The answer to that question depends on several things. However a few things stand out as factors that could affect Florida's status in 2008 as a toss up state. First of all the Sunshine state is one that as been trending Republican. A simple look at partisanship within the state legislature over the last thirty plus years provides a clear illustration of this. Clear Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature gave way to Republican control in the mid-1990s. Following the elections in 2006, the GOP held an almost 2 to 1 advantage in both the Florida House and Senate (No wonder Democrats had no other recourse than to go along with the January 29 presidential primary that a GOP-controlled state government initiated.). The flip side of this is that voter registration in Florida during 2008 has favored Democrats by an advantage of over 6.5 to 1. Whether these two factors cancel each other out depends in large part on whether these newly registered Democrats actually become voters in November (and vote for Obama). Even if the newly registered don't turn out in high numbers, though, will GOP turnout be as depressed as their registration numbers have been? Neither issue is likely to be even close to determined until those 72 hour get-out-the-vote campaigns kick in as the calendar turns to November.
While we cannot definitively determine how each side will do on the turnout front in Florida, there are a couple of issues that the candidates will have to navigate there that will help us gain a glimpse into how close Florida may turn out to be. For McCain, if the Arizona senator continues to push offshore drilling as an answer to high gas prices. The latest Rasmussen poll out of the state (released yesterday) showed nearly 3/5ths of Floridians surveyed were in favor of drilling while only a third still favored keeping the ban in place. Despite that though, McCain has dropped in the Sunshine state of late at the very time when he is pushing his drilling plan the hardest. That may be coincidental because that downswing may have more to do with the issue that Obama must overcome in order to make Florida a true swing state.
On some level, Obama's trip abroad this week has sought to address his issue in Florida. The carefully managed trip through Israel and the West Bank when viewed through the lens of the Jewish American vote makes a lot of sense. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-Israel comments have made some in the Jewish community wary of Obama. That is compounded by the fact that many of them (in Florida and elsewhere) supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Obama, then, is faced with having to woo a vital portion of the traditional Democratic coalition back into the fold. His ability to gain that segment's votes in Florida, thus keeping them from defecting to McCain or Nader, will have a lot to say in whether Florida will be close in November. I don't have access to the premium material on Rasmussen's site, but would be interested to see how the Jewish preferences came out in yesterday's poll that had Obama ahead in the Sunshine state.
Regardless, how these issues work out, they will help us to determine whether Florida will, in fact, be a toss up state in the general election.
Recent Posts:
The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners"
The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)
The Electoral College Map (7/20/08)
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners" [Update]
Yeah, what is the deal with that switch? On its simplest level, the chart below looks at the difference in the Rasmussen poll margins based on whether leaners were included in the data. That distinction seems to have been instituted following July 4. The polls that started coming out on July 9 began to use the language "with leaners" to describe the alternate numbers to what was in the headline. "With leaners" data gives McCain about a one point bump when we look at how the margin between McCain and Obama is affected based on whether leaners are included. It has been rare that Obama has gained once "leaners" are included with those who directly answer the candidate preference question. Interestingly, the two polls today gave the Illnois senator a boost once leaners are included.
The problem here is not one of the changes in the margins though. It is one of comparison. You can't directly compare the new "leaner" data to past Rasmussen polls that did not include the respondents that meet that description. Obviously if leaners are pushed in any one direction, the number of undecideds decreases. So, if we look at the data concerning undecideds plus those supporting other candidates (not McCain or Obama) in the most recent polls and in the one immediately prior to the inclusion of leaners, we get a better sense of how much the undecided total has dropped. We can look at this within each poll; looking at the with and without leaners numbers, but what we are trying to capture is the problem of comparing the new, with leaners polls with the old, without leaner polls. And what we see is that on average, the percentage of undecideds drops by more than five points per poll when leaners are included in the topline numbers. Now, we expect to see the number of undecideds drop this time of year...naturally. But we don't expect that decrease to be manufactured. And the catch is that everyone (FHQ included) has been using Rasmussen's "with leaners" numbers since the switch. The result is that comparisons and subsequent analyses--whether used for electoral college projections or not--are open to a potential bias.
In our case, here at FHQ, I took the liberty of changing data to reflect the "without leaners" view across all the Rasmussen data. I altered the margins of these 24 polls then, to pull them in line with the pre-switch polling methodology. The effect that had on our state-by-state averages was negligible. The only change was that Ohio slipped back into Obama's column (Due to the new Rasmussen poll in the Buckeye state, Ohio has moved from an Obama toss up to a McCain toss up.). Again though, that isn't the real issue. One poll among many in the average is not all that consequential. However, when we continue to compile "with leaner" polls, they collectively have the potential to skew our examination of the electoral college. And that just so happens to be contrary to what we want to accomplish with this endeavor. So let's just lop off the Rasmussen data and be done with it. Well, that deprives us of a valuable source of data. Since Rasmussen made the switch (post-July 4) there have been 43 new polls. 24 of those polls have been from Rasmussen. That's approaching 60% of the data. I don't then, want to throw Rasmussen out. What we can do is continue what we've begun here: to chart how much of a difference the "with leaners" data has on our electoral college projections. And as we do with the monthly examinations of how the averages have changed from state to state, we can observe these differences periodically as well. After a month or so, we will then be able to see if there is any significant bias attendant to including the leaner data and how large that impact is.
A belated thanks to reader, SarahLawrenceScott, for getting the ball rolling on this examination.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)
The Electoral College Map (7/20/08) [Update]
The Electoral College Map (7/16/08)
| Rasmussen Polls Since w/Leaners Distinction was Added (7/9/08)* | |||||
| State | w/o Leaners | w/Leaners | Change | Undecideds Drop | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | +5 | +5 | 0 | -7 | |
| Arkansas | +10 | +13 | +3 | -4 | |
| Colorado | +7 | +3 | +4 | -13 | |
| Florida | +1 | +2 | +1 | -7 | |
| Georgia | +9 | +11 | +2 | +1 | |
| Illinois | +13 | +11 | +2 | -6** | |
| Iowa | +10 | +10 | 0 | -9 | |
| Kansas | +20 | +23 | +3 | -9 | |
| Louisiana | +20 | +19 | +1 | -2 | |
| Maine | +10 | +8 | +2 | -2 | |
| Michigan | +8 | +8 | 0 | -5 | |
| Minnesota (7/10) | +18 | +17 | +1 | 0 | |
| Minnesota (7/22) | +12 | +13 | +1 | 0 | |
| Missouri | +5 | +5 | 0 | -10 | |
| Nevada | +2 | +2 | 0 | -5 | |
| New Jersey | +5 | +3 | +2 | -4 | |
| North Carolina | +3 | +3 | 0 | -5 | |
| North Dakota | 0 | +1 | +1 | -7** | |
| Ohio | +6 | +10 | +4 | -7 | |
| Oregon | +9 | +9 | 0 | -5 | |
| South Dakota | +4 | +4 | 0 | -4 | |
| Virginia | 0 | +1 | +1 | -6 | |
| Washington | +9 | +8 | +1 | -6 | |
| Wisconsin | +13 | +10 | +3 | -6 | |
| Avg. Change | +1.08 | -5.4 | |||
| *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. | |||||
The problem here is not one of the changes in the margins though. It is one of comparison. You can't directly compare the new "leaner" data to past Rasmussen polls that did not include the respondents that meet that description. Obviously if leaners are pushed in any one direction, the number of undecideds decreases. So, if we look at the data concerning undecideds plus those supporting other candidates (not McCain or Obama) in the most recent polls and in the one immediately prior to the inclusion of leaners, we get a better sense of how much the undecided total has dropped. We can look at this within each poll; looking at the with and without leaners numbers, but what we are trying to capture is the problem of comparing the new, with leaners polls with the old, without leaner polls. And what we see is that on average, the percentage of undecideds drops by more than five points per poll when leaners are included in the topline numbers. Now, we expect to see the number of undecideds drop this time of year...naturally. But we don't expect that decrease to be manufactured. And the catch is that everyone (FHQ included) has been using Rasmussen's "with leaners" numbers since the switch. The result is that comparisons and subsequent analyses--whether used for electoral college projections or not--are open to a potential bias.
