The Electoral Map (8/24/08)

Wow! Thirty-five polls in 21 states certainly augmented our database of existing polling between Wednesday and Sunday. And what's more is that we have a good idea about what the race looks like in several swing states that received a handful of polls each. Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia all had multiple polls surface over the latter half of the week. Of those, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia were all on the Watch as of last Wednesday.

New Polls (Aug. 20-24)
State	Poll	Margin (With Leaners/ Without Leaners)
Arizona	Cronkite/ASU	+10
Arizona	Mason-Dixon	+6
California	Rasmussen	+13/+14
Colorado	Mason-Dixon	+3
Colorado	Zogby Interactive	+6
Colorado	Quinnipiac	+1
Florida	ARG	+1
Florida	Zogby Interactive	+3
Indiana	Rasmussen	+6/+4
Kansas	Survey USA	+23
Maryland	Rasmussen	+10/+12
Michigan	Zogby Interactive	+9
Michigan	Selzer	+7
Minnesota	Minnesota Public Radio	+10
Mississippi	Rasmussen	+13/+13
Missouri	Public Policy Polling	+10
Nevada	Mason-Dixon	+6
Nevada	Zogby Interactive	+1
Nevada	Research 2000	+1
New Hampshire	Zogby Interactive	+4
New Hampshire	Rasmussen	+1/+1
New Hampshire	ARG	+1
New Mexico	Mason-Dixon	+4
New Mexico	Zogby Interactive	+9
New Mexico	Rasmussen	+4/+6
North Carolina	Zogby Interactive	+8
North Carolina	Insider Advantage	+2
Ohio	Zogby Interactive	+5
Pennsylvania	Zogby Interactive	+9
Pennsylvania	Rasmussen	+3/+5
Tennessee	Rasmussen	+25/+24
Utah	Mason-Dixon	+39
Virginia	Public Policy Polling	+2
Virginia	Zogby Interactive	+2
Wyoming	Mason-Dixon	+37

However, despite being inundated with new data, little changed. Surprisingly, Nevada, which has been so close to a tie lately, did not shift into McCain territory even with that 6 point Mason-Dixon margin included. For every 6 point margin there, -- in either direction -- there are three polls that show it as a race that is within 3 or fewer points. In other words, the underlying message on Nevada is that the Silver state is a statistical dead heat, given the margin of error in these polls. Since May there have been eight polls conducted in the state and two have shown six point McCain leads -- the most recent one and the oldest one in that group -- but the other six have resulted in smaller gaps in the results within the margin of error. Nevada, then, is the most closely contested race according to FHQ's metric. But Ohio is not far behind (Neither, for that matter, is Virginia, but I'll hold of on the Old Dominion for the time being.). In fact, as I alluded to in my look at the August polling trends, Ohio shifted back in the direction of the Illinois senator based on the inclusion of the 5 point advantage last weekend's Zogby Interactive poll showed in the Buckeye state. Some have issues with the methodolgy behind Zogby's online polls, but even if those two results -- the one in June and current one -- were changed to exact ties, McCain would only barely take the lead by just under a quarter of a point. The positive is that the poll is not the most recent -- Rasmussen's poll of the Buckeye state is -- so it isn't being given that extra amount of weight that the most recent poll is. And the back and forth in Ohio only further cements it as one of the closest races. But that isn't terribly groundbreaking news.

Changes (Aug. 20-24)
State	Before	After
Ohio	Toss Up McCain	Toss Up Obama

Nevada and Ohio, then, along with Virginia represent a trio of states which are all within a quarter of a point of being a tie/switching sides and all three will factor heavily into the electoral math of each candidate. And though Obama has a nice cushion "strong" state electoral votes (165 EVs), the back and forth of any of those three can change that outlook quickly. Obama could lose all three and scrape out 273 electoral votes, but if all three go to McCain, that certainly calls into question the direction the overall momentum is going in to bring about that result. If those three are all going for McCain, for example, are other swings states moving too?

[Click Map to Enlarge]

And the Electoral College Spectrum gives us a glimpse into the tenuous lead (even though it is 58 EVs) Obama holds at the moment. The Illinois senator has an advantage in all of the states through Nevada, but tightening polls there and in Colorado, New Hampshire and Ohio mean that the job isn't finished -- not that the Obama campaign thought it was. Then again, the perception is that generic Democrat X should/would be well ahead of the generic GOP counterpart and that raises ever so slighty the bar for Obama.

