Here we go. This is the first in a series of analyses for the 2012 elections. For this analysis, I am including all state head-to-head polls collected over the past two months as “current” polls, or the most recent poll before that if there are no “current” polls. There are still eight states and D.C. that have not been polled yet.
| Obama | Romney |
| 88.6% probability of winning | 11.4% probability of winning |
| Mean of 306 electoral votes | Mean of 232 electoral votes |
Following 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 88,623 times and Romney wins 11,377 times (and Romney also gets the 468 ties). Obama receives (on average) 306 to Romney’s 232 electoral votes. This suggests that, if this election was held now, Obama would have a 88.6% probability of winning and Romney would have a 11.4% probability of winning.
Here is the resulting distribution of electoral votes [FAQ]:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama:
- 299 electoral votes with a 1.52% probability
- 294 electoral votes with a 1.50% probability
- 302 electoral votes with a 1.50% probability
- 293 electoral votes with a 1.46% probability
- 307 electoral votes with a 1.45% probability
- 308 electoral votes with a 1.44% probability
- 298 electoral votes with a 1.39% probability
- 309 electoral votes with a 1.39% probability
- 310 electoral votes with a 1.37% probability
- 300 electoral votes with a 1.35% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Obama wins 88.6%, Romney wins 11.4%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 305.5 (30.2)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Romney: 232.5 (30.2)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 305 (247, 366)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Romney: 233 (172, 291)
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 | 132 | |||
| Strong Obama | 58 | 190 | ||
| Leans Obama | 111 | 111 | 301 | |
| Weak Obama | 16 | 16 | 16 | 317 |
| Weak Romney | 20 | 20 | 20 | 221 |
| Leans Romney | 76 | 76 | 201 | |
| Strong Romney | 55 | 125 | ||
| Safe Romney | 70 |
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 | 455 | 46.2 | 53.8 | 11.5 | 88.5 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1* | 1744 | 40.4 | 59.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 4 | 3378 | 58.1 | 41.9 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 1 | 730 | 51.1 | 48.9 | 66.8 | 33.2 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1* | 544 | 51.1 | 48.9 | 63.9 | 36.1 | ||
| DE | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| DC | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| FL | 29 | 4 | 4016 | 51.2 | 48.8 | 86.5 | 13.5 | ||
| GA | 16 | 2 | 911 | 42.8 | 57.2 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| 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 | 97.1 | 2.9 | ||
| IN | 11 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| IA | 6 | 1 | 1277 | 54.1 | 45.9 | 98.1 | 1.9 | ||
| KS | 6 | 2 | 1143 | 39.4 | 60.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 528 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 6.9 | 93.1 | ||
| LA | 8 | 1* | 542 | 41.1 | 58.9 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| ME | 4 | 1* | 586 | 56.3 | 43.7 | 98.7 | 1.3 | ||
| MD | 10 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| MA | 11 | 1* | 905 | 63.3 | 36.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 1 | 522 | 47.1 | 52.9 | 18.1 | 81.8 | ||
| MN | 10 | 1 | 456 | 53.3 | 46.7 | 83.5 | 16.5 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1 | 717 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 1 | 435 | 48.3 | 51.7 | 29.6 | 70.4 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1 | 1462 | 44.5 | 55.5 | 0.2 | 99.9 | ||
| NE | 2 | 1* | 658 | 42.7 | 57.3 | 0.3 | 99.7 | ||
| NE1 | 1 | 1* | 269 | 50.6 | 49.4 | 54.8 | 45.2 | ||
| NE2 | 1 | 1* | 204 | 45.6 | 54.4 | 18.8 | 81.2 | ||
| NE3 | 1 | 1* | 185 | 29.2 | 70.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| NV | 6 | 1 | 513 | 53.4 | 46.6 | 86.2 | 13.8 | ||
| NH | 4 | 3 | 1995 | 47.5 | 52.5 | 6.0 | 94.0 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 2 | 2274 | 57.0 | 43.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NM | 5 | 1 | 455 | 58.2 | 41.8 | 99.4 | 0.6 | ||
| NY | 29 | 2 | 1753 | 61.6 | 38.4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 1 | 796 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.4 | 49.6 | ||
| ND | 3 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| OH | 18 | 2 | 2152 | 51.8 | 48.2 | 88.4 | 11.6 | ||
| OK | 7 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| OR | 7 | 1 | 464 | 54.7 | 45.3 | 92.7 | 7.3 | ||
| PA | 20 | 4 | 2785 | 49.4 | 50.6 | 33.5 | 66.5 | ||
| RI | 4 | 1* | 495 | 59.4 | 40.6 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| SC | 9 | 1 | 1833 | 51.7 | 48.3 | 84.4 | 15.6 | ||
| SD | 3 | 1 | 454 | 37.7 | 62.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1* | 499 | 38.5 | 61.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| TX | 38 | 1* | 560 | 48.6 | 51.4 | 32.3 | 67.7 | ||
| 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 | 1516 | 50.5 | 49.5 | 60.0 | 40.0 | ||
| 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* | 445 | 52.8 | 47.2 | 79.7 | 20.3 | ||
| 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 here.
