| Obama | Santorum |
| 100.0% probability of winning | 0.0% probability of winning |
| Mean of 338 electoral votes | Mean of 200 electoral votes |
Just in time for Super Tuesday, here is an analysis of the current and most recent state head-to-head polls in the race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. The previous analysis showed President Barack Obama leading Rick Santorum with a mean of 356 electoral votes to Santorum’s 182.
There have been 22 new polls since then. I’ve included them in a Monte Carlo analysis of 100,000 simulated election. Obama wins all 100,000. An election held now would be won by Obama with near certainty.
Obama receives (on average) 338 to Santorum’s 200 electoral votes. That’s right…Rick Santorum is doing better against Obama than he did a couple of weeks ago. He still loses, but not a badly.
What is interesting, however, is that Santorum, at 200 electoral votes, is slightly stronger against Obama than Mitt Romney with 197 electoral votes. The change reflects Romney slipping against Obama and Santorum coming in a little stronger against Obama in some states.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama:
- 341 electoral votes with a 4.83% probability
- 351 electoral votes with a 4.63% probability
- 342 electoral votes with a 3.68% probability
- 332 electoral votes with a 3.59% probability
- 357 electoral votes with a 3.55% probability
- 347 electoral votes with a 3.54% probability
- 326 electoral votes with a 2.59% probability
- 336 electoral votes with a 2.46% probability
- 348 electoral votes with a 2.32% probability
- 312 electoral votes with a 2.28% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Obama wins 100.0%, Santorum wins 0.0%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 338.2 (19.3)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Santorum: 199.8 (19.3)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 341 (298, 373)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Santorum: 197 (165, 240)
Each column of this table shows the electoral vote total aggregated by different criteria for the probability of winning a state (Safe=100%, Strong=90%+, Leans=60%+, Weak=50%+):
| Threshold | Safe | + Strong | + Leans | + Weak |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safe Obama | 214 | |||
| Strong Obama | 74 | 288 | ||
| Leans Obama | 53 | 53 | 341 | |
| Weak Obama | 0 | 0 | 0 | 341 |
| Weak Santorum | 10 | 10 | 10 | 197 |
| Leans Santorum | 47 | 47 | 187 | |
| Strong Santorum | 63 | 140 | ||
| Safe Santorum | 77 |
This table summarizes results by state. Click on the poll count to see the individual polls included for the state.
| 0 | 0 | EC | # | Total | % | % | Obama | Santorum | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 8 | Votes | polls | Votes | Obama | Santorum | % wins | % wins | |
| AL | 9 | 1* | 754 | 37.8 | 62.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| AK | 3 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| AZ | 11 | 2 | 2855 | 48.6 | 51.4 | 14.0 | 86.0 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1* | 1744 | 40.4 | 59.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 3 | 3283 | 65.2 | 34.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 1* | 730 | 51.1 | 48.9 | 66.0 | 34.0 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1* | 435 | 57.5 | 42.5 | 98.7 | 1.3 | ||
| DE | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| DC | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| FL | 29 | 1 | 455 | 51.6 | 48.4 | 68.5 | 31.5 | ||
| GA | 16 | 1 | 1041 | 48.1 | 51.9 | 19.0 | 81.0 | ||
| HI | 4 | 1* | 517 | 64.8 | 35.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ID | 4 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| IL | 20 | 1* | 546 | 61.5 | 38.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| IN | 11 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| IA | 6 | 1 | 720 | 48.9 | 51.1 | 33.9 | 66.1 | ||
| KS | 6 | 1* | 442 | 45.0 | 55.0 | 6.6 | 93.4 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 528 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 7.0 | 93.0 | ||
| LA | 8 | 1* | 542 | 41.1 | 58.9 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| ME | 4 | 1* | 586 | 56.3 | 43.7 | 98.4 | 1.6 | ||
| MD | 10 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| MA | 11 | 3 | 1400 | 63.6 | 36.4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 2 | 3160 | 64.4 | 35.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MN | 10 | 1* | 461 | 57.5 | 42.5 | 98.9 | 1.1 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1* | 717 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 1* | 524 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 49.4 | 50.6 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1 | 430 | 47.7 | 52.3 | 24.0 | 76.0 | ||
| NE | 2 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE1 | 1 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE2 | 1 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE3 | 1 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NV | 6 | 1* | 481 | 61.5 | 38.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NH | 4 | 1* | 450 | 61.6 | 38.4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 1 | 1201 | 60.4 | 39.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NM | 5 | 1 | 460 | 59.8 | 40.2 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| NY | 29 | 1 | 1085 | 60.2 | 39.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 1* | 989 | 51.1 | 48.9 | 68.5 | 31.5 | ||
| ND | 3 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| OH | 18 | 4 | 3403 | 54.1 | 45.9 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| OK | 7 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| OR | 7 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| PA | 20 | 3 | 1423 | 54.3 | 45.7 | 98.7 | 1.3 | ||
| RI | 4 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| SC | 9 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| SD | 3 | 1 | 436 | 42.2 | 57.8 | 1.0 | 99.0 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1 | 1206 | 47.5 | 52.5 | 10.8 | 89.2 | ||
| TX | 38 | 1 | 466 | 42.1 | 57.9 | 0.7 | 99.3 | ||
| UT | 6 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| VT | 3 | 1 | 728 | 65.9 | 34.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| VA | 13 | 3 | 2050 | 58.5 | 41.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| WA | 12 | 2 | 1674 | 56.8 | 43.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| WV | 5 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| WI | 10 | 3 | 1915 | 53.5 | 46.5 | 98.8 | 1.2 | ||
| WY | 3 | 0 | (0) | (100) |
* An older poll was used (i.e. no recent polls exist).
Details of the methods are given in the FAQ.
The most recent analysis in this match-up can be found from this page.
I have to wonder if any polls taken before Rush Limbaugh’s antics this last weekend are going to be relevent today.
Santorum is staking everything on winning the Evangelical vote and creating a “culture war”, which Rush Limbaugh (imprudently) jumped into head first. The end result may well be a complete back-lash against Santorum and the entire culture war concept, with about two-thirds of the American electorate voting against the theocracy which Santorum seems to want to establish.
Santorum might do well in the rural Bible-belt areas of the south and mid-west, but the urban areas of those states might end up giving the electoral votes to President Obama anyway.
Hey Darryl, were you wearing your Che’ tee-shirt when you typed that?
SRD @ 2,
Not sure what a Che’tee-shirt is, but I was wearing an ordinary flannel button-up shirt for this one.
Maybe next time….
@3 He called you a commie. Our trolls have no originality. We need better trolls.
http://www.mikemart.com/poster.....evara.html
# 4: Yep, calling someone a “commie” is SO 1950-ish. Somehow these guys managed to sleep right through the 1960’s, and a good part of the 1970’s. Cryogenics, perhaps?
Hint to trolls: The Soviet Union doesn’t exist any more. The Berlin Wall is gone. China says it is Communist, but it’s actually a dictitorial crony-capitalist regime (which seems to appeal to a lot of the Republican party these days, for some odd reason).