In our case, here at FHQ, I took the liberty of changing data to reflect the "without leaners" view across all the Rasmussen data. I altered the margins of these 24 polls then, to pull them in line with the pre-switch polling methodology. The effect that had on our state-by-state averages was negligible. The only change was that Ohio slipped back into Obama's column (Due to the new Rasmussen poll in the Buckeye state, Ohio has moved from an Obama toss up to a McCain toss up.). Again though, that isn't the real issue. One poll among many in the average is not all that consequential. However, when we continue to compile "with leaner" polls, they collectively have the potential to skew our examination of the electoral college. And that just so happens to be contrary to what we want to accomplish with this endeavor. So let's just lop off the Rasmussen data and be done with it. Well, that deprives us of a valuable source of data. Since Rasmussen made the switch (post-July 4) there have been 43 new polls. 24 of those polls have been from Rasmussen. That's approaching 60% of the data. I don't then, want to throw Rasmussen out. What we can do is continue what we've begun here: to chart how much of a difference the "with leaners" data has on our electoral college projections. And as we do with the monthly examinations of how the averages have changed from state to state, we can observe these differences periodically as well. After a month or so, we will then be able to see if there is any significant bias attendant to including the leaner data and how large that impact is.
A belated thanks to reader, SarahLawrenceScott, for getting the ball rolling on this examination.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)
The Electoral College Map (7/20/08) [Update]
The Electoral College Map (7/16/08)
The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)
Ten seems to have been the magic number for polling during the last few iterations of these electoral college projections. This is now the third straight breakdown with ten new polls to add to the mix. And for the first time in a while there are some actual changes to discuss. Of the ten new polls in eight states, most fall in line with what we have seen from the other polls in other states during July: they confirm what we already knew. However, there is one alteration, and a big one it is.
Ohio shifts its 20 electoral votes from Obama to McCain. This is based in large part on the Rasmussen poll that has the Arizona senator up by 10 points in the Buckeye state. That ten point lead is an anomaly when compared with the most recent polls out of the state, especially in contrast to the 8 point lead the PPP poll handed Obama in the state just two days prior. Some saw this and wanted to know why. I don't have a problem with asking why, but in this case I didn't really flinch because Ohio has been so close throughout FHQ's tracking of the electoral college since March. My thinking was that if Obama gets an 8 point poll from one firm, McCain was just as likely to get an 8 point (or in this case, 10 point) advantage in another poll. That's just the nature of Ohio. And yes, I say this even though the majority of polls recently have been trending in Obama's direction. Ohio is simply that close.
These widely differing numbers--just a couple of days apart--do point out a weakness in the weighted average we use here. With all the weight on the newest poll--the one favoring McCain--Ohio's electoral votes move into his column. Well, why don't you put equal weight on both of those new polls since they basically average each other out? I thought about that, but opted to stay true to the measure established. Our rule here is to only give equal weight to more than one poll if they surface on the same day. With that said though, let's be transparent here and report the results if we had decided to move in that direction. As it stands, the Rasmussen poll is the most recent poll in Ohio and is given the extra weight. That's the formula and it puts the average for Ohio at 0.174 in McCain's favor. If we throw that PPP poll that gave the edge to Obama into the "added weight" pile, Ohio stays in Obama's column with the average basically remaining stationary at 0.167 in the Illinois senator's direction.
In other words, no matter how you look at it, Ohio is a toss up state. It remains the closest state to flipping between candidates, followed closely by Nevada and Virginia. And those three are pretty much in line with what FiveThirtyEight.com (see right hand column and scroll down) calls their Tipping Point states: those states most likely to be the states that put either candidate over the top in the electoral college total. Nevada, Ohio and Virginia make up three of the top five. Colorado and Michigan round out that list there, but aren't as close in the FHQ average. In fact both have been off the Watch List for a few weeks now.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
For the time being then, Ohio and its 20 electoral votes shift over to McCain, altering each candidate's electoral totals for the first time in July. In the process the race becomes closer. Well, the race may not be any closer but the electoral vote totals for McCain and Obama are closer. The fact remains though, that we are talking about a shift from one toss up category to the other. These states and their electoral votes are still very much in play (14 states and 167 electoral votes). That hasn't changed. McCain's lean and strong totals are still less together than Obama's strong category by itself, and that continues to put McCain at a disadvantage. However, to see any state, much less Ohio, switch in his direction is a positive for the McCain campaign given how much things have moved in Obama's direction (on the whole) since the beginning of June.
So the Watch List adds Georgia and retains Ohio, though the potential switch is from McCain to Obama instead of vice versa in the Buckeye state. Of the 12 states now on the list, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada and North Dakota (in that order) are the ones most likely to change sides as opposed simply changing categories. And with a new poll out in Virginia this morning, we already have something to look at for Sunday's edition.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/20/08) [Update]
The Electoral College Map (7/16/08)
The 30/30 Rule: Obama's Chances in Georgia...and across the South
| New Polls (July 21-23) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | Rasmussen | +5 | |
| Colorado | Rasmussen | +3 | |
| Florida | ARG | +2 | |
| Georgia | Rasmussen | +11 | |
| Michigan | EPIC/MRA | +2 | |
| New Hampshire | UNH | +3 | |
| New Hampshire | ARG | +2 | |
| North Carolina | Civitas | +3 | |
| Ohio | Public Policy Polling | +8 | |
| Ohio | Rasmussen | +10 | |
Ohio shifts its 20 electoral votes from Obama to McCain. This is based in large part on the Rasmussen poll that has the Arizona senator up by 10 points in the Buckeye state. That ten point lead is an anomaly when compared with the most recent polls out of the state, especially in contrast to the 8 point lead the PPP poll handed Obama in the state just two days prior. Some saw this and wanted to know why. I don't have a problem with asking why, but in this case I didn't really flinch because Ohio has been so close throughout FHQ's tracking of the electoral college since March. My thinking was that if Obama gets an 8 point poll from one firm, McCain was just as likely to get an 8 point (or in this case, 10 point) advantage in another poll. That's just the nature of Ohio. And yes, I say this even though the majority of polls recently have been trending in Obama's direction. Ohio is simply that close.
| Changes (July 21-23) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio | Toss Up Obama | Toss Up McCain | |
These widely differing numbers--just a couple of days apart--do point out a weakness in the weighted average we use here. With all the weight on the newest poll--the one favoring McCain--Ohio's electoral votes move into his column. Well, why don't you put equal weight on both of those new polls since they basically average each other out? I thought about that, but opted to stay true to the measure established. Our rule here is to only give equal weight to more than one poll if they surface on the same day. With that said though, let's be transparent here and report the results if we had decided to move in that direction. As it stands, the Rasmussen poll is the most recent poll in Ohio and is given the extra weight. That's the formula and it puts the average for Ohio at 0.174 in McCain's favor. If we throw that PPP poll that gave the edge to Obama into the "added weight" pile, Ohio stays in Obama's column with the average basically remaining stationary at 0.167 in the Illinois senator's direction.
In other words, no matter how you look at it, Ohio is a toss up state. It remains the closest state to flipping between candidates, followed closely by Nevada and Virginia. And those three are pretty much in line with what FiveThirtyEight.com (see right hand column and scroll down) calls their Tipping Point states: those states most likely to be the states that put either candidate over the top in the electoral college total. Nevada, Ohio and Virginia make up three of the top five. Colorado and Michigan round out that list there, but aren't as close in the FHQ average. In fact both have been off the Watch List for a few weeks now.
