[Update: An analysis using more recent polls can be found here.]
| Obama | Romney |
| 100.0% probability of winning | 0.0% probability of winning |
| Mean of 348 electoral votes | Mean of 190 electoral votes |
A handful of new state head-to-head polls, including two from swing states, have come out since the previous analysis. Obama leads in all five:
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
| CA | SurveyUSA | 08-Feb | 10-Feb | 2088 | 2.1 | 60 | 31 | O+29 |
| FL | Rasmussen | 09-Feb | 09-Feb | 500 | 4.5 | 47 | 44 | O+3 |
| MA | WBUR | 06-Feb | 09-Feb | 503 | 4.4 | 55 | 34 | O+21 |
| NY | Quinnipiac | 08-Feb | 13-Feb | 1233 | 2.8 | 52 | 35 | O+17 |
| OH | Quinnipiac | 07-Feb | 12-Feb | 1421 | 2.6 | 46 | 44 | O+2 |
California has Obama crushing Romney by +29%. Massachusetts, a state Romney once governed, has Obama up by nearly as much (+21%). New York supports Obama over Romney by +17%.
In Ohio, the new poll gives Obama a slender +2% lead over Romney. Obama has led in all four Ohio polls taken this year. The polling suggests to me that Ohio may not be so much a swing state this year….
We now have our first February poll out of Florida. This one gives Obama a thin +3% lead over Romney. Obama leads in the two most recent Florida polls; Romney led in the two January polls before that.
Florida looks more like a swing state than does Ohio, but the recent trend looks favorable for Obama:
The previous analysis showed President Barack Obama leading Romney by 344 to 194 electoral votes and a probability of winning of 99.8%.
With the new polls included, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 99,989 times and Romney wins 11 times. If an election was held now, we expect Obama to win with nearly 100% probability. Obama’s average electoral vote total climbed by +4 to 348, whereas Romney’s average is now 190 electoral votes.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama:
- 357 electoral votes with a 3.64% probability
- 342 electoral votes with a 3.19% probability
- 352 electoral votes with a 3.08% probability
- 358 electoral votes with a 2.99% probability
- 348 electoral votes with a 2.78% probability
- 367 electoral votes with a 2.72% probability
- 351 electoral votes with a 2.61% probability
- 343 electoral votes with a 2.40% probability
- 341 electoral votes with a 2.40% probability
- 356 electoral votes with a 2.38% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Obama wins 100.0%, Romney wins 0.0%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 347.9 (20.2)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Romney: 190.1 (20.2)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 348 (308, 394)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Romney: 190 (144, 230)
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 | 138 | |||
| Strong Obama | 166 | 304 | ||
| Leans Obama | 37 | 37 | 341 | |
| Weak Obama | 26 | 26 | 26 | 367 |
| Weak Romney | 0 | 0 | 0 | 171 |
| Leans Romney | 23 | 23 | 171 | |
| 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 | 13.7 | 86.3 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1* | 1744 | 40.4 | 59.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 1 | 1900 | 65.9 | 34.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 1* | 730 | 51.1 | 48.9 | 65.3 | 34.7 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1 | 435 | 57.5 | 42.5 | 98.8 | 1.2 | ||
| DE | 3 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| DC | 3 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| FL | 29 | 5 | 5607 | 51.6 | 48.4 | 95.2 | 4.8 | ||
| GA | 16 | 1 | 1072 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 1.9 | 98.1 | ||
| 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* | 1277 | 54.1 | 45.9 | 97.9 | 2.1 | ||
| KS | 6 | 1* | 442 | 45.0 | 55.0 | 7.2 | 92.8 | ||
| 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 | 98.3 | 1.7 | ||
| MD | 10 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| MA | 11 | 1 | 448 | 61.8 | 38.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 1 | 528 | 54.5 | 45.5 | 92.9 | 7.1 | ||