Just in case someone hasn’t said this lately: Thank you, Darryl.
SC is bluer than PA? There’s some conventional wisdom out the door.
Carl @ 2,
The SC results are based on one (fairly large) poll. The PA results are based on 5 current polls. I suspect SC will blush a bit as new polls come in….
Have said since 2008 that you can’t beat somebody with nobody.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
2, 3
I can’t imagine a scenario in which Obama takes South Carolina. Have there been demographic changes (increased Latino population, for instance) since 2008 that might give him a chance?
Here’s the ACLU report card on this crew.
http://www.aclulibertywatch.or.....rtCard.pdf
@7
There’s a lot of zeros on that list.
Thanks Darryl! You’ve clearly put a lot of work into it.
Here’s something also interesting. This is a humdinger of a decision. Wish other states would/could follow their lead:
Montana High Court Says ‘Citizens United’ Does Not Apply In Big Sky State
State Supreme Court Issues Remarkable Ruling Against Corporate Speech
January 1, 2012 |
http://www.alternet.org/story/....._court_say
Montana’s Supreme Court has issued a stunning rebuke to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 that infamously decreed corporations had constitutional rights to directly spend money on ‘independent expenditures’ in campaigns.
@9 Ditto me, thanks Darryl, for your efforts.
I note your analysis doesn’t take into account the possible wildcard of a 3rd-party candidate. Donald Trump says he’s going to try to get on the ballot in all 50 states, but I don’t think he’ll draw off a significant number of votes — he’s a pipsqueak. I don’t think Ron Paul will run as an independent, but if he does, he could draw off 10% of the GOP voting base, which easily throws the election to Obama and raises O’s EC count through the roof by putting many more states in his column.
Zotz, FricknFrack and Roger Rabbit,
Thanks!
Re Montana Supreme Court decision…Wow! I hope other states and their courts take up that same narrow interpretation to Citizen’s United. I like how the dissenting opinion actually makes a strong and effective argument against the Robert’s Court decision.
Roger Rabbit wrote:
“I note your analysis doesn’t take into account the possible wildcard of a 3rd-party candidate.”
It does in most regards. I do collect an “other” vote, that is the sum of 3rd party candidates plus undecideds. But there isn’t much I would want to do with the information. The only way a third party changes the outcome is if they win a state (or a district in NE or ME). That doesn’t seem very likely to me.
In 1992, Perot, arguably the most successful third party candidate in our time in the sense of broad appeal over the entire country, received almost 19% of the popular vote. But he did not get any electoral votes. In the past 100 years, something like three third party candidates have gotten electoral college votes, the most recent one was the 1972 Libertarian Party candidate John Hospers. He was only on the ballot in Washington and Colorado, but received his single vote from a faithless Virginia elector.
But…if a seriously strong third party candidate gets into the race, I’ll modify the software to account for electors won by him or her (the faithful ones anyway).
9
God, I love Montana. Now, I love its Supreme Court.
Obama will win re-election, but the House will remain in the hands of the Reps. The Senate will be about even-Steven, Dems and Reps, after the 2012 election.