[Click Map to Enlarge]For the time being then, Ohio and its 20 electoral votes shift over to McCain, altering each candidate's electoral totals for the first time in July. In the process the race becomes closer. Well, the race may not be any closer but the electoral vote totals for McCain and Obama are closer. The fact remains though, that we are talking about a shift from one toss up category to the other. These states and their electoral votes are still very much in play (14 states and 167 electoral votes). That hasn't changed. McCain's lean and strong totals are still less together than Obama's strong category by itself, and that continues to put McCain at a disadvantage. However, to see any state, much less Ohio, switch in his direction is a positive for the McCain campaign given how much things have moved in Obama's direction (on the whole) since the beginning of June.
| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | from Strong McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Florida | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Georgia | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Minnesota | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Mississippi | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Nevada | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| North Carolina | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| North Dakota | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Ohio | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| South Carolina | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Virginia | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Wisconsin | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| *Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. | |||
So the Watch List adds Georgia and retains Ohio, though the potential switch is from McCain to Obama instead of vice versa in the Buckeye state. Of the 12 states now on the list, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada and North Dakota (in that order) are the ones most likely to change sides as opposed simply changing categories. And with a new poll out in Virginia this morning, we already have something to look at for Sunday's edition.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/20/08) [Update]
The Electoral College Map (7/16/08)
The 30/30 Rule: Obama's Chances in Georgia...and across the South
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The Electoral College Map (7/20/08) [Update]
Things are starting to settle in to place in the McCain-Obama race, or that has been the mark of the polls during July at least. No poll has come along that has fundamentally changed the averages in any state enough push it from McCain to Obama or vice versa, much less alter its distinction whether favoring the Arizona senator or the Illinois senator. That being said, this is another electoral college breakdown with new data that does little to change what we knew of the landscape prior to when it was revealed. That is not to say that things won't change; I'm of a mind that they will, but as FHQ reader, Scott, pointed out--eloquently, I might add--in the comments to the last electoral college analysis, both McCain and Obama have established national polling ceilings and floors that have remained relatively persistent across polling firms and over time. The interesting thing is that of the ten new polls since last Wednesday, 60% of them represent new data from states currently (Well, formerly in some cases. See below.) on FHQ's Watch List. And even with that much possibility for change nothing happened. Of those six Watch List states, half came off the list and half held firm.
Watch List aside--at least for now--each candidate had five polls in his favor. And each acted in a manner as to confirm what we already knew about the race for the White House in each state. McCain holds slim leads in the mid/South-Atlantic states and continues to do well in the heartland. Obama, on the other hand, remains strong in traditionally blue states in the northeast and northwest. And while that may be true, the underlying electoral college numbers remain unchanged. Obama continues to maintain a 298-240 electoral vote advantage over McCain with no states shifting categories in either direction.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
As for the Watch List (the list of states most likely to change categories in the event of new polling), Alaska, Oregon and Washigton all come off. Alaska and Oregon became more firmly "lean" states favoring McCain and Obama, respectively while Washigton barely crossed the threshhold to keep it off the list for the time being. Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia just continue to look like toss up states. And that cannot be welcome news for the Arizona senator, since all were carried by Bush four years ago. If just those three states shifted from red to blue with the rest of the 2004 map remaining unchanged, it would be enough to essentially reverse the 286-252 margin that Bush won by over Kerry. Of course, that doesn't include the other Bush 2004 states that are already favoring Obama now.
What we know, then, hasn't changed all that much from before. We may be in the midst of a calm before the storm though; a time when everyone is on vacation (at least from the race for the presidency) and not putting too much stock into the race--or less than they did before. So, we have emerged from a period of activity in the polls following Obama's clinching of the Democratic nomination that set the stage for the general election. It will be interesting to track the movement between now and when the conventions kick off following the Olympics. I will be surprised to see any wholesale changes from what has been established up to now prior to that point. There may be some movement on the margins, but nothing earth-shattering.
As I think about this more, I wonder if the excitement surrounding the Democratic nomination race deprived McCain of an opportunity to effectively define Obama in a way that would help him to shift the race in his direction. Some have argued that the Arizona senator missed his chance during late April and through May. At that point, though, it was hard to get a word in a edgewise, much less define the Illinois senator for the fall campaign. Once Obama wrapped things up though, the public--the non-political junkies excluded--largely eschewed the campaign due to fatigue, waiting to pick back up in the fall before the election. If that is the case--that people were wrapped up in the Democratic race and then collectively tired of politics once the nominee had been determined--then we're talking about an environment that, like the other indicators of presidential success, does not favor John McCain. While on the national level, the two are still close, the state level picture gives the edge to Obama currently. And McCain doesn't seem to have a way to reverse this during a typically crucial period (the summer) anytime before the conventions in late August and September.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/16/08)
The 30/30 Rule: Obama's Chances in Georgia...and across the South
Can the World Position Itself for the Next President Before the Actual Election? In 2008, it won't be easy.
| New Polls (July 16-20) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | Research 2000/Daily Kos | +10 | |
| Arkansas | Rasmussen | +13 | |
| Kansas | Rasmussen | +23 | |
| Maine | Rasmussen | +8 | |
| Nevada | Rasmussen | +2 | |
| New Jersey | Strategic Vision | +9 | |
| North Carolina | Rasmussen | +3 | |
| Oregon | Rasmussen | +9 | |
| Virginia | Rasmussen | +1 | |
| Washington | Survey USA | +16 | |
Watch List aside--at least for now--each candidate had five polls in his favor. And each acted in a manner as to confirm what we already knew about the race for the White House in each state. McCain holds slim leads in the mid/South-Atlantic states and continues to do well in the heartland. Obama, on the other hand, remains strong in traditionally blue states in the northeast and northwest. And while that may be true, the underlying electoral college numbers remain unchanged. Obama continues to maintain a 298-240 electoral vote advantage over McCain with no states shifting categories in either direction.
[Click Map to Enlarge]As for the Watch List (the list of states most likely to change categories in the event of new polling), Alaska, Oregon and Washigton all come off. Alaska and Oregon became more firmly "lean" states favoring McCain and Obama, respectively while Washigton barely crossed the threshhold to keep it off the list for the time being. Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia just continue to look like toss up states. And that cannot be welcome news for the Arizona senator, since all were carried by Bush four years ago. If just those three states shifted from red to blue with the rest of the 2004 map remaining unchanged, it would be enough to essentially reverse the 286-252 margin that Bush won by over Kerry. Of course, that doesn't include the other Bush 2004 states that are already favoring Obama now.
| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | from Strong McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Florida | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Minnesota | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Mississippi | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Nevada | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| North Carolina | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| North Dakota | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Ohio | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| South Carolina | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Virginia | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Wisconsin | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| *Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. | |||
What we know, then, hasn't changed all that much from before. We may be in the midst of a calm before the storm though; a time when everyone is on vacation (at least from the race for the presidency) and not putting too much stock into the race--or less than they did before. So, we have emerged from a period of activity in the polls following Obama's clinching of the Democratic nomination that set the stage for the general election. It will be interesting to track the movement between now and when the conventions kick off following the Olympics. I will be surprised to see any wholesale changes from what has been established up to now prior to that point. There may be some movement on the margins, but nothing earth-shattering.