| MN | 10 | 2 | 1598 | 56.0 | 44.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1* | 717 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 1 | 524 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.4 | 49.6 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1* | 356 | 40.4 | 59.6 | 0.4 | 99.6 | ||
| NE | 2 | 1* | 658 | 42.7 | 57.3 | 0.4 | 99.6 | ||
| NE1 | 1 | 1* | 269 | 50.6 | 49.4 | 54.1 | 45.9 | ||
| NE2 | 1 | 1* | 204 | 45.6 | 54.4 | 18.5 | 81.5 | ||
| 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 | 95.1 | 4.9 | ||
| 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 | 3 | 2346 | 62.7 | 37.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 1 | 978 | 50.5 | 49.5 | 58.9 | 41.1 | ||
| ND | 3 | 1* | 480 | 41.3 | 58.8 | 0.4 | 99.6 | ||
| OH | 18 | 3 | 2455 | 52.2 | 47.8 | 93.8 | 6.2 | ||
| OK | 7 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| OR | 7 | 1* | 464 | 54.7 | 45.3 | 92.3 | 7.7 | ||
| PA | 20 | 2 | 876 | 53.3 | 46.7 | 92.1 | 7.9 | ||
| 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* | 454 | 37.7 | 62.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1* | 1139 | 47.5 | 52.5 | 11.6 | 88.4 | ||
| TX | 38 | 1* | 637 | 46.2 | 53.8 | 8.4 | 91.6 | ||
| 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 | 2 | 1946 | 51.7 | 48.3 | 86.2 | 13.8 | ||
| WA | 12 | 1* | 496 | 54.2 | 45.8 | 91.2 | 8.8 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1* | 811 | 38.0 | 62.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| WI | 10 | 1 | 616 | 54.5 | 45.5 | 94.5 | 5.5 | ||
| 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 trends suggest that the Rs should just throw in the towel and concede the election. We could then get on with letting the adults govern without the distraction of a campaign.
Proud leftist,
I suspect Romney’s poor showing comes, in part, because of the shit-fight going on for the GOP primary. Once an nominee is selected, the race should tighten up a bit. Maybe.
LMFAO…thats funny, you seem to have a completely different take on the gubernatorial election..
by your logic, inslee should just throw in the towel, because he way behind the poles..
consistency in logic…not.
bottom line: obama will win. McKenna will win.
live with it.
Darryl, were any of Romney’s 11 wins due to ties that went to the House to be decided?
If there were enough head-to-head polls to make it meaningful to do an Obama-Santorum analysis, I bet Obama would wipe the floor with Rick … at least 11 fewer wins than Romney racked up in your standard 100,000 trials.
Of course, after the election was over, the Prez would have to have that floor extensively scrubbed to remove all the santorum from it.
3
Major difference between the gubernatorial and presidential polling, and that would be public familiarity with the candidates. Washington voters know McKenna, but not Jay so much. The more they get to know him, the more they will like him.
That said, do you think it’s possible that my post above was tongue-in-cheek? Do any of you wingies recognize satire?
Nate Silver’s projection (snapshot)from today,gave
Obama a probability of 60% to beat Romney in the popular vote-surely that wouldn’t correlate to your
99.8% probability for Obama defeating Romney.
Silver’s # crunching was terrific in the 2008 state by state estimates.
What gives?
@5
do any of you communists know how to write satire?
a comedian you are not.
Spoken like a true fascist.
@8
and interpreted like a true idiot.
well done, pumpy.
Ekim
We should feel blessed for the thoughtful, considered discourse that Mr. Teach provides us. I certainly feel better educated as a result of his contributions.
Christ, talking about setting the bar low…
Eastsider,
“Nate Silver’s projection (snapshot)from today,gave Obama a probability of 60% to beat Romney in the popular vote-surely that wouldn’t correlate to your 99.8% probability for Obama defeating Romney.”
Silver is doing something very different:
He is using a rather fuzzy (and, I suspect, rather proprietary) forecast model that makes use of approval ratings and some sort of economic data. (He is also looking at popular vote, whereas I am looking at electoral votes, but that is not overly important.)
