conduct polls this early, it is nice to know that you have more than one polling outfit to lean on. Enter Rasmussen, who polled Romney and Palin against Obama in addition to PPP's now fourth iteration of their Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney versus Obama survey.

The one thing that I want to note before I jump into looking at the results of these individual match ups is that the sample sizes between these two polls are vastly different and that may say something about the reliability of each organization's numbers. For a national poll the standard sample size is something at or around 1000 respondents. Rasmussen had exactly that, but Public Policy Polling had but 577 respondents. As I mentioned last week in my piece on the 2012 polls, PPP has come under that 1000 respondent mark three of the four times they've done these 2012 surveys (or four out of five counting the Obama/Palin survey that initiated the series back in March). Are these reliable numbers? Other than the May poll that had 1000 respondents, there has been a general closing of the gap between Obama and his would-be challengers since April. That tracks well with the president's overall decline in approval and favorability over that period of time.

But are the results reliable? Seemingly, but certainly not as reliable as the more robust sample from Rasmussen. Here's an example: GOP12 points out that PPP breaks favorability and the hypothetical trial heats by region. Interesting, right? Yeah, until you look more closely. Obama sweeps all four Republicans in the South! What!?! The president also wins across the board in the northeast (not surprisingly), loses to Gingrich and Huckabee in the midwest and is vulnerable in the west against Palin and Romney. Normally, a lightbulb would go off for me there. "Hey, why don't we try and project that onto the electoral college, just for fun (I still might do this. Ha!)?" But those numbers in the South give me pause.* As I lamented on Friday, it would have been nice to have seen what the non-May numbers would have looked like in those PPP polls had each had the standard sample size. At the end of the day, a 577 respondent sample would be solid for a poll here in Georgia, but on the national level, not so much.

Moving on...

[Click to Enlarge]

Against Newt Gingrich in the PPP survey, Obama actually goes up. Well, Gingrich does, too. The results here are just a reiteration of the status quo from a month ago. Rasmussen didn't poll Gingrich in the trial heats which make sense considering he lagged behind the leading troika of prospective GOP candidates, but that makes the exclusion of...

[Click to Enlarge]

...Mike Huckabee in the Rasmussen poll all the more surprising. Again, Huckabee, Palin and Romney have all traded off handling the top honors for "best against but still trailing Obama" in all of these polls thus far. And they have all clustered together and well above all others save Gingrich for the duration of these surveys as well. Nonetheless, Huckabee was not included in the Rasmussen questions. The former Arkansas governor was, however, a part of the PPP survey. And whereas both Gingrich (41 to 42) and Obama (49 to 50) rose this month over last, Huckabee (43 to 42) and the president (50 to 48) both saw declining shares of support in the July poll. I don't find that that is anything to write home about, though. Again, like the Gingrich numbers, these just serve to validate the status quo in this match up.

[Click to Enlarge]

As we move into the Palin and Romney results, we can begin to compare and contrast how the Rasmussen and PPP polls stack up against one another. Both polls show the soon-to-be-former Alaska governor rising as compared to last month's PPP survey, but the July PPP poll shows greater improvement than does Rasmussen. Regardless, the improvement continues to indicate that Palin's July 3 resignation announcement has not necessarily hurt her in terms of polling (2012 or otherwise). Given the question marks surrounding the PPP poll outlined above, if we take the Rasmussen results, we see that Obama is under the 50% mark against Palin for the first time in any of these trial heats. That's a far cry from the 55/35 split from PPP favoring the president in March. It just goes to show you how quickly the political outlook can change. And yes, that should serve as a not of caution concerning these polls. It is still very (VERY) early and much can change between now and next year's midterms, much less 2012.

[Click to Enlarge]

The result that will catch everyone's eyes from these two polls is the Obama/Romney split in the Rasmussen poll. The 45-45 tie is a remarkable sign of the current position the president is in: precarious given the typical, early term highs in January and Februrary. Still, this is a widely divergent result compared to the nine point advantage Obama has in the PPP survey (49-40 -- no decided change from last month). Now, I've certainly already called into question the sample size of PPP's poll, but without the Premium Service (I'm cheap, not to mention poor.) from Rasmussen, I don't know that it is fair to compare these two polls. Upon seeing the results, I'd wager that the Rasmussen poll has a few more Republicans in its sample than does the PPP poll (42% Democratic, 35% Republican and 23% Independent/Other). Again, these polls are all verging on the premature, but the real take home message from them is one you can easily glean from Obama's approval and/or favorability numbers: The president's support is dwindling. Obama is still fine among Democrats, but has virtually no crossover appeal and is seeing his advantage among independents evaporate like a small rain burst on a late July afternoon in Georgia. There's still something there, but it is certainly less than what it once was.