The Electoral College Spectrum*
HI-4 (7)**	WA-11 (165)	CO-9*** (269/278)	AK-3 (373/168)	KS-6 (64)
VT-3 (10)	MN-10 (175)	NH-4*** (273/269)	MO-11 (384/165)	ID-4 (58)
RI-4 (14)	DE-3 (178)	OH-20 (293/265)	SC-8 (154)	NE-5 (54)
IL-21 (35)	OR-7 (185)	NV-5 (298/245)	SD-3 (146)	AR-6 (49)
CT-7 (42)	NJ-15 (200)	VA-13 (311/240)	TX-34 (143)	TN-11 (43)
ME-4 (46)	IA-7 (207)	ND-3 (314/227)	GA-15 (109)	KY-8 (32)
MD-10 (56)	WI-10 (217)	MT-3 (317/224)	MS-6 (94)	AL-9 (24)
CA-55 (111)	NM-5 (222)	NC-15 (332/221)	WV-5 (88)	OK-7 (15)
NY-31 (142)	MI-17 (239/316)	IN-11 (343/206)	AZ-10 (83)	WY-3 (8)
MA-12 (154)	PA-21 (260/299)	FL-27 (370/195)	LA-9 (73)	UT-5 (5)
*Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. **The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, McCain won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (all Obama's toss up states, but Michigan), he would have 299 electoral votes. Both candidates numbers are only totaled through their rival's toss up states. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics. ***The line between Colorado and New Hampshire is the where Obama crosses (or McCain would cross) the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The quirk of this iteration of the Spectrum is that it brings the 269-269 tie possibility into focus. Due to the rank ordering of states, the Victory Line is at a point wedged between Colorado and New Hampshire. Both candidates then, would have to pick up both those states in order to surpass 270 electoral votes. As it stands now, Obama has an edge in all the states to the left of Nevada -- including both Colorado and New Hampshire. That means that McCain would have to pick off not only Nevada and Ohio but Colorado and New Hampshire as well to get to 270. That isn't an insurmountable task, but it is a byproduct of Pennsylvania moving toward Obama. And that causes McCain to have to work in more states, not that the Arizona senator isn't already. That doesn't change the fact that having to go after more states is a more difficult task than getting more total electoral votes in one place like Pennsylvania. There has been some talk out there that Pennsylvania native and currently Delaware senator, Joe Biden, will help Obama lock up Pennsylvania. That may come to pass, but it was probably already good that the Keystone state was heading in the direction of Obama.

The Watch List*
State	Switch
Alaska	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
Georgia	from McCain lean	to Strong McCain
Minnesota	from Obama lean	to Strong Obama
Mississippi	from Strong McCain	to McCain lean
Nevada	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up McCain
New Mexico	from Obama lean	to Toss Up Obama
Ohio	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up McCain
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.

Finally, while the three close states mentioned above, remain on the Watch List, the list was trimmed by a couple of notable states this time around. Both North Carolina and Florida inched closer to Obama given the new polls while remaining slight leans to McCain. Minnesota also rejoined the list based on the 10 point margin in the latest MPR poll, but just barely.

I'll be back later with an update of the pre-convention August polling shifts. In the meantime, get ready for convention season.


Recent Posts:
Swoon? What Swoon? A Look at the Changes During Pre-Convention August

Obama-Biden

More on the Effort to Curb 2012 Frontloading

Swoon? What Swoon? A Look at the Changes During Pre-Convention August

Well, swoon may be a bit strong, but the perception is that the momentum is headed in McCain's direction. Is that the case, though? Sure it is. "They" told us so. However, just for fun, let's look at what has happened in August so far and see. The plus here is that this will give us a baseline in which to begin assessing VP selection and convention effects. Due to the compression of all four events (Democratic and Republican selections and conventions), it is difficult to definitively say, but we'll have these numbers as a jumping off point when that time comes, though.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Thus far there has been polling conducted in 34 states during August, including 12 of FHQ's 14 toss up states. And that is where we'll keep the focus for this examination, on those toss up states. Coming into the month, McCain held advantages in 8 toss up states totaling 86 electoral votes and Obama was ahead in 6 states with 76 electoral votes. In that time only Ohio's 20 electoral votes shifted (from Obama to McCain), though -- spoiler alert! -- that will change tomorrow. Regardless, that was the state of play heading in to the heat of August.

