| Obama | Santorum |
| 99.7% probability of winning | 0.3% probability of winning |
| Mean of 329 electoral votes | Mean of 209 electoral votes |
There have been 17 new polls released since my last analysis of the state head-to-head polls with President Barack Obama against Rick Santorum:
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | S | diff |
| AZ | Rasmussen | 13-Mar | 13-Mar | 500 | 4.5 | 44 | 45 | S+1 |
| CT | Quinnipiac | 14-Mar | 19-Mar | 1622 | 2.4 | 55 | 35 | O+20 |
| FL | Rasmussen | 13-Mar | 13-Mar | 500 | 4.5 | 45 | 43 | O+2 |
| ME | PPP | 02-Mar | 04-Mar | 1256 | 2.8 | 58 | 35 | O+23 |
| MA | PPP | 16-Mar | 18-Mar | 936 | 3.2 | 61 | 29 | O+32 |
| MO | Rasmussen | 14-Mar | 15-Mar | 500 | 4.5 | 42 | 51 | S+9 |
| NE | Rasmussen | 05-Mar | 05-Mar | 500 | 4.5 | 37 | 49 | S+12 |
| NH | ARG | 15-Mar | 18-Mar | 557 | 4.2 | 48 | 37 | O+11 |
| NJ | Fairleigh Dickinson U | 05-Mar | 11-Mar | 800 | 3.5 | 54 | 33 | O+21 |
| NM | Rasmussen | 14-Feb | 14-Feb | 500 | 4.5 | 55 | 37 | O+18 |
| NY | Siena | 26-Feb | 29-Feb | 808 | 3.4 | 64 | 30 | O+34 |
| NC | PPP | 08-Mar | 11-Mar | 804 | 3.5 | 49 | 44 | O+5 |
| OR | SurveyUSA | 14-Mar | 19-Mar | 1615 | 2.5 | 49.3 | 39.5 | O+9.8 |
| PA | PPP | 08-Mar | 12-Mar | 564 | 4.1 | 48 | 46 | O+2 |
| PA | Quinnipiac | 07-Mar | 12-Mar | 1256 | 2.8 | 45 | 44 | O+1 |
| VA | PPP | 20-Mar | 20-Mar | 500 | 4.5 | 53 | 39 | O+14 |
| VA | Quinnipiac | 13-Mar | 18-Mar | 1034 | 3.1 | 49 | 40 | O+9 |
The most interesting result is that Obama leads in both Pennsylvania polls—that is, in Santorum’s home state. Obama also has a small lead in Florida.
The previous analysis showed President Barack Obama leading Santorum by a mean of 338 to 200 electoral votes, and a 100% probability of winning an election held then.
Today’s Monte Carlo analysis employing 100,000 simulated elections, gives Obama 99,695 wins to Santorum 305 wins (including the 45 ties). Obama receives (on average) 329 to Santorum’s 209 electoral votes. In an election held now, Obama would be expected to win with a 99.7% probability, Santorum would win with a 0.3% probability of winning.
Remarkably, Santorum is doing better against Obama than Mitt Romney was two days ago, where Obama had a 100% probability of winning with a mean of 339 to Romney’s 199 electoral votes.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama:
- 332 electoral votes with a 3.53% probability
- 341 electoral votes with a 3.43% probability
- 352 electoral votes with a 2.91% probability
- 323 electoral votes with a 2.63% probability
- 312 electoral votes with a 2.59% probability
- 321 electoral votes with a 2.25% probability
- 343 electoral votes with a 2.15% probability
- 347 electoral votes with a 2.12% probability
- 331 electoral votes with a 2.02% probability
- 338 electoral votes with a 1.99% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Obama wins 99.7%, Santorum wins 0.3%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 328.8 (21.7)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Santorum: 209.2 (21.7)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 330 (285, 368)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Santorum: 208 (170, 253)
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 | 139 | |||
| Strong Obama | 119 | 258 | ||
| Leans Obama | 83 | 83 | 341 | |
| Weak Obama | 0 | 0 | 0 | 341 |
| Weak Santorum | 11 | 11 | 11 | 197 |
| Leans Santorum | 36 | 36 | 186 | |
| Strong Santorum | 75 | 150 | ||
| Safe Santorum | 75 |
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 | 1 | 445 | 49.4 | 50.6 | 43.5 | 56.5 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1* | 1744 | 40.4 | 59.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 1* | 460 | 62.0 | 38.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 1* | 730 | 51.1 | 48.9 | 65.4 | 34.6 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1 | 1460 | 61.1 | 38.9 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| DE | 3 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| DC | 3 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| FL | 29 | 1 | 440 | 51.1 | 48.9 | 63.4 | 36.6 | ||
| 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 | 33.6 | 66.4 | ||
| KS | 6 | 1* | 442 | 45.0 | 55.0 | 7.2 | 92.8 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 528 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 7.4 | 92.6 | ||
| LA | 8 | 1* | 542 | 41.1 | 58.9 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| ME | 4 | 1 | 1168 | 62.3 | 37.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MD | 10 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| MA | 11 | 2 | 1332 | 69.0 | 31.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 1* | 2645 | 65.5 | 34.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MN | 10 | 1* | 461 | 57.5 | 42.5 | 98.8 | 1.2 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1* | 717 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 1 | 465 | 45.2 | 54.8 | 6.9 | 93.1 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1* | 430 | 47.7 | 52.3 | 25.0 | 75.0 | ||