Let's wrap this up on a lighter note:

[Click to Enlarge]

Just for fun, let's look at the three-way general election race with Palin as an independent. If John Sides hates 2012 polls, then I'm sure he'll just love a poll that takes two hypothetical steps to even get to. First of all, Palin has to lose the GOP nomination (one she hasn't even announced she's running in) to Romney and then has to decide to run as an independent. That's almost hypothetical enough in 2009 to make me queasy. And that's saying something! Understandably, this type of three person race negatively affects the Republican Party's fortunes in a prospective 2012 general election. Obama remains stationary at a shade under 50% (Well, maybe more than a shade for an incumbent president.) while Palin pulls enough away from Romney to give the president a comfortable enough edge (11 points) over the former Massachusetts governor. Mitt's already been tweeting about the Rasmussen results, but here's betting he won't be trumpeting these three-way results. Well, he won't until he asks Sarah Palin to be his running mate and has an affirmative answer anyway.

I may have given Rasmussen another idea for a poll question there.

*For the record and given the crosstabs, there would have been 196 respondents from the South, 138 from the northeast, 150 from the midwest and 92 from the west. I honestly don't know if those numbers are going to yield representative results for those regions much less the nation in the aggregate.


Recent Posts:
PPP Poll: 2012 Trial Heats (Obama v. Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney)

Rasmussen Poll: 2012 Trial Heats (Obama vs. Romney & Palin

Presidential Primary Reform Week: National Primary with a Twist

Rasmussen Poll: 2012 Trial Heats (Obama vs. Romney & Palin)

Well, I wasn't expecting that. Rasmussen preempted Public Policy Polling's 2012 trial heats with a version of its own this morning. The particulars:

Obama: 45%
Romney: 45%
Other: 7%
Not Sure: 3%

Obama: 48%
Palin: 42%
Other:
Not Sure: 3%

Margin of Error: +/- 3 points
Sample: 1000 likely voters (national)
Conducted: July 16-17, 2009

For a more in-depth look at this poll and the Public Policy Polling survey also out today, see here.


Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Reform Week: National Primary with a Twist

Join FHQ for Presidential Primary Reform Week This Week

Presidential Primary Frontloading (1976-2008)

2012 GOP Primary Polling (July 2009 -- Rasmussen)

Is Palin in? Is she out?

That's been what everyone has been trying to hash out over these last few days since the former VP nominee's resignation announcement Friday. Regardless of the answer, though, Palin remains among the top tier of candidates in Rasmussen's first poll of the 2012 Republican presidential primary race (a poll conducted after the announcement). The soon to be former Alaska governor continues to poll nearly evenly with both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee and as a trio they consistently run about ten points ahead of former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich and well ahead of the other potential challengers.

Between the two early CNN polls on the race (here and here) and the newly released Rasmussen poll, there is a fairly clear picture of where things stand. There is a top tier of candidates that has been solidified -- whether they enter or not -- and an as of yet undetermined group of secondary candidates. And those options haven't significantly changed since last November's election. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee had their hats thrown in the race by virtue of their showings in the 2008 Republican primaries. Similarly, Sarah Palin being tapped as the 2008 presidential ticket number two and Gingrich's continued outspoken manner kept the two of them toward the front of the 2012 presidential queue.

[Click to Enlarge]

Those four options have been there, but the darkhorse options behind them have emerged and faded very quickly for still being three years away from the next round of primaries and caucuses. By this point, it is a bit redundant to recount the stories of Jon Huntsman, John Ensign or Mark Sanford, but it is the candidates of that ilk who will likely fill out the primary field in just two short years. This time around, Tim Pawlenty and Haley Barbour are the secondary candidates included in the poll. And as has been the case in the CNN polls (with Bobby Jindal and Jeb Bush ), the candidates outside of the foursome mentioned above lag well behind. However, among likely Republican primary voters, it is this group of candidates that still has the most to gain. Opinion has largely solidified around Palin, Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich and it is overwhelmingly positive (favorability to unfavorability ratio) as one might expect for well-known, prospective candidates among Republican voters.