Let's look at those states:
McCain -- AK, FL, IN, MO, MT, NC, ND, VA

Obama -- CO, MI, NV, NH, OH, PA

Immediately, we can take Montana and North Dakota out. Neither has been polled this month, but among the rest there was some movement of note. Among the six Obama states, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio shifted away from the Illinois senator while Michigan and Pennsylvania moved toward him. As we've said over the last couple of weeks, Colorado, Nevada and Ohio are among the closest of states now. Having all three move away Obama is not a welcome sight for those within the campaign. While that is certainly negative, the movement among the McCain states is also noteworthy Of those six McCain states where surveys took place, only two moved in the Arizona senator's direction while the remaining four trended in Obama's direction. So while McCain is making strides in the closest of states, Obama is actually pulling some of those McCain toss ups further into play, going against the prevailing perception of the moment. Alaska made a strong move toward Obama and Florida, North Carolina and Virginia edged ever so slightly to the left.

Now, I should note that this data includes the new release of Zogby Interactive polling in a series of battleground states. I'll have more on this in tomorrow's electoral college post, but in this context I should make some comments about how those numbers affect our weighted averages in those ten states. Despite the sample being self-selected, most of these numbers jibe well with recent polling in those states.

Battleground States	Obama	McCain	Barr	Nader	Not Sure/Other
Colorado	44%	38%	8%	2%	8%
Florida	40%	43%	5%	1%	12%
Michigan	46%	37%	5%	1%	12%
Nevada	39%	38%	10%	3%	10%
New Hampshire	38%	42%	11%	1%	9%
New Mexico	46%	37%	5%	1%	11%
North Carolina	47%	39%	3%	2%	9%
Ohio	41%	36%	8%	1%	13%
Pennsylvania	46%	37%	5%	3%	8%
Virginia	43%	41%	5%	1%	10%

The exceptions are Colorado, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Ohio. And while the Ohio result shifts -- as you'll see tomorrow -- the Buckeye state back to Obama, it is still a very small change overall (and it only takes a little bit of one). Of the rest, only North Carolina changes the direction of the trend for August up to this point. And even then, the move toward McCain was minimal before the Zogby numbers were incorporated.

In the end, while it looks like an even distribution as far as the number of toss up states (and all states for that matter -- 19 - 14 in McCain's favor) heading in one candidate's direction or the other, McCain has to be given a slight edge because he has moved the three closest states (on the Electoral College Spectrum) in his direction. We should also note that Minnesota has crept toward McCain for the second consecutive month (or partial month in this case), yet remains on the upper end of Obama lean states. The situation is similar in Iowa as well. Though the Hawkeye state hasn't moved toward McCain in consecutive months, it has inched closer to McCain during August. It too remains solidly within the lean category for Obama, but if the current trend continues that could change.


Recent Posts:
Obama-Biden

More on the Effort to Curb 2012 Frontloading

The Links (8/21/08): National Party Convention Bounces

Obama-Biden

Thoughts?

After the Chet Edwards, last-minute extravaganza (one that had me wondering about how an Obama-Edwards ticket would look: Edwards? Why did he choose someone who cheated on his cancer-stricken wife?), Obama opted for Joe Biden. The Delaware senator does what the pundits have said Obama may need to do with his vice presidential choice, mainly shore up some of those perceived foreign policy and experience weaknesses. And this one doesn't feel like a safe pick as Evan Bayh would have. Biden has a personality and enough experience to actually hold his own on Wednesday night, a night when Bill Clinton is also speaking at the Democratic Convention. The drawback? Well, Biden suffers from occasional foot-in-the-mouth disease, but hey, he's the VP not the nominee, right?

My other thought on a morning where I received the news via radio (and not the middle of the night text message--ah, technology) is that the choice of Biden seems an awful lot like Bush's selection of Cheney eight years ago. Yeah, some readers aren't going to like me drawing that parallel, but it is at least partially true. In Biden, Obama has someone with some experience. Bush got that by picking Cheney as well. But with that experience, comes someone realitively longer in the tooth than the actual nominee. Biden is 65 and would be 73 if Obama makes it through two terms, not an age that we often see someone running for president successfully. [McCain may prove me wrong on this, but since we're in the midst of a hypothetical, bear with me.] In that sense, Biden could represent a VP choice who ultimately does not have the ambition to aspire to the presidency. Yes, I'm talking about a guy who has run for president twice -- in 1988 and 2008 -- but by that point in his life things may be different. Yes, this is certainly speculative, but when you do what I do you look for these sorts of openings, like 2008 repeating itself on 2016. By that I mean an open race for both nominations with no one from the current administration running. And who among us doesn't secretly wish for a similar sort of race?

