It’s been a long time since I done these analyses—just over a month. I quit doing them after Mitt Romney became the presumptive nominee. I pointed out that:
The effective end of the Republican primary this week should mark a change in the dynamics of this race. Expect Romney’s chances to improve considerably as new polls roll in. The full effect may not be seen for another month (depending on the frequency and diversity of polling).
Since Pres. Obama was beating Romney in 100% of the simulated elections, with an average electoral vote total of 347 to 191, it seemed silly to keep doing these analyses until the race looked a bit more “post-primary.”
Since that last analysis, 50 new polls have come out, covering 26 different states. (Still no new S.C. poll…sorry.) I guess it’s time to see how Obama and Romney stack up.
First, I should mention that the National polls make the race appear to be very close. The Real Clear Politics average of national polls has Obama leading Romney by +1.7%. The problem is, the national polls reflect the national vote. And as we remember all too well from 2000, the national vote does not always go the way of the Electoral College.
That is why I do these analyses. I collect only the state head-to-head polls and use them to infer the winner of the Electoral College. So, with an (apparently) close popular vote, how does the election look?
After 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 99,890 times and Romney wins 110 times (and we even give him the 12 ties). Obama receives (on average) 333 to Romney’s 205 electoral votes. In an election held now, Obama would be expected to win with a 99.9% probability to Romney’s 0.1% probability.
Huh…the “post-primary” election has hardly changed.
| Obama | Romney |
| 99.9% probability of winning | 0.1% probability of winning |
| Mean of 333 electoral votes | Mean of 205 electoral votes |
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama:
- 328 electoral votes with a 2.65% probability
- 319 electoral votes with a 2.49% probability
- 318 electoral votes with a 2.37% probability
- 327 electoral votes with a 2.35% probability
- 338 electoral votes with a 2.25% probability
- 329 electoral votes with a 2.15% probability
- 312 electoral votes with a 2.08% probability
- 348 electoral votes with a 1.95% probability
- 313 electoral votes with a 1.93% probability
- 347 electoral votes with a 1.75% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Obama wins 99.9%, Romney wins 0.1%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 332.7 (23.4)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Romney: 205.3 (23.4)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 331 (291, 382)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Romney: 207 (156, 247)
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 | 115 | |||
| Strong Obama | 145 | 260 | ||
| Leans Obama | 58 | 58 | 318 | |
| Weak Obama | 0 | 0 | 0 | 318 |
| Weak Romney | 10 | 10 | 10 | 220 |
| Leans Romney | 89 | 89 | 210 | |
| Strong Romney | 77 | 121 | ||
| Safe Romney | 44 |
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 | Romney | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 4 | Votes | polls | Votes | Obama | Romney | % wins | % wins | |
| AL | 9 | 1* | 754 | 37.8 | 62.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| AK | 3 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| AZ | 11 | 1 | 864 | 45.3 | 54.7 | 2.5 | 97.5 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1* | 679 | 36.8 | 63.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 1* | 1838 | 66.8 | 33.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 1 | 564 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 48.8 | 51.2 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1* | 1460 | 58.9 | 41.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| DE | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| DC | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| FL | 29 | 4 | 2569 | 49.6 | 50.4 | 38.1 | 61.9 | ||
| GA | 16 | 1 | 548 | 44.0 | 56.0 | 2.2 | 97.8 | ||
| 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 | 1* | 447 | 45.0 | 55.0 | 6.6 | 93.4 | ||
| IA | 6 | 1 | 1086 | 55.4 | 44.6 | 99.5 | 0.5 | ||
| KS | 6 | 1* | 442 | 45.0 | 55.0 | 7.1 | 92.9 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 528 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 6.9 | 93.1 | ||
| LA | 8 | 1* | 542 | 41.1 | 58.9 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| ME | 2 | 1 | 552 | 54.3 | 45.7 | 92.3 | 7.7 | ||
| ME1 | 1 | 1* | 488 | 64.8 | 35.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ME2 | 1 | 1* | 421 | 53.7 | 46.3 | 86.0 | 14.0 | ||
| MD | 10 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| MA | 11 | 1* | 455 | 56.0 | 44.0 | 96.8 | 3.2 | ||
| MI | 16 | 1 | 508 | 53.3 | 46.7 | 86.1 | 13.9 | ||
| MN | 10 | 1 | 467 | 58.0 | 42.0 | 99.4 | 0.6 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1* | 717 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 1* | 465 | 48.4 | 51.6 | 32.0 | 68.0 | ||
| MT | 3 | 2 | 1278 | 46.9 | 53.1 | 6.0 | 94.0 | ||
| NE | 2 | 1 | 460 | 42.4 | 57.6 | 1.1 | 98.9 | ||