I am using raw state head-to-head state polls only to do these analyses. Silver did similar analyses in 2008 (I don’t think he is doing them at this point). But in 2008, Silver “augmented” his analyses with a pseudo-poll that took into account other state characteristics (demographic and economic, IIRC). His exact methods were almost impossible to follow from the descriptions he gave. He also used a method of weighting polls that, in my opinion, caused more problems than it solved. His analyses always seemed to WAY over-disperse the distribution of electoral college vote outcomes.
“Silver’s # crunching was terrific in the 2008 state by state estimates. What gives?”
Silver’s number crunching in 2008 wasn’t particularly good by one measure.
Here is his last pre-election post and here is mine. We both missed a single state—Indiana. The late polling in Indiana gave McCain a sliver of a lead, and the “big poll” came down in favor of Obama by a 1% margin.
For the electoral college, Mr. Silver projected a 349 to 189 victory for Obama and I projected a 364 to 174 victory for Obama. The actual result was 365 to 173. I was off by one vote.
This one vote discrepancy, in fact, reflected a weakness of my analysis then. I ignored the possibility that either Nebraska or Maine might split their electoral votes. Nebraska’s 1st district did split in 2008, giving one of the state’s electors to Obama. If I had included this little detail, the district-level polling results indicates that my projection would have been spot on. Of course, I am now allowing for that possibility (although there isn’t district-level polling data available for Maine yet).
So my answer is: my methods are straight-forward, fully replicable (i.e. someone familiar with Monte Carlo simulation methods can read my methods, and with the same polling data, get results that are nearly identical), and make the minimum number of assumptions. My results produced excellent results in 2008.
Edward Teach and Ekim,
This is not an open thread. Take it to one if you feel the need to continue…
N in Seattle,
“Darryl, were any of Romney’s 11 wins due to ties that went to the House to be decided?”
Probably…I frequently report the number of ties, but didn’t do it this time, and the original file was overwritten. Update: I found the file…none of the 11 Romney wins were a tie in this case. As I’ve pointed out in the past, ties are treated as Romney wins, under the assumption that the House is under Republican control for purposes of the weird-ass method defined for breaking ties.
“If there were enough head-to-head polls to make it meaningful to do an Obama-Santorum analysis, I bet Obama would wipe the floor with Rick … at least 11 fewer wins than Romney racked up in your standard 100,000 trials.”
I do have all the most recent Santorum polling data entered, and Obama would wipe the floor with
Santorum(um…let’s say) Rick. My analysis last Sunday (unpublished) has Obama taking 362 to 176 electoral votes, and winning all 100,000 simulated elections.I didn’t post the analysis because I am unsatisfied with the quantity of polling data. There are only 13 states that have Santorum polls (ewwwww!!!). There is one or two more as of the last couple of day.
@7 Do any of you idiots realize we’re not communists?
When a winger starts calling people commies, that’s a sure sign he’s out of rhetorical ammo.
Looking at the results, throwing Ron Paul into the mix doesn’t entirely take away support from Romney. It also drains some support, 5%, from Obama.
Obama 49 Romney 38
Obama 44 Romney + Paul 45
Of course it drains more support from Romney than Obama, Romney loses 10 points from his total, which was already behind Obama’s total.
Of course, a third-party challenge usually collects support from those who are completely disgusted with the other two options available PLUS those who are just two confused by accusations/facts/arguments posed by the two major candidates they just want to pick a “middle ground”. This latter part were the same type of folks who voted for Ross Perot.
Which raises the issue: if Paul manages to mount a credible third-party effort, could this throw the election into the House of Representatives? If so, the Obama would be the big winner by popular vote, then still lose the election to Romney in the House. The resulting outcry over that result might well be the end of not only the electoral college system, but the GOP as well. (The election where the House put John Quncy Adams in the White House brought out charges of a political pay-off: the end result was that Jackson swept into office and won the first two-term Presidency in a very long time, ending the U.S. Bank (which had supported Adams campaign with it’s funding) and giving the Whig party what was the first of it’s ultimately fatal blows.