With that, what are your thoughts and opinions of Obama's choice?

PS: I'll be back later in the day with a look at the August trends, so we can get a sense of where they are prior to the conventions.


Recent Posts:
More on the Effort to Curb 2012 Frontloading

The Links (8/21/08): National Party Convention Bounces

Blog Note

More on the Effort to Curb 2012 Frontloading

What, two frontloading posts in one week?!? Yeah, let's take a break from the vice presidential hysteria for a bit. That will obviously take care of itself. Though I will say that in my classes today I played the "wisdom of the masses" game that the good folks over at the Monkey Cage played yesterday and Biden won in each (for what its worth).

Anyway on the heels of my comments the other day following Obama's and the DNC's charting of a potential course for presidential nomination reform, there were a few more interesting tidbits that emerged around a similar theme. The Washington Post ran a great story reiterating some of the issues confronting the GOP's Ohio Plan at the party's convention in a little over a week. And some of these issues cut right to the heart of some things that have plagued the United States since its inception, mainly the divide between big states and little states. [Can you tell I'm teaching an intro to American Government course now? It's fresh in my mind.] So, on the one hand you have arguments about the system being broken:

"Most people believe that it's broken," said Ron Kaufman, a member of the RNC rules committee. "The question is, how do you fix it in a way that doesn't have unintended consequences?"

And on the other you have the big states' view voiced by perennial primary season also-ran, Michigan:

"I would rather stay with what we got," [Michigan Republican Party chairman, Saul] Anuzis said.

I playfully juxtaposed those two quotations from that article, but that's the order this discussion is going to go in at the convention. So, the system is broken, but is broken enough that the biggest states can be shunted to the back of the queue? I doubt that the big states that represent those last three primary day groups under the Ohio Plan are going to allow that idea to pass without a fight. Let's recall that those large states still have the largest number of delegates (even if that number is adjusted based upon how the state has supported the party in past elections) and that math stands in the way of the Ohio Plan.

Well, surprise, surprise: FHQ is quashing yet another presidential nomination reform proposal. [C'mon, that's not my intent.] Yeah, but there is some work being done out there to reform the system. And you know what? It is a bipartisan effort. Earlier this week, at a meeting at the National Press Club in Washington, the chairs of both parties' rules committees met with the president-elect of the National Association of Secretaries of State (Trey Grayson, R-KY) and Don Means, the Director of the Open Caucus Institute and together called for a "vigorous and widespread discussion and deliberation about how best to reform the current primary election calendar for 2012." Calling for and getting that reform are two different things, but the fact that at least some notable (and influential) members of each party are coalescing to make this effort is at least promising. And yes, I count the chairs of the DNC's and RNC's rules committees as influential.

But not as influential as the guys actually chosen through the current system to run for president. Obama has obviously voiced some concern over certain aspects of the system, but, as the Post article says, McCain and his campaign have been quiet on the issue. And what they say means a lot to the delegates making decisions on these matters (at least with respect to the GOP). Typically, those who win nominations in a certain way are not apt to want to change a system under which they were successful. I think both candidates can agree to the start date for primaries and caucuses being pushed back in 2012 and beyond, but beyond that, I'd question how far either is willing to go to shake up the rest of the system.

The Republicans have to, by their rules, deal with the issue of 2012 at their convention. We'll know something about 2012's calendar then. And what I'm really interested in is how the parties are going to keep states in line on this. Those sanctions have to matter otherwise, frontloading isn't going anywhere. We keep hearing this threat that action needs to be taken now lest 2008 repeat itself in 2012. For the record, (the act of) frontloading will not be as widespread four years from now. States will be less motivated to frontload because 1) most already have and 2) only one of the parties, barring the unforeseen, will have a contested nomination then. The outcome -- the crowding of contests -- may be, though.