[Click to Enlarge]

And while the "not sures" are well into the single digits for that quartet in the Rasmussen poll, over a quarter of respondents are still unsure about both Pawlenty and Barbour. In other words, there is still a significant faction of likely Republican primary voters who have yet to fully weigh in on those secondary candidates. And there is still plenty of time for each to grow his or her support, but the second tier candidates have the most wiggle room and can yet make it up to the top tier.

Time will tell...


Recent Posts:
And Another Thing About Those Winner-Take-All Primaries

Happy July 4th! No More 'Politics as Usual' Palin Edition

State of the Race: New Jersey (7/1/09)

Is Rasmussen's Inclusion of "Leaners" Affecting the Electoral College Outlook Now? An Update

It has been about three weeks since FHQ last checked in on the effect the early July decision by Rasmussen to report "leaners" in their polling releases had on our electoral college projections. At the time, only Ohio switched from favoring Obama to favoring McCain based on which version (with leaners or without) was used. In the period since though, there have been 27 new Rasmussen polls in 27 states. For 18 of those, that means the second (or third in the case of Minnesota) poll since the switch. The point of the comparison between the two types of numbers initially was to account for the discrepancy in the comparison of with leaners polls to previous without leaners polls. It just wasn't an apples to apples comparison.

With multiple "leaners" polls now out in 18 states, that really isn't the concern anymore. There are still nine states that had their first "with leaners" results reported since the beginning of August (and 13 others that have yet to have had their first with leaners poll conducted), but this is now primarily an exercise in examining how the electoral college projection would change -- and not a critique of the wholesale switch over to using the "leaners" numbers that took place in the aftermath of the change. We have the data, why not look at it? The more information we have from a "with leaners"/"without leaners" perspective, the more likely we are to begin seeing differences in the electoral college projections.

What we saw initially was that the leaners were breaking for McCain nearly across the board, but that around the time of Obama's trip abroad, that began to switch. And since that point, McCain's advantage in the "with leaners" numbers has almost been cut in half (from +1.08 to just +0.64 now). [Since the table is getting so large, I've decided to just simply append it to the end of the post instead of breaking up the text with such a mammoth figure. The new data are below the re-labelling of the columns.] Regardless, McCain continues to maintain an advantage over Obama with the leaners in these polls. And in an election that looks like it could come down to who is swinging the most independents, that's an important distinction.

But let's look at that more closely, focusing on the more recent polls (the new additions this time). Of those 27 states, eight are red states, eleven are blue states and the remaining eight are toss ups. In nine of the eleven blue states, the leaners are going for Obama (Though, it should be noted that in five of those nine, the leaners margin is exactly the same as the without leaners margin.), and in five of the red states, the leaners move in McCain's direction. So McCain in red states and Obama in blue. No real surprise there.

In the toss up states though, there are some differences. McCain holds slight advantages in 5 of those eight toss up states. The leaners broke for him in 60% of those cases (Missouri and Montana being the exceptions.). The picture for Obama was different. Of the three toss ups that favored the Illinois senator, the leaners moved toward him in one (Colorado), against him in another (Michigan) and broke even in the third (Nevada). That list of states was the very same as the one I discussed yesterday in the post about the benefits McCain could gain from tapping Mitt Romney as his running mate. Those three plus all the states in various shades of red add up to 271 electoral votes. And it is a very small consolation that Obama gains leaners in Colorado yet has the overall lead in the poll go to McCain. Nor is it beneficial to break even in Nevada when the overall poll favors McCain -- a switch from the month prior. In other words, having leaners break for him in Missouri and Montana is about all Obama can hang his hat on in this instance.

But what about the electoral college projection? Well, no matter which measure you use -- with or without leaners -- the projection (as a function of our weighted average) remains the same: 298-240 in favor of Obama. In fact, it is interesting that some of these leaner gains are cancelling each other out when subsequent polls are released. That has happened in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. Also, Nevada and Oregon have shown the same margins in both versions of the polls across two releases now.

One additional pattern that we can glean from these Rasmussen polls is the line up of states that are likely to have new polling data released in the next week. If everything holds to form, there should be new data in Arkansas, California, Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania in the near future. The last five of those are certainly worth keeping an eye on. All are toss ups with the exception of New Mexico. Given how other western states favoring Obama (Colorado and Nevada) have fared lately, it will be interesting to see if New Mexico follows suit.

