Update: An analysis with more recent polls can be found here.
Since the previous analysis, we have some new state head-to-head polls to throw into the analysis. One of them changes a state from red to blue.
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
| MT | Public Opinion Strategies | 09-Jan | 10-Jan | 400 | 4.9 | 36 | 53 | R+17 |
| NH | U NH | 25-Jan | 02-Feb | 495 | 4.4 | 50 | 40 | O+10 |
| NY | Siena | 29-Jan | 01-Feb | 807 | 3.4 | 63 | 31 | O+32 |
Today’s Montana poll isn’t really new…just new to me. It puts Mitt Romney up by +17% over President Barack Obama. A newly released New York poll has Obama up by +32% over Romney.
The interesting poll comes from New Hampshire. Romney has led Obama in New Hampshire in at least 11 prior polls. The new Granite State poll shows Obama leading Romney by +10%—quite a turn-around!
The result is surprising, and I’ll remain a little skeptical until it is verified by a similar finding. (Speaking of surprising results, I am expecting a new South Carolina poll to be released sometime this week….)
With the new polls weighing in, Obama has gained very slightly. From 100,000 simulated elections, Obama gains +0.2% in his probability of winning (in an election held now) for a 99.6% overall probability. He gains, on average, +3 electoral votes for a total of 335 to Romney’s 203.
| Obama | Romney |
| 99.6% probability of winning | 0.4% probability of winning |
| Mean of 335 electoral votes | Mean of 203 electoral votes |
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama:
- 329 electoral votes with a 2.61% probability
- 335 electoral votes with a 2.34% probability
- 342 electoral votes with a 2.21% probability
- 328 electoral votes with a 2.11% probability
- 343 electoral votes with a 2.09% probability
- 333 electoral votes with a 2.07% probability
- 332 electoral votes with a 2.02% probability
- 336 electoral votes with a 1.99% probability
- 344 electoral votes with a 1.97% probability
- 345 electoral votes with a 1.94% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Obama wins 99.6%, Romney wins 0.4%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 335.2 (22.8)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Romney: 202.8 (22.8)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 335 (288, 382)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Romney: 203 (156, 250)
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 | 63 | |||
| Strong Obama | 205 | 268 | ||
| Leans Obama | 60 | 60 | 328 | |
| Weak Obama | 24 | 24 | 24 | 352 |
| Weak Romney | 0 | 0 | 0 | 186 |
| Leans Romney | 38 | 38 | 186 | |
| Strong Romney | 87 | 148 | ||
| Safe Romney | 61 |
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 8 | 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 | 443 | 46.3 | 53.7 | 13.2 | 86.8 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1* | 1744 | 40.4 | 59.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 1* | 900 | 55.6 | 44.4 | 99.2 | 0.8 | ||
| CO | 9 | 1* | 730 | 51.1 | 48.9 | 66.5 | 33.5 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1* | 544 | 51.1 | 48.9 | 63.0 | 37.0 | ||
| DE | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| DC | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| FL | 29 | 6 | 6961 | 50.9 | 49.1 | 86.1 | 13.9 | ||
| GA | 16 | 1 | 1072 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 2.1 | 97.9 | ||
| HI | 4 | 1* | 517 | 64.8 | 35.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ID | 4 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| IL | 20 | 1* | 846 | 54.5 | 45.5 | 97.0 | 3.0 | ||
| IN | 11 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| IA | 6 | 1* | 1277 | 54.1 | 45.9 | 97.8 | 2.2 | ||
| KS | 6 | 1* | 442 | 45.0 | 55.0 | 7.3 | 92.7 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 528 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 6.8 | 93.2 | ||
| LA | 8 | 1* | 542 | 41.1 | 58.9 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| ME | 4 | 1* | 586 | 56.3 | 43.7 | 98.6 | 1.4 | ||
| MD | 10 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| MA | 11 | 1* | 905 | 63.3 | 36.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 1 | 528 | 54.5 | 45.5 | 93.2 | 6.8 | ||
| MN | 10 | 1 | 1137 | 55.4 | 44.6 | 99.5 | 0.5 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1* | 717 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 1 | 524 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1 | 356 | 40.4 | 59.6 | 0.4 | 99.6 | ||
| NE | 2 | 1* | 658 | 42.7 | 57.3 | 0.5 | 99.5 | ||
| NE1 | 1 | 1* | 269 | 50.6 | 49.4 | 55.0 | 45.0 | ||
| NE2 | 1 | 1* | 204 | 45.6 | 54.4 | 18.7 | 81.3 | ||
| NE3 | 1 | 1* | 185 | 29.2 | 70.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| NV | 6 | 1* | 513 | 53.4 | 46.6 | 86.0 | 14.0 | ||
| NH | 4 | 1 | 446 | 55.6 | 44.4 | 95.0 | 5.0 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 1 | 1256 | 55.8 | 44.2 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| NM | 5 | 1* | 455 | 58.2 | 41.8 | 99.4 | 0.6 | ||