| NE1 | 1 | 1* | 389 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 10.3 | 89.7 | ||
| NE2 | 1 | 1* | 252 | 49.6 | 50.4 | 47.9 | 52.1 | ||
| NE3 | 1 | 1* | 281 | 35.2 | 64.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| NV | 6 | 1 | 480 | 54.2 | 45.8 | 90.1 | 9.9 | ||
| NH | 4 | 1 | 1093 | 56.4 | 43.6 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 1 | 1392 | 55.7 | 44.3 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| NM | 5 | 1 | 494 | 57.5 | 42.5 | 99.2 | 0.8 | ||
| NY | 29 | 1 | 720 | 60.7 | 39.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 3 | 2589 | 50.7 | 49.3 | 69.9 | 30.1 | ||
| ND | 3 | 1* | 480 | 41.3 | 58.8 | 0.3 | 99.7 | ||
| OH | 18 | 4 | 2784 | 52.4 | 47.6 | 96.3 | 3.8 | ||
| OK | 7 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| OR | 7 | 1 | 1327 | 52.0 | 48.0 | 85.1 | 14.9 | ||
| PA | 20 | 1 | 1005 | 54.6 | 45.4 | 98.1 | 1.9 | ||
| RI | 4 | 1* | 495 | 59.4 | 40.6 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| SC | 9 | 1* | 1833 | 51.7 | 48.3 | 84.7 | 15.3 | ||
| SD | 3 | 1* | 442 | 44.3 | 55.7 | 5.0 | 95.0 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1* | 1221 | 48.2 | 51.8 | 18.4 | 81.6 | ||
| TX | 38 | 1 | 550 | 46.2 | 53.8 | 10.3 | 89.7 | ||
| UT | 6 | 1* | 688 | 33.0 | 67.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| VT | 3 | 1* | 728 | 63.7 | 36.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| VA | 13 | 4 | 2564 | 52.5 | 47.5 | 96.8 | 3.2 | ||
| WA | 12 | 1 | 481 | 57.8 | 42.2 | 99.4 | 0.6 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1 | 373 | 40.8 | 59.2 | 0.5 | 99.5 | ||
| WI | 10 | 4 | 2464 | 51.8 | 48.2 | 89.7 | 10.3 | ||
| 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.
The Arizona GOPers trying to keep Obama off their state’s ballot must be afraid they can’t carry their own state. Romney will at least get the polygamist vote there, though.
Heh
Rmoney’s very first campaign promise is a lie. This article explains why.
http://www.economist.com/blogs.....-and-obama
Something seriously wrong with an analysis that has SC a blue state.
NC went for Obama by 0.32% in 2008. Anyone really think that NC will be an Obama state this year?
If this election were 99.9% in the bag for Obama he’d be running a positive campaign. Instead he’s making it about 1800s polygamy and prank pulled in the 60s.
Mickey Kaus has a nice piece summarizing Obama’s approach this year. He’s lost the working white vote. He’s cobbling together elite white voters with Hispanic and African-American blocs.
The sad thing is that the latter two components don’t understand that the Democrat Party isn’t about furthering their agenda. It’s about furthering the agenda of the elite white supporters who are their main donors.
Stupidity should be painful.
“Instead he’s making it about 1800s polygamy and prank pulled in the 60s.”
I’d ask for proof that this is something our president is actually doing but it’s obvious that you’re just making shit up again.
“If this election were 99.9% in the bag for Obama he’d be running a positive campaign.”
Hmm, now where did I ever get the impression that our president is an uppity Kenyan Muslim intent on imposing Sharia law on America? Oh, that’s right, I got it from those oh-so-positive wingnuts. Go fuck yourself, Bob.
“Stupidity should be painful.”
Why on earth would you want to inflict pain on yourself, Bob?
@ 5
Ah, yes, you’ve got me. Barack Obama himself is staying above the fray. Principled, moralistic soul that he is.
I stand corrected. Your ilk is talking about all of this idiocy in direct opposition to Obama’s wishes.
Thanks for setting me straight, moron.
Obama had better be worried about the trend in the past four months in his own graphs:
http://www.barackobama.com/record/economy
Job creation and the number of manufacturing jobs both stalling out big-time. That trend isn’t exactly in a direction that ensures 99.9% re-election success, now, is it?
“Ah yes, you’ve got me.”
Yes, Bob, I did.
“Thanks for setting me straight”
You’re welcome, Bob. Make up shit again, and I’ll straighten your slack ass out again. It’s what I do here, Bob, and I enjoy it very, very much.
It’s obvious to everybody by now that you can’t make a point with out having to resort to making shit up. I’ll be clear about this, Bob, that makes you a goddamned fucking liar.
Next up, Bob will probably tell us that Democrats are so fucking desparate, they’re seriously talking about having Romney removed from the ballot in Arizona.
What the fuck is that?
Can anyone (including this fucktard named “Bob”) reference reliable polling break outs for “white people who work”?
Bob, you are a fucking racist asshole. A term like that one is meaningless racist bullshit code casually tossed around to imply that non-whites don’t work. In 2008 Barack Obama won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976.
Or are all white people elite? Oh, only the 43% of them who also happen to vote for Obama?
Sure. And I suppose they don’t work either.
Wait. Didn’t we just describe the GOP nominee? A filthy rich elitist white male who lives off the work of others and whose greatest challenge is having to borrow one of his father’s yachts when his is in the shop?