Rasmussen Polls Since w/Leaners Distinction was Added (7/9/08)*
State	Date	w/o Leaners	w/Leaners	Change	Undecideds Drop
Missouri	7/7	+5	+5	0	-10
New Jersey	7/7	+5	+3	+2	-4
Illinois	7/8	+13	+11	+2	-6**
North Dakota	7/8	0	+1	+1	-7**
Wisconsin	7/8	+13	+10	+3	-6
Louisiana	7/9	+20	+19	+1	-2
South Dakota	7/9	+4	+4	0	-4
Washington	7/9	+9	+8	+1	-6
Iowa	7/10	+10	+10	0	-9
Michigan	7/10	+8	+8	0	-5
Minnesota	7/10	+18	+17	+1	0
Kansas	7/14	+20	+23	+3	-9
North Carolina	7/15	+3	+3	0	-5
Oregon	7/15	+9	+9	0	-5
Nevada	7/16	+2	+2	0	-5
Virginia	7/16	0	+1	+1	-6
Alaska	7/17	+5	+5	0	-7
Arkansas	7/17	+10	+13	+3	-4
Georgia	7/17	+9	+11	+2	+1
Maine	7/17	+10	+8	+2	-2
Colorado	7/21	+7	+3	+4	-13
Ohio	7/21	+6	+10	+4	-7
Florida	7/22	+1	+2	+1	-7
Minnesota	7/22	+12	+13	+1	--***
New Hampshire	7/23	+6	+4	+2	-5
Pennsylvania	7/23	+5	+6	+1	-8
New Mexico	7/24	+5	+6	+1	-6
California	7/24	+12	+10	+2	-6
State	Date	w/o Leaners	w/Leaners	Change	Undecideds Drop
Mississippi	7/28	+11	+12	+1	-2
Nebraska	7/28	+18	+19	+1	-3
Kentucky	7/29	+10	+9	+1	-9
Montana	7/29	+1	0	+1	-3
Alaska	7/30	+5	+6	+1	--***
Arizona	7/30	+16	+19	+3	-6
Texas	7/30	+9	+8	+1	-7
Alabama	7/31	+18	+20	+2	-9
Connecticut	7/31	+15	+13	+2	-6
New Jersey	8/4	+8	+10	+2	--***
New York	8/4	+20	+19	+1	-2
Massachusetts	8/5	+15	+16	+1	-6
Wisconsin	8/5	+4	+7	+3	--***
Washington	8/6	+12	+12	0	--***
Iowa	8/7	+5	+5	0	--***
Michigan	8/7	+7	+4	+3	--***
Missouri	8/7	+7	+6	+1	--***
Oregon	8/7	+10	+10	0	--***
Kansas	8/11	+15	+14	+1	--***
Nevada	8/11	+3	+3	0	--***
Illinois	8/12	+15	+15	0	--***
Maine	8/12	+13	+14	+1	--***
Virginia	8/12	+1	+1	+2	--***
Colorado	8/13	+2	+1	+1	--***
Minnesota	8/13	+4	+4	0	--***
North Carolina	8/13	+4	+6	+2	--***
Georgia	8/14	+7	+9	+2	--***
Avg. Change				+0.64	-5.57
*The "with leaners" distinction was added to reports that were released beginning on 7/9/08. The date on which these polls were conducted (The ones that these releases were based on) stretches back to 7/7/08. **Rasmussen has only conducted one poll in these states. Therefore, the difference was taken from between the with and without leaner numbers within the same poll in these cases. ***Previous poll had been taken after "with leaners" change had been made.

Recent Posts:
The New Ohio Poll and McCain's VP Choice

The Electoral College Map (8/17/08)

Which States are Underpolled in the Presidential Race?

5% of Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain

The question is: How consequential is that? Is that enough to swing the election to McCain or are those Democrats concentrated in comfortably red states already? I don't have an answer, but I would like to open the topic up for discussion.

These numbers are based on the current Rasmussen national poll that was released under the somewhat misleading (yet more eye-opening) headline, "30% of Conservative Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain." That's great, but only 18% of those Democrats polled in the two weeks the survey was conducted said they were conservative. The release goes on to list the numbers broken down by age and race, but not by region or by state. Now, I'm sure that information is available via subscription, but I'm not privy that information (Perhaps some of our readers are.).