As I think about this more, I wonder if the excitement surrounding the Democratic nomination race deprived McCain of an opportunity to effectively define Obama in a way that would help him to shift the race in his direction. Some have argued that the Arizona senator missed his chance during late April and through May. At that point, though, it was hard to get a word in a edgewise, much less define the Illinois senator for the fall campaign. Once Obama wrapped things up though, the public--the non-political junkies excluded--largely eschewed the campaign due to fatigue, waiting to pick back up in the fall before the election. If that is the case--that people were wrapped up in the Democratic race and then collectively tired of politics once the nominee had been determined--then we're talking about an environment that, like the other indicators of presidential success, does not favor John McCain. While on the national level, the two are still close, the state level picture gives the edge to Obama currently. And McCain doesn't seem to have a way to reverse this during a typically crucial period (the summer) anytime before the conventions in late August and September.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/16/08)
The 30/30 Rule: Obama's Chances in Georgia...and across the South
Can the World Position Itself for the Next President Before the Actual Election? In 2008, it won't be easy.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The Electoral College Map (7/16/08)
Another Wednesday and another look at the electoral college. Since Sunday there have been 10 new state-level polls in 10 states. And while the location of some of these polls is helpful in updating our overall outlook for some states in regard to the electoral college, the collective message to take home is that they merely confirm the two presidential hopefuls' positions relative to each other in these states.
The polls in Louisiana, Michigan and Minnesota are the only ones on the list that break more than three points from the established averages. However, little changed in each of those states, much less the other seven states. South Dakota's result brought it down a notch on our scale, making the Mount Rushmore state a lean toward McCain (down from being strong).
That the Public Policy Polling survey in South Carolina is in line with FHQ's average is also of note (possibly the only thing of note in this collection of polling data). The consensus on the Palmetto state, at least in the electoral college collection over at DemConWatch, is that South Carolina is one of the safer states for McCain. I don't necessarily disagree with that despite our average here that places it within the toss up category. As Nate Silver pointed out last week though, the states most similar to South Carolina are North Carolina and Georgia. Now that doesn't mean that South Carolina fits equally in between those two (Well, it does geographically.), but it does give us a range that the state would reasonably fall into. Granted that's a pretty wide range: from the high side of the toss up category to the low side of the strong category. However, given its neighbors, that's about where our expectations are for South Carolina: at this point a lean to McCain (For the record, South Carolina is new to the Watch List on the line between a toss up and a lean to McCain.).
[Click Map to Enlarge]
Since only three electoral votes shifted categories, the map remains nearly as it did on Sunday. South Dakota turns a lighter shade of red but still provides McCain with a comfortable enough lead. Its northern neighbor makes you wonder whether the Mount Rushmore state could become more competitive. It could be, though, that the opposite is true: North Dakota appears tighter than it actually is. And as I said, the Watch List adds only South Carolina in this current iteration. These 14 are the states to watch for as new polling emerges.
Recent Posts:
The 30/30 Rule: Obama's Chances in Georgia...and across the South
Can the World Position Itself for the Next President Before the Actual Election? In 2008, it won't be easy.
The Electoral College Map (7/13/08)
| New Polls (July 13-15) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado | Public Policy Polling | +4 | |
| Iowa | Rasmussen | +10 | |
| Louisiana | Rasmussen | +19 | |
| Michigan | Rasmussen | +8 | |
| Minnesota | Rasmussen | +17 | |
| New York | Siena | +13 | |
| North Carolina | Survey USA | +5 | |
| South Carolina | Public Policy Polling | +6 | |
| South Dakota | Rasmussen | +4 | |
| Washington | Moore | +10 | |
The polls in Louisiana, Michigan and Minnesota are the only ones on the list that break more than three points from the established averages. However, little changed in each of those states, much less the other seven states. South Dakota's result brought it down a notch on our scale, making the Mount Rushmore state a lean toward McCain (down from being strong).
| Changes (July 13-15) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| South Dakota | Strong McCain | McCain lean | |
That the Public Policy Polling survey in South Carolina is in line with FHQ's average is also of note (possibly the only thing of note in this collection of polling data). The consensus on the Palmetto state, at least in the electoral college collection over at DemConWatch, is that South Carolina is one of the safer states for McCain. I don't necessarily disagree with that despite our average here that places it within the toss up category. As Nate Silver pointed out last week though, the states most similar to South Carolina are North Carolina and Georgia. Now that doesn't mean that South Carolina fits equally in between those two (Well, it does geographically.), but it does give us a range that the state would reasonably fall into. Granted that's a pretty wide range: from the high side of the toss up category to the low side of the strong category. However, given its neighbors, that's about where our expectations are for South Carolina: at this point a lean to McCain (For the record, South Carolina is new to the Watch List on the line between a toss up and a lean to McCain.).
[Click Map to Enlarge]Since only three electoral votes shifted categories, the map remains nearly as it did on Sunday. South Dakota turns a lighter shade of red but still provides McCain with a comfortable enough lead. Its northern neighbor makes you wonder whether the Mount Rushmore state could become more competitive. It could be, though, that the opposite is true: North Dakota appears tighter than it actually is. And as I said, the Watch List adds only South Carolina in this current iteration. These 14 are the states to watch for as new polling emerges.
| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | from McCain lean | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Arizona | from Strong McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Florida | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Minnesota | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Mississippi | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Nevada | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| North Carolina | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| North Dakota | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Ohio | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Oregon | from Obama lean | to Strong Obama | |
| South Carolina | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Virginia | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Washington | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Wisconsin | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| *Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. | |||
Recent Posts:
The 30/30 Rule: Obama's Chances in Georgia...and across the South
Can the World Position Itself for the Next President Before the Actual Election? In 2008, it won't be easy.
The Electoral College Map (7/13/08)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The 30/30 Rule: Obama's Chances in Georgia...and across the South
Today is primary day in Georgia and to mark it Southern Political Report has an article up about Obama's chances in the Peach state in November. His success, as Hastings Wyman describes it, depends on one of the standing electoral rules in the South: the 30/30 rule. But it isn't just Obama that needs to meet the goals of attaining 30% of the white vote and having African Americans comprise 30% of voters. These have been benchmarks for all Democrats running statewide in many states across the South (give or take a few points for the differences in demographics). Wyman points out that both Gore and Kerry approached the 30% of the white vote figure in 2000 and 2004, respectively, and Obama, as a black candidate, should trigger an increase in African American turnout.
There is another layer that I would add to this particular equation. Sure, there's the Bob Barr factor and the potential, though unlikely, Sam Nunn-as-VP factor, but what's not fully explored is the likelihood of the so-called enthusiasm gap rearing its head in November. Now, at this point, the argument could be made that Obama's ability to woo Clinton voters back into the fold could potentially negate any gains Obama could get from the enthusiasm gap. I can buy that. But I'd argue that the Clinton factor is less likely to prove decisive in Georgia than elsewhere simply because the proportion of African Americans in the state (Georgia in this case) is large. If the black turnout is augment by the over half a million unregistered African Americans in the state, that could well cancel out the defection of any disgruntled Clinton supporters. Let's lay the factors out:
1) Clinton voters
2) White voters
3) Black voters
Now, if the enthusiasm gap is at play we should see an increase in black votes and a decrease in white votes. Why a decrease in white votes? There are two factors here: GOP voters not turning out as much as they have in the past and Clinton voters staying home in protest. Yes, those Clinton voters could pull the lever for McCain, but I find that a less likely result than those folks simply staying home. The question here is, does the enthusiasm gap manifest itself in a way that causes Clinton voters to say, "Hey, let's get a Democrat in the White House regardless of who it is?" That's beyond where I wanted to take this, but it is worth bringing up. Very simply, if black votes are up and white votes are down relative to where each group has been in recent cycles, the black vote would get a double bump as a percentage of total turnout. The exact same number of African Americans could turn out as did in 2004 and if the white vote dropped, the black proportion would increase. But with that black percentage likely to increase, that proportion could grow even more.
Both benchmarks, as Wyman states, are moving targets, but I'd argue that's more because of wayward Clinton voters and GOPers nonplussed with McCain. Granted, I guess I'm extending the argument to the entire region when he's focused solely on Georgia (Barr will likely tweak the numbers more there than in all but a handful of states.). In the end the one other electoral rule we can completely remove from the equation is the 20% rule (gated) that the GOP employs nationwide. I think we can all agree that McCain attaining 20% of the African American vote is out of the question in this particular election.