I’ll still write in Ron Paul for prez and Dennis Kucinich for vice-prez. I think it’s important to vote for who you really want because it shows those professional politicians that their poo stinks as badly as anyone elses. Key-rhyst! We vote these guys and gals into office, and they act like they’re little gods and goddesses! Voting for somebody other than them shows these egotistical assholes they ain’t the center of the fucking universe!
# 11: I think the impact of a third-party candidacy isn’t the number of electoral votes he wins (unlikely), but the number of disproportianate votes he takes away from one of the other two mainstream candidates, especially in a closely-fought state. Ralph Nadar didn’t pick up any electoral votes in 2000, but he did pick off just enough votes in Flordia which probably would have otherwise gone to Gore to cost Gore the state, and the 2000 election.
Talk about a disasterous result!!!!
* Probably no 9/11 (Gore wouldn’t have dismissed the August 2000 warning with a curt “OK, you’ve covered your tail now”).
* No American troops in Afganistan or Iraq, with loss of life, limb, and treasure.
* A balanced national budget (budget surpluses would have paid down the national debt to zero by 2008, instead of tax cuts to the rich).
* Regulatory agencies keeping track on new “investment vehicles” such as mortgage bundling, and issuing warnings and possibly regulations.
* No dismanteling of FEMA in advance of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
You’re analyzing an existing President versus a candidate who has not been chosen by his party and only became the front runner a month ago?
# 15: Well, it’s better than evaluating him against a “generic” Republican.
And the way things are trending, analyzing him against Romney is more logical than any of the other candidates. Romney has the best chance nationally against Obama in the general election. All the others might be able to come in first or second in a caucus dominated by wingnut turnout, but that hardly means they are going to win the nomination, much less the general election.
@11 The important possible effect of a third-party candidacy would be to flip the electoral votes of a state from one major party candidate to the other by drawing off enough of a major party’s voters. But I’m sure you realize that.
John Bailo @ 15,
“You’re analyzing an existing President versus a candidate who has not been chosen by his party”
Yes.
“and only became the front runner a month ago?”
When he became a front runner is not particularly relevant. What is important from an analytical perspective is that there is sufficient polling in the race. At this point I have about 150 state polls–all collected over the past year–that put Obama and Romney head-to-head. If another candidate becomes a serious frontrunner, I’ll analyze poll results for that candidate instead of (or in addition to) Romney.
Romney has consistently done better against Obama than other G.O.P. candidates in national polls. For example, the current Real Clear Politics’s averages from national polling give:
Obama—Romney: Obama +1.6
Obama—Gingrich: Obama +8.9
Obama—Perry: Obama +12.5
Obama—Paul: Obama +7.7
Obama—Bachmann: Obama +15
Obama—Huntsman: Obama +10.7
Obama—Santorum: Obama +11.7
As much as I would love for one of the other candidates to get the G.O.P. nomination, Republicans will, ultimately, go with the person most likely to beat Obama.
This is precisely what happened in 2008…McCain usually polled better than other Republican candidates against Obama, Clinton and Edwards, even while he was polling poorly among Republicans. And McCain came from behind to take the nomination.
rhp6033@ 14 (and Roger Rabbit @ 17),
” I think the impact of a third-party candidacy isn’t the number of electoral votes he wins (unlikely), but the number of disproportianate votes he takes away from one of the other two mainstream candidates, especially in a closely-fought state.”
Yes…but this part IS explicitly handled by the Monte Carlo analyses, since that impact is usually* quantified by polls. What the analyses DON’T do currently, is allow for the possibility of a 3rd party candidate actually snagging one or more electoral votes.
*Of course, some polls use lousy methods and, after listing Obama and Romney, don’t have a category, “someone else” and “I don’t know”.
President Obama saved Michigan’s Auto Industry. Romney basically said multiple times that it should be liquidated. The Auto Industry employs the majority of the state. There is no way that Romney wins Michigan.
Wow, lots to think about. PA to Romney, but VA, NC, NV, and Florida to Obama! I hope you’re right.