I can, then, easily envision the window in which these contests are held being scaled back in 2012, but I'm skeptical of anything beyond that.


Recent Posts:
The Links (8/21/08): National Party Convention Bounces

Blog Note

Back to the Future: The February Frontloading Experiment is Over

The Links (8/21/08): National Party Convention Bounces

Earlier in the week I posted a link to Thomas Holbrook's impressions of national convention bounces. He now has a projection up for how much of a bump we may see Obama gain from the Democratic convention next week.

Now Larry Sabato has his own look into the history of the bounce up on his site.


Recent Posts:
Blog Note

Back to the Future: The February Frontloading Experiment is Over

The Electoral College Map (8/20/08)

Blog Note

I'm starting a new continuously running post that will simply gather some daily links for my campaign politics students' consumption. I was thinking of doing this in terms of themes -- the first one will have some links concerning the conventions for example -- but given how quickly the dynamics of a presidential race can change, that may be feasible on some days but on others not.

Anyway, I just wanted to make our regular readers aware of the change and to invite you to contribute if you so desire. It doesn't have to be completely political sciencey, but that's the direction in which I'll be steering things.


Recent Posts:
Back to the Future: The February Frontloading Experiment is Over

The Electoral College Map (8/20/08)

On VP Predictions: Timing and Choices

Back to the Future: The February Frontloading Experiment is Over

The Democratic Change Commission?

Well, it is a change election, so while we're on the topic why not change the method of selecting presidential nominees in the future? If Obama and the DNC have their way, that's just what the Democrats will do. At issue? The frontloading of presidential nominating events. [What, again? Didn't we already do this four years ago and four years before that and... Yes, and we'll do it again until we get it right.

...apparently.]

The proposed commission would be tasked with examining the frontloading problem and devising potential solutions. For once the GOP is actually out in front on this one. They are set to discuss the Ohio Plan at their convention in St. Paul next month. That proposal would grant the Favored Four (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) their position at the front of the line, but would grant a collection of the smallest remaining states the option of holding their contests next, prior to bigger states (which would be divided into three groups). Following the early states, the small state group would vote on the third Tuesday in February. The first group of larger states would then vote two weeks later with the final two groups stretching out three and six weeks beyond that.

The DNC and Obama spokespersons were not terribly clear about the direction in which the party wanted to head, but did target the caucus system (still a Clinton supporter sore point) and frontloading as things that needed to be addressed prior to the next cycle.

But here is what they did say:
Protect the Favored Four?
Check.

"Obama continues to believe in the important role that Iowa and New Hampshire have historically played in the process of choosing our party’s Presidential Nominee and the important early role Nevada and South Carolina had in 2008," [Obama spokesman, Nick] Shapiro added.

Scale back the window in which primaries and caucuses can be held?
Check.

"So, we are recommending that our nominating rules be amended so that no primary or caucus can be held prior to the first Tuesday in March, except for the four pre-window states."

Stop frontloading?
Check.

"We are asking the Democratic Party to review this frontloading and look for a workable solution to reduce it," Shapiro wrote.

I'm with Shapiro on those first two points. That's been done before. The Favored Four are favored for a reason (tradition) and the beginning point of the window has been moved before. The GOP moved it into February in 2000 and the Democrats followed suit over the course of the 2004 and 2008 cycles. But to undo that shift forward? That hasn't been done. And there still has been no viable solution to the frontloading problem. Well, there is no shortage of solution ideas, but there is a decided lack of methods for carrying those ideas out.

On its surface, scaling the window back to the first week in March (for all non-exempt states) would essentially return the calendar to its pre-2000 form. And that first week in March timing is not too far off from the starting point for all the non-exempt states (the Favored Four in other words) in the Ohio Plan proposal that the GOP has advanced. [Ooh, is that a hint at the potential for bipartisan accord on this issue?] However, preventing states from jumping that point and not crowding in on that early March Tuesday is going to be where the real work on this issue will need to be done. And that is where the ability of state parties, partisans of both stripes in state governments and the national parties working together to come to a solution comes into play. Well, if that's all, it should be a snap.

It won't be, but I'll certainly have my eye on the conventions in the coming weeks to see not only how this proposed commission fares but whether the Ohio Plan passes muster at the GOP convention (the only time they can deal with the issue prior to 2012). The new commission would have a report ready no later than January of 2010.