| NE | 2 | 1 | 430 | 43.0 | 57.0 | 2.3 | 97.7 | ||
| NE1 | 1 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE2 | 1 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE3 | 1 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NV | 6 | 1 | 440 | 59.1 | 40.9 | 99.7 | 0.3 | ||
| NH | 4 | 1 | 473 | 56.4 | 43.6 | 97.8 | 2.2 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 2 | 1897 | 61.0 | 39.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NM | 5 | 1* | 460 | 59.8 | 40.2 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| NY | 29 | 1 | 759 | 68.1 | 31.9 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 1 | 748 | 52.7 | 47.3 | 84.8 | 15.2 | ||
| ND | 3 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| OH | 18 | 1 | 1293 | 58.2 | 41.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| OK | 7 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| OR | 7 | 1 | 1434 | 55.5 | 44.5 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| PA | 20 | 2 | 1648 | 50.7 | 49.3 | 64.9 | 35.1 | ||
| RI | 4 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| SC | 9 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| SD | 3 | 1* | 436 | 42.2 | 57.8 | 1.1 | 98.9 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1* | 1206 | 47.5 | 52.5 | 11.3 | 88.7 | ||
| TX | 38 | 1* | 466 | 42.1 | 57.9 | 0.8 | 99.2 | ||
| UT | 6 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| VT | 3 | 1* | 728 | 65.9 | 34.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| VA | 13 | 3 | 2451 | 58.9 | 41.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| WA | 12 | 1* | 1163 | 56.5 | 43.5 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| WV | 5 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| WI | 10 | 2 | 1273 | 51.1 | 48.9 | 72.1 | 27.9 | ||
| 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.
“Barack Obama’s health care bill is nothing new. Mitt Romney signed one just like it four years before.”
http://www.politifact.com/texa.....nt-barack/
Pants on fire lie? False?
Sorry right wingers – mostly true…
Who are you talking to??? If, as you said here, you don’t want anyone with views you don’t share on this site, then surely you wouldn’t want to encourage “right wingers” to participate by saying something like that?… Perhaps you do want “right wingers” but just don’t want any “Fuselage Independents” around. Strange to want 2 extremes but nothing in the middle, sounds like the problem we have in congress…..
Since I’m not a right winger, I’ll pass.
2 – Prove me wrong Dave. Go to (un)soundpolitics and try your “fuselage” act there.
3. YLB-
See @87 #2 for your answer. I don’t doubt there are ppl there that could use lessons on the fuselage mentality as well. I’m currently busy enough helping ppl on this site so first things first.
4 – Until you do this “missionary” work of yours at (un)soundpolitics.com, I will ignore you and I highly recommend everyone else to do the same.
Hey! It looks like you listened to @4 and finally took the advice at @87 #2. Good job, you’re learning. Although you said as much here, and here and now here (@5 above).
However, if you come to your senses (see if Rabbits wife can hit you over the head with that frying pan) in the future I’m very forgiving and willing to help. ;-)
Hey Dave, do us all a favor and clean the sticky peanut butter and jelly out of your keyboard’s bold key.
Scummy Santorum TV Spot
A new TV spot by Ricky Sanitarium’s campaign uses subliminal messaging to equate President Obama with Iran’s Ahmadinejad.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_n.....hmadinejad
What Took Them So Long?
“Republicans joined the call for an investigation into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin on Friday ….”
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.c.....in-inquiry
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Republicans got together, energized their one collective brain cell by hooking it up to a flashlight battery, and then thought for a month before figuring out they should be against vigilante murder, too. I wonder how many times they had to change batteries before reaching this conclusion?
@9,
I imagine the trial lawyers in Florida are trying to figure out a way to sue the condo association for wrongful death. This Zimmerman guy probably hasn’t got a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, so the next deepest pocket for the trial lawyers is probably going to be the condo association. If that doesn’t work, they’ll probably try to go after the city, county or state. There’s no telling what they’ll try to get a big judgement.
We need a loser-pay tort system to discourage the trial lawyers.