Obama could win Georgia, but he'll have to have things fall exactly into place to pull it off. As the map has shown the peripheral South (Virginia, North Carolina and Florida) is where Obama is likely to make some inroads. Once the discussion shifts to the Deep South, the playing field becomes a bit different and less advantageous to Obama in the process.
Recent Posts:
Can the World Position Itself for the Next President Before the Actual Election? In 2008, it won't be easy.
The Electoral College Map (7/13/08)
Guam: Why Frontload in the Primaries When You Can Do it in the General Election?
There is another layer that I would add to this particular equation. Sure, there's the Bob Barr factor and the potential, though unlikely, Sam Nunn-as-VP factor, but what's not fully explored is the likelihood of the so-called enthusiasm gap rearing its head in November. Now, at this point, the argument could be made that Obama's ability to woo Clinton voters back into the fold could potentially negate any gains Obama could get from the enthusiasm gap. I can buy that. But I'd argue that the Clinton factor is less likely to prove decisive in Georgia than elsewhere simply because the proportion of African Americans in the state (Georgia in this case) is large. If the black turnout is augment by the over half a million unregistered African Americans in the state, that could well cancel out the defection of any disgruntled Clinton supporters. Let's lay the factors out:
1) Clinton voters
2) White voters
3) Black voters
Now, if the enthusiasm gap is at play we should see an increase in black votes and a decrease in white votes. Why a decrease in white votes? There are two factors here: GOP voters not turning out as much as they have in the past and Clinton voters staying home in protest. Yes, those Clinton voters could pull the lever for McCain, but I find that a less likely result than those folks simply staying home. The question here is, does the enthusiasm gap manifest itself in a way that causes Clinton voters to say, "Hey, let's get a Democrat in the White House regardless of who it is?" That's beyond where I wanted to take this, but it is worth bringing up. Very simply, if black votes are up and white votes are down relative to where each group has been in recent cycles, the black vote would get a double bump as a percentage of total turnout. The exact same number of African Americans could turn out as did in 2004 and if the white vote dropped, the black proportion would increase. But with that black percentage likely to increase, that proportion could grow even more.
Both benchmarks, as Wyman states, are moving targets, but I'd argue that's more because of wayward Clinton voters and GOPers nonplussed with McCain. Granted, I guess I'm extending the argument to the entire region when he's focused solely on Georgia (Barr will likely tweak the numbers more there than in all but a handful of states.). In the end the one other electoral rule we can completely remove from the equation is the 20% rule (gated) that the GOP employs nationwide. I think we can all agree that McCain attaining 20% of the African American vote is out of the question in this particular election.
Obama could win Georgia, but he'll have to have things fall exactly into place to pull it off. As the map has shown the peripheral South (Virginia, North Carolina and Florida) is where Obama is likely to make some inroads. Once the discussion shifts to the Deep South, the playing field becomes a bit different and less advantageous to Obama in the process.
Recent Posts:
Can the World Position Itself for the Next President Before the Actual Election? In 2008, it won't be easy.
The Electoral College Map (7/13/08)
Guam: Why Frontload in the Primaries When You Can Do it in the General Election?
Monday, July 14, 2008
Can the World Position Itself for the Next President Before the Actual Election? In 2008, it won't be easy.
The following is a piece I wrote for, e-International Relations, a post-graduate run international affairs site based in Britain. It is a bit of a departure from some of the material here at FHQ and technically a touch out of my natural area of study. However, it was fun to sit down and think a bit about the current race for the White House from an international perspective. Here is a link to the article (as it is below) on their site.
For the first time since 1952, America and the world will be getting something different out of the US presidential election of 2008. Neither an incumbent president nor a vice president of the incumbent's party is running for the White House for the first time since the period following the Second World War. Without either in the running there is no direct way for voters within the American electorate to punish or reward the actions of the incumbent administration. With those fetters removed, comes the notion that the 2008 election and its outcome together represent something of an unknown quantity to the not only the American electorate, but to the rest of the world as well. And while people around the world do not have the right to vote in the election, they, and the nations where they are citizens, do have a stake in the outcome. Given that stake, though, do states across the globe attempt to gauge the the likelihood of one candidate or party succeeding and, in turn, position themselves for a new regime?
Typically, an early reading of the tea leaves provides a glimpse into which party will have an advantage in the coming presidential election even before the two major parties' nominees are settled upon. Is there an incumbent running? How well is the American economy doing? How popular is the current president? However, given the fact that a similar electoral scenario has not presented itself for over half a century, the direct connection to the ruling administration is missing. Still, even with neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney on the ballot in November, the Republican Party is expected to suffer some punishment for Bush's nearly historically low approval ratings. It was that environment that gave rise to a field of prospective Republican presidential candidates lower in quality than in past cycles. Once John McCain overcame the hurdles of the organizational and fund-raising phase of the contest and then the early primary and caucus contests to emerge as the presumptive nominee, he presented, on some levels, a departure from the current administration. The Arizona senator's status as a maverick willing to break with his own party on some issues meshes well with the pivotal group of so-called swing voters occupying the center of the ideological spectrum within the American electorate. In many ways then, McCain is the ideal candidate for the Republican Party in such a hostile electoral situation.
As a result, the Republican Party, on the one hand, is ill-equipped to compete in this election given Bush's approval rating. But the party's stock improved with the selection of a candidate not necessarily as closely tied to the Bush White House and its policies as some of his opponents in the race for the Republican nomination. The forces at odds on the Republican side can be contrasted with a differing set of forces on the Democratic side. With a floundering economy and an unpopular president, the Democratic Party is viewed as the party to beat in the 2008 election. That advantage is/was mitigated by the historic candidacies of the party's two front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination. The race and gender issues surrounding Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, respectively, and the viability of each as candidates, offered unknowns not before confronted within American presidential politics.
That, then, was the decision set facing the American electorate from early March onward into June when Obama clinched the Democratic nomination. But that trio also provided international actors with an array of policy positions directly relevant on the world stage. However, the unprecedented nature of the nomination campaign made the international community's—not to mention the American press and pundits—ability to assess the playing field that much more difficult. Indeed, the nature of the 2008 cycle has been so volatile that positioning for the next administration has proven to be an exercise in determining which unknown quantity will do what once the next president is sworn into office in January 2009. Much of that has to do with the electoral situation the US finds itself in for the first time in nearly two generations. Under the circumstances that have marked the presidential elections of the interim, either an incumbent president would be running for re-election or his vice president would be seeking to succeed him.
Every election was a decision between the status quo and some form of change. The international community can prepare for a continuation of policies if the incumbent holds an advantage in the leading indicators of presidential election success discussed above. And it can just as easily position itself, in whole or in part, for a change if the challenger candidate is in a stronger position vis a vis an imperiled incumbent. Making the call on which of the two versions of change represented in this election to prepare for, though, is a completely different enterprise. According to a recent Pew Global Attitudes Project survey in 22 nations, those outside the US have an opinion on which candidate they think will do a better job in terms of US foreign policy. In all but one of the nations polled (Jordan), Obama performed better than McCain on that specific question. The Illinois senator far outpaced McCain most notably in the countries within Europe while holding significant, yet smaller, margins in other regions.
That is at the mass level though. Are matters any different at the level of government? It is difficult to tease this out, but the world is already on hold anticipating the Bush's replacement, whomever he may be. This was underscored by Bush's recent trip to Europe and during the recent G-8 meetings in Japan. Little emerged from either because Bush's power internationally is (and has been) in decline. However, is that a function of him being on his way out, the knowledge that some form of change is on the way, or a combination of the two? Most likely, it is a combination. Regardless though, the world has already begun preparing for life after Bush. Now, it is simply a matter of waiting to see to what extent US foreign policy will change.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/13/08)
Guam: Why Frontload in the Primaries When You Can Do it in the General Election?