| NY | 29 | 2 | 1273 | 65.1 | 34.9 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 2 | 971 | 49.0 | 51.0 | 33.6 | 66.4 | ||
| ND | 3 | 1* | 480 | 41.3 | 58.8 | 0.4 | 99.6 | ||
| OH | 18 | 2 | 2130 | 52.1 | 47.9 | 91.3 | 8.7 | ||
| OK | 7 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| OR | 7 | 1* | 464 | 54.7 | 45.3 | 92.3 | 7.7 | ||
| PA | 20 | 1 | 436 | 57.8 | 42.2 | 98.8 | 1.2 | ||
| RI | 4 | 1* | 495 | 59.4 | 40.6 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| SC | 9 | 1* | 1833 | 51.7 | 48.3 | 85.2 | 14.8 | ||
| SD | 3 | 1* | 454 | 37.7 | 62.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1* | 1139 | 47.5 | 52.5 | 12.0 | 88.0 | ||
| TX | 38 | 1 | 637 | 46.2 | 53.8 | 8.9 | 91.1 | ||
| UT | 6 | 1* | 688 | 33.0 | 67.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| VT | 3 | 1* | 1085 | 61.4 | 38.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| VA | 13 | 1 | 556 | 50.5 | 49.5 | 56.6 | 43.4 | ||
| WA | 12 | 1* | 496 | 54.2 | 45.8 | 90.7 | 9.3 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1* | 811 | 38.0 | 62.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| WI | 10 | 1 | 616 | 54.5 | 45.5 | 94.6 | 5.4 | ||
| 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 am still skeptical about Virginia and S. Carolina going blue in this next election. I’d love to be surprised, however.
I’ll take Clint Eastwood! Make My Day!
rhp6033,
The SC results may well be a fluke (like, perhaps, the NH results). But that’s where the polls are at now. As I mention, a new SC poll is forthcoming.
Virginia is a different story. Check out the polling history:
Except for one brief period, Obama has dominated in Virginia. The complication is that Romney gained the advantage around election time in 2011. If I had to bet now, I’d call VA a toss-up, but with a very slight edge for Obama.
What’s with Montana? Do they let goats vote there?
Romney thinks a federal law requiring health insurers to cover birth control is tyranny.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com.....conscience
Meanwhile, teen pregnancies are soaring in red states:
“Sex education is failing to reduce adolescent birthrates in conservative states, according to a new study … states with a majority conservative population and higher degree of religiosity tend to have higher teen birthrates. The findings suggest that the social structure of the state, such as the degree of conservatism, can undermine the effect of the sex curricula.”
It appears that while wingnuts are fucking the poor and minorities, their kids are fucking each other.
http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_n.....study-says
And finally, righties are criticizing the Superbowl ad Clint Eastwood did for Chrysler — why do wingnuts hate “American spirit”?
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.co.....l-football
“He gains, on average, +3 electoral votes for a total of 335 to Romney’s 203.”
And that’s after the unfair advantage small red states get in the electoral college! If we had a straight popular-vote election of the president, Romney would be crushed.
Awwwww… Here’s a story that will make right wing dingies cry:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201.....-continue/
Not that anything that comes out of the mouth of that bought and paid for schmuck should be trusted.
I’d like to believe that the recent poll shows that Granite Staters are returning to their senses. The beyond-wacky machinations of the current General Court (lower house of the legislature), such as the proposed Magna Carta basis for all state laws, have awakened popular attention to the awfulness of the GOP.
Hell, even the far-right Manchester Union-Leader casts scorn on the crazies in Concord.
@8 Given conservatives’ track record of ignoring anything in the Constitution that they find momentarily inconvenient (e.g., due process, right to jury trial, etc.), the Magna Carta wouldn’t fare any better, so why do they even bother? When you don’t believe in the rule of law, any document — regardless of what it’s called — its just a meaningless scrap of paper.
A Constitution or Magna Carta is no more meaningful than your willingness to impeach and remove an office holder of your own party for violating it.
@7 There are many pieces to the re-election puzzle, and most of them are lining up for Obama. The GOP is splintered, will have a weak and flawed nominee, faces voter backlash over its obstructionist behavior in Congress, and lacks a positive message. (They’re even bashing Clint Eastwood for talking about “American spirit”!) And wildcard events may work in Obama’s favor; for example, if war erupts with Iran, voters will be loathe to change commanders in chief. It just isn’t in the stars for the GOP to retake the W.H. this year, so if they’re smart, they’ll write off their presidential candidate and devote their resources to hanging onto as many House seats as possible and expanding their representation in the Senate.