But what do you think? Is 5% enough to hurt Obama? It is certainly better than the 28% of Hillary supporters who said they'd vote for McCain back in March (if Obama became the nominee).


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/30/08)

BarackBook: An Experiment Gone Wrong

Frontloading Under Fire, Part II

An Update on the Rasmussen "Leaners" and a Look at How They Affect the Electoral College

We documented earlier this week that there may be a problem with Rasmussen's decision to report two different polling results with each release and have everyone use the newer and different, "with leaners" data when reporting it secondhand or using them in an electoral college analysis. Comparing a poll from Georgia in June that had no inclusion of leaners with a poll from July that did is problematic at the very least. Below is an updated look at the polls that Rasmussen has released since the "with leaners" distinction began appearing in press releases following July 4.

Rasmussen Polls Since w/Leaners Distinction was Added (7/9/08)*
State	Date	w/o Leaners	w/Leaners	Change	Undecideds Drop
Missouri	7/7	+5	+5	0	-10
New Jersey	7/7	+5	+3	+2	-4
Illinois	7/8	+13	+11	+2	-6**
North Dakota	7/8	0	+1	+1	-7**
Wisconsin	7/8	+13	+10	+3	-6
Louisiana	7/9	+20	+19	+1	-2
South Dakota	7/9	+4	+4	0	-4
Washington	7/9	+9	+8	+1	-6
Iowa	7/10	+10	+10	0	-9
Michigan	7/10	+8	+8	0	-5
Minnesota	7/10	+18	+17	+1	0
Kansas	7/14	+20	+23	+3	-9
North Carolina	7/15	+3	+3	0	-5
Oregon	7/15	+9	+9	0	-5
Nevada	7/16	+2	+2	0	-5
Virginia	7/16	0	+1	+1	-6
Alaska	7/17	+5	+5	0	-7
Arkansas	7/17	+10	+13	+3	-4
Georgia	7/17	+9	+11	+2	+1
Maine	7/17	+10	+8	+2	-2
Colorado	7/21	+7	+3	+4	-13
Ohio	7/21	+6	+10	+4	-7
Florida	7/22	+1	+2	+1	-7
Minnesota	7/22	+12	+13	+1	--***
New Hampshire	7/23	+6	+4	+2	-5
Pennsylvania	7/23	+5	+6	+1	-8
New Mexico	7/24	+5	+6	+1	-6
California	7/24	+12	+10	+2	-6
Avg. Change				+1.00	-5.7
*The "with leaners" distinction was added to reports that were released beginning on 7/9/08. The date on which these polls were conducted (The ones that these releases were based on) stretches back to 7/7/08. **Rasmussen has only conducted one poll in these states. Therefore, the difference was taken from between the with and without leaner numbers within the same poll in these cases. ***Previous poll had been taken after "with leaners" change had been made.

Overall then, there is still a bias toward McCain in cases where "with leaners" data is replacing w the data that does not include them. As I've said, this isn't going to hae major ramifications at the outset, but over time, once a series of polls have been conducted, that collective difference could have a huge impact on what FHQ and others are doing with their electoral college analyses. In the only instance where a state has been polled by Rasmussen more than once since the switch, the results cancelled each other out. The first poll gave McCain a one point edge with leaners while the poll that followed two weeks later saw Obama with the same advantage. Such a result likely won't be the norm, however. In Ohio, for example, using one version or the other shifted the Buckeye state's 20 electoral votes from Obama to McCain and back again. And though that is the only case of a change thus far, that list is likely to grow in the future when new polling data is released.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

So looking at the map, we see that using the without leaners data -- the type that was used prior to July 9 -- shifts the map in Obama's direction with the electoral vote tally reverting to the 298-240 margin that had been in place for most of July until the new Ohio poll surfaced last week. That four point change in Ohio triggered just a 0.34 point change in our weighted average, but that is all that is necessary to move 20 vital electoral votes from one candidate's column to the other's.

It could be said that all were arguing over is whether Ohio is a toss up favoring McCain or Obama when the real point is that the Buckeye state is a toss up. Period. It doesn't really favor anyone. That's a valid point. However, there are differences in other states -- obviously -- but one poll has not been enough to affect change in those cases. Further polling, though, may bring about that change.