TRACKING...

And here's the word from Iowa.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/20/08)

On VP Predictions: Timing and Choices

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

The Electoral College Map (8/20/08)

Well, things are getting interesting. [Haven't they been all along?] Recent poll movement toward McCain continues with the incorporation of twelve new polls in eleven states. Blue state margins are tightening, especially in states like Iowa and Minnesota and the toss up states have taken on a decidedly McCain tilt of late. Recently, both Colorado and Nevada have moved toward the Arizona senator. Also, after a pro-Obama blip in the polling in Florida, the Sunshine state has returned to polling numbers that reflect the weighted average we have here. Which is to say, a toss up favoring McCain.

New Polls (Aug. 17-20)
State	Poll	Margin (With Leaners/ Without Leaners)
Florida	Rasmussen	+2/+3
Georgia	Rasmussen	+9/+7
Illinois	Rasmussen	+15/+15
Indiana	Survey USA	+6
Iowa	Univ. of Iowa	+5.1/+6.5
Louisiana	Rasmussen	+18/+17
Minnesota	Survey USA	+2
New York	Siena	+8
North Carolina	Civitas	+6
Ohio	Public Policy Polling	0
Ohio	Rasmussen	+5/+4
Pennsylvania	Susquehanna	+5

In Ohio, though, the back and forth continues. The tie in the latest PPP poll and another McCain advantage in this month's Rasmussen poll of the Buckeye state (one that largely mirrors the firm's poll of the state last month), swings Ohio back over to McCain's side. The switch of those 20 electoral votes brings to fruition the closer feeling the race has taken on of late. In fairness, though, I should mention that Ohio reclaimed its position as the closest state in our averages. After yielding the title to Nevada after last week's Rasmussen poll in the Silver state, Ohio not only shifted over to McCain, but did so by the smallest of margins: 0.07 points. Due to the weight being placed on the most recent poll, a subsequent result that favored McCain by less than 1.5 points or a poll favoring Obama would shift the state back to the Illinois senator. Needless to say, Ohio continues to be on the Watch List (below).

[One other note, given the updated discussion yesterday regarding Rasmussen's reporting of both "leaners" numbers and those without leaners: If the without leaners data are used, Obama still leads in Ohio even with this new poll included.]

Changes (Aug. 17-20)
State	Before	After
Ohio	Toss Up Obama	Toss Up McCain

That 20 electoral vote shift now brings the tally in the electoral college to 278-260 in Obama's favor. Despite the shift, the election appears to be hinging on the results in the four closest states in our average: Colorado, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. But given the current dynamics of the race -- seemingly favoring McCain -- you can begin to envision more of those light blue states being brought more seriously into play. That isn't to say that McCain isn't making efforts in any of those states -- he is -- but they are certainly more attainable if the winds are blowing in his direction. Colorado and Nevada are already marked, but states like Michigan and New Hampshire are also worth increased attention if McCain is pushing into the blue states. I exclude Pennsylvania from that discussion because unlike any of the other toss up states favoring Obama, the Keystone state is actually trending toward Obama. Even the lower margins in the most recent polls of Pennsylvania are running above where the weighted average has the state charted. That being the case, the average typically inches up every time there is a poll that runs above the established average.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

At the same time, if the political winds were to shift [What, two wind references in one post? I know, I have a problem.] back in Obama's direction -- and they are likely to do so at least a little with the Democrats' convention next week -- the current trend could reverse itself. McCain, though, seems to be in a good spot now. Obviously, polling is moving in his direction, but what happens when the dynamics of campaign spending are altered. Seth Masket over at Enik Rising has a post up asking that very same question. McCain's time of spending furiously is almost at its end. Following the GOP convention, the Arizona senator will be party to the spending cap placed on him by the federal matching funds system. Currently, he's spending the uncapped money collected for use prior to the general election campaign. Granted, he'll have some help from the coordinated efforts of the Republican National Committee, but will we see any drop for McCain after his convention (Well, not directly after it, but in the period afterward.)? Put differently, will Obama be able to use his decision to opt out of federal funding to his advantage to regain his footing in the race? That's definitely something to consider (Perhaps for the comments section.).