Bob Barr Through the Lens of the Zogby Polls
For the first time since 1952, America and the world will be getting something different out of the US presidential election of 2008. Neither an incumbent president nor a vice president of the incumbent's party is running for the White House for the first time since the period following the Second World War. Without either in the running there is no direct way for voters within the American electorate to punish or reward the actions of the incumbent administration. With those fetters removed, comes the notion that the 2008 election and its outcome together represent something of an unknown quantity to the not only the American electorate, but to the rest of the world as well. And while people around the world do not have the right to vote in the election, they, and the nations where they are citizens, do have a stake in the outcome. Given that stake, though, do states across the globe attempt to gauge the the likelihood of one candidate or party succeeding and, in turn, position themselves for a new regime?
Typically, an early reading of the tea leaves provides a glimpse into which party will have an advantage in the coming presidential election even before the two major parties' nominees are settled upon. Is there an incumbent running? How well is the American economy doing? How popular is the current president? However, given the fact that a similar electoral scenario has not presented itself for over half a century, the direct connection to the ruling administration is missing. Still, even with neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney on the ballot in November, the Republican Party is expected to suffer some punishment for Bush's nearly historically low approval ratings. It was that environment that gave rise to a field of prospective Republican presidential candidates lower in quality than in past cycles. Once John McCain overcame the hurdles of the organizational and fund-raising phase of the contest and then the early primary and caucus contests to emerge as the presumptive nominee, he presented, on some levels, a departure from the current administration. The Arizona senator's status as a maverick willing to break with his own party on some issues meshes well with the pivotal group of so-called swing voters occupying the center of the ideological spectrum within the American electorate. In many ways then, McCain is the ideal candidate for the Republican Party in such a hostile electoral situation.
As a result, the Republican Party, on the one hand, is ill-equipped to compete in this election given Bush's approval rating. But the party's stock improved with the selection of a candidate not necessarily as closely tied to the Bush White House and its policies as some of his opponents in the race for the Republican nomination. The forces at odds on the Republican side can be contrasted with a differing set of forces on the Democratic side. With a floundering economy and an unpopular president, the Democratic Party is viewed as the party to beat in the 2008 election. That advantage is/was mitigated by the historic candidacies of the party's two front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination. The race and gender issues surrounding Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, respectively, and the viability of each as candidates, offered unknowns not before confronted within American presidential politics.
That, then, was the decision set facing the American electorate from early March onward into June when Obama clinched the Democratic nomination. But that trio also provided international actors with an array of policy positions directly relevant on the world stage. However, the unprecedented nature of the nomination campaign made the international community's—not to mention the American press and pundits—ability to assess the playing field that much more difficult. Indeed, the nature of the 2008 cycle has been so volatile that positioning for the next administration has proven to be an exercise in determining which unknown quantity will do what once the next president is sworn into office in January 2009. Much of that has to do with the electoral situation the US finds itself in for the first time in nearly two generations. Under the circumstances that have marked the presidential elections of the interim, either an incumbent president would be running for re-election or his vice president would be seeking to succeed him.
Every election was a decision between the status quo and some form of change. The international community can prepare for a continuation of policies if the incumbent holds an advantage in the leading indicators of presidential election success discussed above. And it can just as easily position itself, in whole or in part, for a change if the challenger candidate is in a stronger position vis a vis an imperiled incumbent. Making the call on which of the two versions of change represented in this election to prepare for, though, is a completely different enterprise. According to a recent Pew Global Attitudes Project survey in 22 nations, those outside the US have an opinion on which candidate they think will do a better job in terms of US foreign policy. In all but one of the nations polled (Jordan), Obama performed better than McCain on that specific question. The Illinois senator far outpaced McCain most notably in the countries within Europe while holding significant, yet smaller, margins in other regions.
That is at the mass level though. Are matters any different at the level of government? It is difficult to tease this out, but the world is already on hold anticipating the Bush's replacement, whomever he may be. This was underscored by Bush's recent trip to Europe and during the recent G-8 meetings in Japan. Little emerged from either because Bush's power internationally is (and has been) in decline. However, is that a function of him being on his way out, the knowledge that some form of change is on the way, or a combination of the two? Most likely, it is a combination. Regardless though, the world has already begun preparing for life after Bush. Now, it is simply a matter of waiting to see to what extent US foreign policy will change.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/13/08)
Guam: Why Frontload in the Primaries When You Can Do it in the General Election?
Bob Barr Through the Lens of the Zogby Polls
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The Electoral College Map (7/13/08) [Update]
As the week progressed, out came several, less controversial polls, which was nice considering that the Zogby polls were the only ones bridging the gap between the pre- and post-4th of July polling. Eleven new polls in eight states further clarified the picture in race for electoral college votes between John McCain and Barack Obama.
And in the first consistent signs that Obama bounced in the polls after his nomination-clinching win in Montana (Yeah, those superdelegates helped too.), there were a handful of polls that show him with good-sized, yet smaller leads in several states where he had been further ahead. Illinois (gasp, Obama's home state), Maine, New Jersey and Washington all showed smaller margins in this group of polls than the ones Obama had enjoyed in late June. Granted, other than Zogby's, there hadn't been a poll in Illinois since February. Regardless of these numbers, Obama's advantage is steady in each: strong in Illinois and Maine, on the line between strong and lean in Washington and firmly within the lean category for New Jersey.
On the McCain side of things, Alabama behaved similarly. A new poll there confirmed a shrinking yet very solid lead for the Arizona senator. It is still noteworthy that two states as similar as Alabama and Mississippi continue to produce such wildly different results. Mississippi has proven to be much closer, though not quite within Obama's grasp (and I don't think it could reasonably be considered to be an Obama state if it was), in the state polling.
While the above performed in line with expectations, the Rasmussen poll in North Dakota--the first new poll in the state since February--confirmed that the state indeed looks to be competitive for the general election (...at least in July). And while the trio of polls out of Missouri provided mixed results--two favoring McCain and one for Obama--that kept the Show-Me state even more firmly within the toss up category (still leaning toward McCain).
The only change since Wednesday, though, was brought about by the new poll in Florida. That 3 point Obama edge in the War Room Logistics poll nudged FHQ's weighted average under the McCain lean/Toss Up McCain line. And that lowers McCain's total of safer electoral votes (in his strong and lean states) to just 149 while the number of competitive states (both Obama and McCain toss ups) now sum 167. More troubling still, is that Obama's strong category by itself represents more electoral votes (175) than those two categories for McCain. As I said earlier, McCain may be making a dent in Obama's numbers long term (or he may not be--we'll see), but more immediately, his standing--at least in FHQ's analysis--is in decline. The end result is something of a mixed message for both candidates: not quite a maintanence of the status quo, but not a wholesale departure from it either.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
As for the Watch List, Florida remains close to the line between Toss Up and Lean so it stays on for the time being. The new North Dakota poll pushes it even closer to the line between McCain and Obama placing it on the list (for the first time) as well. The only other addition was Wisconsin, which edged closer to the Toss Up/Lean line even with the double digit margin in the Rasmussen poll this week. This hasn't happened often (in fact this is the first time I can remember it occurring), but with the most recent poll being given the most weight, any drop in that number however slight can shift the average (in this case onto the Watch List). Wisconsin was a bit of special case this time anyway. The most recent poll prior to the Rasmussen poll this week was in fact polls not poll. Both the Zogby poll and the Quinnipiac poll had the same survey midpoint (The midpoint of the survey data collection.). As a result they were treated together as the most recent poll--their results averaged together. Shifting both out and replacing them with a smaller margin pushed Wisconsin closer to the line between toss up and lean state for Obama. The recent trend in polling in the Badger state has had Obama ahead by a margin closer to the line between the next two distinctions, lean and strong. That may get a bit more into the internals of the average than most prefer, but in an effort to be at least somewhat transparent, I feel it is necessary to explain the quirks of the average when and if they surface.