Note: I don't know how regularly I'm going to update these figures, but I have built them into my spreadsheet and I'm tracking the differences. When and if any changes occur -- major or minor -- I will bring them to the attention to our readers.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/27/08)

Guam: Oh Well, So Much for Frontloading the General Election

A Game of Vice Presidential Chicken

Is Obama Getting a Bounce from His Trip Abroad? A Different Approach

This may be less an approach than an observation, but I've spent a fair amount of time looking at the Rasmussen polls recently; especially the distinction between the "leaners" and "without leaners" data. And while polls thus far have indicated that the trip has yet to yield any noticeable bounce for the Illinois senator, there is some evidence, coincidental though it may be, that there is something positive to take away from the trip. Let me show you what I'm talking about. First, let's look at the table from the other day's post examining the Rasmussen reporting switch, but let's organize the states chronologically (based on when they were conducted) instead of alphabetically (And I'll add in the new polls from New Hampshire, New Mexico and Pennsylvania as well.):

Rasmussen Polls Since w/Leaners Distinction was Added (7/9/08)*
State	w/o Leaners	w/Leaners	Change	Undecideds Drop
Missouri	+5	+5	0	-10
New Jersey	+5	+3	+2	-4
Illinois	+13	+11	+2	-6**
North Dakota	0	+1	+1	-7**
Wisconsin	+13	+10	+3	-6
Louisiana	+20	+19	+1	-2
South Dakota	+4	+4	0	-4
Washington	+9	+8	+1	-6
Iowa	+10	+10	0	-9
Michigan	+8	+8	0	-5
Minnesota (7/10)	+18	+17	+1	0
Kansas	+20	+23	+3	-9
North Carolina	+3	+3	0	-5
Oregon	+9	+9	0	-5
Nevada	+2	+2	0	-5
Virginia	0	+1	+1	-6
Alaska	+5	+5	0	-7
Arkansas	+10	+13	+3	-4
Georgia	+9	+11	+2	+1
Maine	+10	+8	+2	-2
Polls below this point were conducted after Obama left to go abroad (7/19/08).
Colorado	+7	+3	+4	-13
Ohio	+6	+10	+4	-7
Florida	+1	+2	+1	-7
Minnesota (7/22)	+12	+13	+1	--***
New Hampshire	+6	+4	+2	-5
Pennsylvania	+5	+6	+1	-8
New Mexico	+5	+6	+1	-6
Avg. Change			+0.96	-5.5
*The "with leaners" distinction was added to reports that were released beginning on 7/9/08. The date on which these polls were conducted (The ones that these releases were based on) stretches back to 7/7/08. **Rasmussen has only conducted one poll in these states. Therefore, the difference was taken from between the with and without leaner numbers within the same poll in these cases. ***Previous poll had been taken after "with leaners" change had been made.

Above that yellow line, Louisiana is the only state where the "with leaners" distinction favored Obama. But since Obama started his trip overseas, and incidentally this is where the coincidence potentially comes in, four of the seven polls to be released show Obama with the edge when leaners are included. Does this mean that leaners are starting to break for Obama? And, further, does the trip have anything to do with it?

Are leaners breaking toward Obama?
It certainly looks that way. Are these simply Obama states in the first place, though? With the exception of Florida, all seven states are states that are Obama states in FHQ's most recent look at the electoral college (Well, Ohio changes sides depending on whether you use Rasmussen's leaners or without leaners data.). But that wasn't the case in the polls taken before Obama left. Of the 12 states where there was a difference between the with leaners and without leaners numbers, six were Obama states and all six saw drops in the margin when leaners were added. The other eight states, where there was no difference in the margins once leaners were added, were equal parts McCain and Obama states and all broke in McCain's direction. It seems then, that it isn't just a matter of the states polled since Obama left being Obama states.

Fine, just more than half of the seven states where polls have been conducted since Obama left have leaners favoring him now (Well, that does quintuple the number of states that were in that category in the first place.). That is a switch, but does that mean that the trip is what triggered the change? Maybe, maybe not. Rasmussen's own daily tracking poll does have Obama bouncing. And the "with leaners" numbers at least appear to show Obama gaining among that group in states where respondents have been surveyed since Obama left at the outset of last weekend. Coincidence it may be, but it is an interesting way of going about assessing whether Obama has gained anything out of this trip. If this is evidence--and even I'm skeptical of that--of Obama getting a boost from this overseas tour, then it is among the group in the middle that is likely to decide this election.


Recent Posts:
Is Florida a Swing State?

The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners"

The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)