The Electoral College Spectrum*
HI-4 (7)**	WA-11 (165)	PA-21 (264/295)	FL-27 (369/196)	LA-9 (67)
VT-3 (10)	MN-10 (175)	CO-9*** (273/274)	NC-15 (384/169)	ID-4 (58)
RI-4 (14)	DE-3 (178)	NV-5 (278/265)	SC-8 (154)	NE-5 (54)
MD-10 (24)	OR-7 (185)	OH-20 (298/260)	SD-3 (146)	WY-3 (49)
IL-21 (45)	NJ-15 (200)	VA-13 (311/240)	TX-34 (143)	AR-6 (46)
CT-7 (52)	IA-7 (207)	ND-3 (314/227)	GA-15 (109)	TN-11 (40)
ME-4 (56)	WI-10 (217)	MT-3 (317/224)	MS-6 (94)	KY-8 (29)
NY-31 (87)	NM-5 (222)	IN-11 (328/221)	WV-5 (88)	AL-9 (21)
CA-55 (142)	MI-17 (239/316)	MO-11 (339/210)	AZ-10 (83)	UT-5 (12)
MA-12 (154)	NH-4 (243/299)	AK-3 (342/199)	KS-6 (73)	OK-7 (7)
*Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. **The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, McCain won all the states up to and including New Hampshire (all Obama's toss up states, but Michigan), he would have 299 electoral votes. Both candidates numbers are only totaled through their rival's toss up states. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics. ***Colorado is the state where Obama crosses (or McCain would cross) the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That state is referred to as the victory line.

Even with the shift in McCain's direction, the Electoral College Spectrum hasn't changed all that much (nor has the map for that matter). What has happened is that you begin to see the state of play differently. We've moved in short order from talking about how far Obama could potentially push into those pink states to which ones McCain may now be able to pull off. That said, surprisingly tight margins recently in Iowa and Minnesota didn't pull either into the toss up category. And those same four states -- Colorado, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia -- remain the most vital components of either candidate amassing 270 electoral votes. Of course, as Allen -- from Election Projection -- aptly said earlier today, Obama still has more paths to victory. That is certainly true, but if things continue on their current trajectory, that may change as well.

The Watch List*
State	Switch
Alaska	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
Florida	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
Georgia	from McCain lean	to Strong McCain
Mississippi	from Strong McCain	to McCain lean
Nevada	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up McCain
New Mexico	from Obama lean	to Toss Up Obama
North Carolina	from Toss Up McCain	to McCain lean
Ohio	from Toss Up McCain	to Toss Up 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.

As for the Watch List, there are a couple of alterations to Sunday's list to note. Minnesota has shifted from being on the list as a state to potenially shift from Strong Obama to an Obama lean to now being completely off the list. However, if you look a the Spectrum above, you'll see that the North Star state has not shifted at all. Truth be told, Minnesota is a victim of the definition of what's included on the Watch. It is no longer within a fraction of a point of switching back to that Strong Obama distinction, but it is within exactly one point of it (...tied with seldom-polled Delaware). Ohio is the only other change. As I mentioned, the Buckeye state remains on the list but is now slated for a potential move toward Obama instead of a move in McCain's direction.

[Note: I purposely avoided the VP topic here. If you'd like to weigh in on the latest speculation, please follow the link to the VP thread immediately below in "Recent Posts". Thanks.]


Recent Posts:
On VP Predictions: Timing and Choices

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

The New Ohio Poll and McCain's VP Choice

On VP Predictions: Timing and Choices

The roots of a good discussion have already begun in the post I put up yesterday regarding McCain opting for Mitt Romney as his running mate. Both Jack and Scott have added some interesting links that, when taken together, point toward Obama making his selection known sometime between Wednesday morning and Friday -- prior to a Springfield event on Saturday to introduce the new ticket.

Scott has already weighed in. He sees a Friday announcement. At this point, I'm hesitant to put in my two cents, having already missed once. However, I'll say that Thursday morning will be when Obama makes the call. [See, I'm still averaging the difference.] That gives them a bit more exposure time, but not enough to set off a backlash.

And what say you, loyal FHQ readers? Lurkers you too can have an anonymous place in the spotlight. The comments section is there for both predictions on when the announcement(s) will be made and who will be named running mate -- on both sides.

[UPDATE]: Check out Scott's comment below for some Sebelius speculation (via our good friends over at DemConWatch.).


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

The New Ohio Poll and McCain's VP Choice

The Electoral College Map (8/17/08)

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?