Again, we did not get a massive unloading of polling data during the second half of the week, but Survey USA has yet to release any new numbers since before the second day of July. At some point I would expect to see a steady trickle of data, if not a one-time, Zogby-esque release of polling numbers some time soon. That could come this week. And if it does, these 13 states are the ones to look at first.
Recent Posts:
Guam: Why Frontload in the Primaries When You Can Do it in the General Election?
Bob Barr Through the Lens of the Zogby Polls
The Electoral College Map (7/9/08) [Update]
| New Polls (July 9-12) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Capital Survey Research | +13 | |
| Florida | War Room Logisitics | +3 | |
| Illinois | Rasmussen | +11 | |
| Maine | Pan Atlantic SMS | +14 | |
| Missouri | Public Policy Polling | +3 | |
| Missouri | Rasmussen | +5 | |
| Missouri | Research 2000/St. Louis Post-Dispatch | +5 | |
| New Jersey | Rasmussen | +3 | |
| North Dakota | Rasmussen | +1 | |
| Washington | Rasmussen | +8 | |
| Wisconsin | Rasmussen | +10 | |
And in the first consistent signs that Obama bounced in the polls after his nomination-clinching win in Montana (Yeah, those superdelegates helped too.), there were a handful of polls that show him with good-sized, yet smaller leads in several states where he had been further ahead. Illinois (gasp, Obama's home state), Maine, New Jersey and Washington all showed smaller margins in this group of polls than the ones Obama had enjoyed in late June. Granted, other than Zogby's, there hadn't been a poll in Illinois since February. Regardless of these numbers, Obama's advantage is steady in each: strong in Illinois and Maine, on the line between strong and lean in Washington and firmly within the lean category for New Jersey.
On the McCain side of things, Alabama behaved similarly. A new poll there confirmed a shrinking yet very solid lead for the Arizona senator. It is still noteworthy that two states as similar as Alabama and Mississippi continue to produce such wildly different results. Mississippi has proven to be much closer, though not quite within Obama's grasp (and I don't think it could reasonably be considered to be an Obama state if it was), in the state polling.
While the above performed in line with expectations, the Rasmussen poll in North Dakota--the first new poll in the state since February--confirmed that the state indeed looks to be competitive for the general election (...at least in July). And while the trio of polls out of Missouri provided mixed results--two favoring McCain and one for Obama--that kept the Show-Me state even more firmly within the toss up category (still leaning toward McCain).
| Changes (July 9-12) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | McCain lean | Toss Up McCain | |
The only change since Wednesday, though, was brought about by the new poll in Florida. That 3 point Obama edge in the War Room Logistics poll nudged FHQ's weighted average under the McCain lean/Toss Up McCain line. And that lowers McCain's total of safer electoral votes (in his strong and lean states) to just 149 while the number of competitive states (both Obama and McCain toss ups) now sum 167. More troubling still, is that Obama's strong category by itself represents more electoral votes (175) than those two categories for McCain. As I said earlier, McCain may be making a dent in Obama's numbers long term (or he may not be--we'll see), but more immediately, his standing--at least in FHQ's analysis--is in decline. The end result is something of a mixed message for both candidates: not quite a maintanence of the status quo, but not a wholesale departure from it either.
[Click Map to Enlarge]As for the Watch List, Florida remains close to the line between Toss Up and Lean so it stays on for the time being. The new North Dakota poll pushes it even closer to the line between McCain and Obama placing it on the list (for the first time) as well. The only other addition was Wisconsin, which edged closer to the Toss Up/Lean line even with the double digit margin in the Rasmussen poll this week. This hasn't happened often (in fact this is the first time I can remember it occurring), but with the most recent poll being given the most weight, any drop in that number however slight can shift the average (in this case onto the Watch List). Wisconsin was a bit of special case this time anyway. The most recent poll prior to the Rasmussen poll this week was in fact polls not poll. Both the Zogby poll and the Quinnipiac poll had the same survey midpoint (The midpoint of the survey data collection.). As a result they were treated together as the most recent poll--their results averaged together. Shifting both out and replacing them with a smaller margin pushed Wisconsin closer to the line between toss up and lean state for Obama. The recent trend in polling in the Badger state has had Obama ahead by a margin closer to the line between the next two distinctions, lean and strong. That may get a bit more into the internals of the average than most prefer, but in an effort to be at least somewhat transparent, I feel it is necessary to explain the quirks of the average when and if they surface.
| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | from McCain lean | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Arizona | from Strong McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Florida | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Minnesota | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Mississippi | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Nevada | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| North Carolina | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| North Dakota | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Ohio | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Oregon | from Obama lean | to Strong Obama | |
| Virginia | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Washington | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Wisconsin | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| *Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. | |||
Again, we did not get a massive unloading of polling data during the second half of the week, but Survey USA has yet to release any new numbers since before the second day of July. At some point I would expect to see a steady trickle of data, if not a one-time, Zogby-esque release of polling numbers some time soon. That could come this week. And if it does, these 13 states are the ones to look at first.
Recent Posts:
Guam: Why Frontload in the Primaries When You Can Do it in the General Election?
Bob Barr Through the Lens of the Zogby Polls
The Electoral College Map (7/9/08) [Update]
Friday, July 11, 2008
Guam: Why Frontload in the Primaries When You Can Do it in the General Election?
Not content with merely being noticed during the presidential primaries this year, the Guamanian legislature has passed a measure to frontload its general election vote (technically a straw poll anyway) to coincide with its primary election on September 6. As Guam goes, so goes the nation. Well, maybe not, but if that were true, it would be the shortest general election campaign ever. The official general election season traditionally kicks off following Labor Day and the primary in Guam falls on the Saturday after Labor Day (September 1 this year).
The good folks in Guam must have missed the fact that college football will have begun by that point. They can't compete with that. Then again McCain will be competing with the first NFL game with his Thursday night acceptance speech at the GOP convention. Who said sports and politics don't mix?
Seriously though, this is an interesting move by the legislature in Guam. They aren't going to get any attention in November anyway (since their votes don't officially count toward the eventual winner of the presidential race), but they may at least get a mention in the media with this move. I wouldn't put this on par with the Iowa straw poll that the Republicans hold in the late summer before primary season begins every four years, but the media will be looking for signals of who will win this election in November. And even a straw poll in Guam will be something different from a convention or what will, by then, be a steady stream, if not torrent, of poll numbers. If you're among the powers that be in Guam, why not not make the move?
Thanks to Ballot Access News for the link.
Recent Posts:
Bob Barr Through the Lens of the Zogby Polls
The Electoral College Map (7/9/08) [Update]
Polling Alert
The good folks in Guam must have missed the fact that college football will have begun by that point. They can't compete with that. Then again McCain will be competing with the first NFL game with his Thursday night acceptance speech at the GOP convention. Who said sports and politics don't mix?
Seriously though, this is an interesting move by the legislature in Guam. They aren't going to get any attention in November anyway (since their votes don't officially count toward the eventual winner of the presidential race), but they may at least get a mention in the media with this move. I wouldn't put this on par with the Iowa straw poll that the Republicans hold in the late summer before primary season begins every four years, but the media will be looking for signals of who will win this election in November. And even a straw poll in Guam will be something different from a convention or what will, by then, be a steady stream, if not torrent, of poll numbers. If you're among the powers that be in Guam, why not not make the move?
Thanks to Ballot Access News for the link.
Recent Posts:
Bob Barr Through the Lens of the Zogby Polls
The Electoral College Map (7/9/08) [Update]
Polling Alert
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Bob Barr Through the Lens of the Zogby Polls
Yesterday's look at the electoral college map following the inclusion of the polling data from Zogby generated a good amount of chatter concerning the wisdom of averaging in internet-based polls. As I said, both in the post and in the comments, these data points may prove to be aberrations, but they have not significantly altered the state of the electoral college map. So, while the Zogby numbers should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt, I don't mind including them in FHQ's weighted average.
Having said that, let's use the information gleaned from the Zogby polls to open up a discussion about Bob Barr's presence in the presidential race as the Libertarian candidate. First let's revisit the table from yesterday's post and include the Barr numbers in each of the 34 states polled.
Across all 34 states, Barr averages exactly 6%. [Just for fun, I drew the median and mode from the data as well. The median was also 6% while both 5 and 6 were the most frequently occurring values; each showing up in the data seven times.] What do we see (and where do we see it) above the midpoint of 6? Though we may discount the Zogby numbers, it still may be beneficial to examine the Barr patterns we see in this data just as a crude baseline of comparison. [That baseline may need to be tweaked moving forward as we here at FHQ begin to take notice of his numbers in other polls.] Here are the states where Barr received more than 6% support in the recent round of Zogby Interactive polls:
Arizona
Colorado
Georgia
Iowa
Indiana
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Ohio
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Once the first one on the list (Arizona) and the last two (Oklahoma and Tennessee) are removed, what's left is a fairly centralized group of states. Arizona, though it has been trending ever so slightly in Obama's direction lately, just isn't going to happen for the Illinois senator (and if it does, we are looking at a substantial victory for Obama and the Democrats). Similarly, both the Sooner and Volunteer states are too far gone (even at this point) to go any way other than for McCain. The other nine states, though, are among the two regions we have been discussing as toss up states. On the one hand, you have the western group of states, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. And on the other, there are the midwestern states of Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota and Ohio. Once you throw in ever-independent New Hampshire and Barr's home state of Georgia, you have a pretty interesting group of states. So if you're the McCain campaign, and if these polls provide an indication of where Barr is doing well (even if overstated), you cannot be too terribly encouraged about Barr polling well in swing states. As I said about Colorado and Iowa specifically yesterday (and can be broadened to include these other seven states), Barr's success directly and negatively affects McCain's ability to compete with Obama in many of these states. Barr takes enough Republican support away from McCain in Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Nevada and Ohio to bring Obama to within varying levels of striking distance (Georgia is the only state among these not considered a toss up right now by FHQ.). And in Iowa and Minnesota, two states often mentioned as toss ups, Barr potentially eats into McCain's support enough to provide Obama with a comfortable lead.
Even if Barr's support is exaggerated in these polls, if they are anywhere close to being indications of where the former Georgia congressman is performing well, then McCain may very well find it extremely difficult to cobble together enough states to add up to 270 electoral votes. One thing is for sure, I'll be keeping an eye on how Barr is doing in these and other swing states to get a sense of how (and how much) he may be affecting the race between McCain and Obama.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/9/08) [Update]
Polling Alert
Jesse Helms and the Current American Political Climate
Having said that, let's use the information gleaned from the Zogby polls to open up a discussion about Bob Barr's presence in the presidential race as the Libertarian candidate. First let's revisit the table from yesterday's post and include the Barr numbers in each of the 34 states polled.
| New Polls w/Barr (July 6-9)* | ||||
| State | Poll | Margin | Barr | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Zogby Interactive | +11 | 4 | |
| Arizona | Zogby Interactive | +3 | 7 | |
| Arkansas | Zogby Interactive | +2 | 4 | |
| California | Zogby Interactive | +20 | 5 | |
| Colorado | Zogby Interactive | +2 | 8 | |
| Connecticut | Zogby Interactive | +16 | 5 | |
| Florida | Zogby Interactive | +4 | 6 | |
| Georgia | Zogby Interactive | +6 | 8 | |
| Illinois | Zogby Interactive | +20 | 5 | |
| Indiana | Zogby Interactive | +1 | 7 | |
| Iowa | Zogby Interactive | +4 | 8 | |
| Kentucky | Zogby Interactive | +5 | 3 | |
| Louisiana | Zogby Interactive | +7 | 4 | |
| Maryland | Zogby Interactive | +24 | 6 | |
| Massachusetts | Zogby Interactive | +25 | 5 | |
| Michigan | Zogby Interactive | +14 | 6 | |
| Minnesota | Zogby Interactive | +16 | 8 | |
| Missouri | Zogby Interactive | +2 | 6 | |
| Nevada | Zogby Interactive | 0 | 9 | |
| New Hampshire | Zogby Interactive | +3 | 10 | |
| New Jersey | Zogby Interactive | +13 | 3 | |
| New Mexico | Zogby Interactive | +16 | 9 | |
| New York | Zogby Interactive | +21 | 4 | |
| North Carolina | Zogby Interactive | +9 | 4 | |
| Ohio | Zogby Interactive | +5 | 7 | |
| Oklahoma | Zogby Interactive | +5 | 9 | |
| Oregon | Zogby Interactive | +16 | 6 | |
| Pennsylvania | Zogby Interactive | +10 | 5 | |
| South Carolina | Zogby Interactive | +1 | 6 | |
| Tennessee | Zogby Interactive | +5 | 7 | |
| Texas | Zogby Interactive | +3 | 6 | |
| Virginia | Zogby Interactive | +5 | 5 | |
| Washington | Zogby Interactive | +13 | 5 | |
| Wisconsin | Zogby Interactive | +10 | 4 | |
| *All polls from Zogby International. Follow link and click state for poll data. | ||||
Across all 34 states, Barr averages exactly 6%. [Just for fun, I drew the median and mode from the data as well. The median was also 6% while both 5 and 6 were the most frequently occurring values; each showing up in the data seven times.] What do we see (and where do we see it) above the midpoint of 6? Though we may discount the Zogby numbers, it still may be beneficial to examine the Barr patterns we see in this data just as a crude baseline of comparison. [That baseline may need to be tweaked moving forward as we here at FHQ begin to take notice of his numbers in other polls.] Here are the states where Barr received more than 6% support in the recent round of Zogby Interactive polls:
Arizona
Colorado
Georgia
Iowa
Indiana
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Ohio
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Once the first one on the list (Arizona) and the last two (Oklahoma and Tennessee) are removed, what's left is a fairly centralized group of states. Arizona, though it has been trending ever so slightly in Obama's direction lately, just isn't going to happen for the Illinois senator (and if it does, we are looking at a substantial victory for Obama and the Democrats). Similarly, both the Sooner and Volunteer states are too far gone (even at this point) to go any way other than for McCain. The other nine states, though, are among the two regions we have been discussing as toss up states. On the one hand, you have the western group of states, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. And on the other, there are the midwestern states of Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota and Ohio. Once you throw in ever-independent New Hampshire and Barr's home state of Georgia, you have a pretty interesting group of states. So if you're the McCain campaign, and if these polls provide an indication of where Barr is doing well (even if overstated), you cannot be too terribly encouraged about Barr polling well in swing states. As I said about Colorado and Iowa specifically yesterday (and can be broadened to include these other seven states), Barr's success directly and negatively affects McCain's ability to compete with Obama in many of these states. Barr takes enough Republican support away from McCain in Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Nevada and Ohio to bring Obama to within varying levels of striking distance (Georgia is the only state among these not considered a toss up right now by FHQ.). And in Iowa and Minnesota, two states often mentioned as toss ups, Barr potentially eats into McCain's support enough to provide Obama with a comfortable lead.
Even if Barr's support is exaggerated in these polls, if they are anywhere close to being indications of where the former Georgia congressman is performing well, then McCain may very well find it extremely difficult to cobble together enough states to add up to 270 electoral votes. One thing is for sure, I'll be keeping an eye on how Barr is doing in these and other swing states to get a sense of how (and how much) he may be affecting the race between McCain and Obama.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/9/08) [Update]
Polling Alert
Jesse Helms and the Current American Political Climate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)