| Obama | Romney |
| 100.0% probability of winning | 0.0% probability of winning |
| Mean of 341 electoral votes | Mean of 197 electoral votes |
Beginning this analysis, I’ve narrowed the “current polling window.” The old window included all polls taken within the past month. That criterion resulted in some states with many “current” polls, including some pre-conventions polls.
The new criterion is three weeks, so that almost all the polling occurs after the conventions. You can expect the window to shrink to two weeks sometime in October.
There are two effects from shrinking the window. First, the number of individuals polled goes down for some states. With fewer respondents, we have less evidence and, therefore, uncertainty increases (all else being equal).
The other effect is that there is less smoothing of the results. That is, the results become more indicative of trends.
Taken together, we might expect that Governor Mitt Romney’s chances improve through the increase in uncertainty. We can also expect Romney’s chances to decrease as a result of a recent poll surge for Obama. As it happens, the latter has a much stronger effect. The net effect is that Romney takes a beating….
The previous analysis had Obama leading Romney by 331 to 207 electoral votes, and the analysis suggested that Obama would almost certainly win an election held now.
Nineteen new polls covering 13 states have appeared in the past two days. Additionally, I’ve found four older polls (one each in AL, CO, OH, and FL) by comparing my database against Samuel Minter’s database.
Here are the new polls:
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
| AR | Talk Business-Hendrix College | 17-Sep | 17-Sep | 2228 | 2.0 | 34.5 | 55.5 | R+21.0 |
| CO | PPP | 20-Sep | 23-Sep | 940 | 3.2 | 51 | 45 | O+6 |
| FL | PPP | 20-Sep | 23-Sep | 861 | 3.3 | 50 | 46 | O+4 |
| FL | WA Post | 19-Sep | 23-Sep | 769 | 4.5 | 51 | 47 | O+4 |
| FL | ARG | 20-Sep | 22-Sep | 600 | 4.0 | 50 | 45 | O+5 |
| IA | ARG | 20-Sep | 23-Sep | 600 | 4.0 | 51 | 44 | O+7 |
| MI | Rasmussen | 20-Sep | 20-Sep | 500 | 4.5 | 54 | 42 | O+12 |
| MN | Mason-Dixon | 17-Sep | 19-Sep | 800 | 3.5 | 48 | 40 | O+8 |
| MT | Mason-Dixon | 17-Sep | 19-Sep | 625 | 4.0 | 42 | 51 | R+9 |
| NV | ARG | 20-Sep | 23-Sep | 600 | 4.0 | 51 | 44 | O+7 |
| NV | NV Retailers | 19-Sep | 20-Sep | 500 | 4.4 | 46 | 46 | tie |
| NV | PPP | 18-Sep | 20-Sep | 501 | 4.4 | 52 | 43 | O+9 |
| NJ | Monmouth | 19-Sep | 23-Sep | 613 | 4.0 | 52 | 37 | O+15 |
| NC | Civitas | 18-Sep | 19-Sep | 600 | 4.0 | 49 | 45 | O+4 |
| OH | Gravis Marketing | 21-Sep | 22-Sep | 594 | 4.3 | 45.3 | 44.3 | O+1.0 |
| OH | WA Post | 19-Sep | 23-Sep | 759 | 4.5 | 52 | 44 | O+8 |
| PA | Susquehanna | 18-Sep | 20-Sep | 800 | 3.5 | 47 | 45 | O+2 |
| PA | Mercyhurst U | 12-Sep | 20-Sep | 522 | 4.3 | 48 | 40 | O+8 |
| WI | WeAskAmerica | 20-Sep | 23-Sep | 1238 | 2.8 | 52.5 | 41.0 | O+11.5 |
With this new poll, seven of eight current Colorado polls go to Obama suggesting he would win an election now with about a 95% probability. One can sense from the last three months of polling that Obama is gaining slowly in the state:
Florida has Obama up by +4% in two new polls and +5 in another. Obama has now led in five consecutive polls in the state. That trend we can almost discern in Colorado is even more apparent in Florida:
Romney took the previous Iowa poll, but this new one goes +7% for Obama. The three current polls, take together, suggest Obama has a 95% chance of taking the state right now.
Another solid Michigan poll for Obama leaves him with a certain win in the state (at least, for now).
Three new Nevada polls have Obama up by +7%, +9%, and +0% (i.e. tied). It looks like Obama is regaining the lead he held there six months ago:
The Civitas Institute is a right wing think tank in North Carolina, but they release all their polls. This one has Obama leading by +4%. Obama leads in four of the six current polls and the last three in a row. Still, the weight of evidence goes very slightly to Romney. The trend seems to be in Obama’s favor:
Two new Ohio polls favor Obama, one by a whisper, the other by +8%. Looking at the three month polling trend in the state, the past few weeks have not been kind to Romney:
Obama gets his best and his worst poll in recent months in today’s Pennsylvania collection. Still, it is hard to argue that Obama’s lead isn’t solid:
Finally, a double-digit lead for Obama in Wisconsin caps off a very favorable collection of recent polls in the state for the President. Whatever momentum Romney had in the state in August seems to have almost entirely vanished:
Now after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 100,000 times and Romney wins 0 times. Obama receives (on average) 341 (+10) to Romney’s 197 (-10) electoral votes. In a hypothetical election held now, Obama would have a 100.0% probability of winning.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama:
- 335 electoral votes with a 6.76% probability
- 336 electoral votes with a 6.59% probability
- 346 electoral votes with a 5.98% probability
- 350 electoral votes with a 5.26% probability
- 345 electoral votes with a 4.92% probability
- 351 electoral votes with a 4.54% probability
- 332 electoral votes with a 4.36% probability
- 347 electoral votes with a 4.05% probability
- 331 electoral votes with a 3.81% probability
- 341 electoral votes with a 2.77% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Obama wins 100.0%, Romney wins 0.0%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 341.0 (13.1)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Romney: 197.0 (13.1)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 342 (310, 363)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Romney: 196 (175, 228)
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 | 200 | |||
| Strong Obama | 130 | 330 | ||
| Leans Obama | 5 | 5 | 335 | |
| Weak Obama | 0 | 0 | 0 | 335 |
| Weak Romney | 16 | 16 | 16 | 203 |
| Leans Romney | 10 | 10 | 187 | |
| Strong Romney | 136 | 177 | ||
| Safe Romney | 41 |
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* | 404 | 39.6 | 60.4 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| AK | 3 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| AZ | 11 | 2 | 1521 | 46.5 | 53.5 | 2.5 | 97.5 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1 | 2006 | 38.3 | 61.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 3 | 2219 | 60.6 | 39.4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 8 | 5881 | 51.5 | 48.5 | 94.6 | 5.4 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1 | 432 | 62.3 | 37.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| DE | 3 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| DC | 3 | 1* | 94 | 88.3 | 11.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| FL | 29 | 13 | 10116 | 51.0 | 49.0 | 92.7 | 7.3 | ||
| GA | 16 | 1 | 439 | 38.5 | 61.5 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| HI | 4 | 1* | 517 | 64.8 | 35.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ID | 4 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| IL | 20 | 2 | 2277 | 58.8 | 41.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| IN | 11 | 1* | 344 | 40.7 | 59.3 | 0.7 | 99.3 | ||
| IA | 6 | 3 | 1851 | 52.7 | 47.3 | 94.7 | 5.3 | ||
| KS | 6 | 2* | 1143 | 39.4 | 60.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1 | 557 | 42.4 | 57.6 | 0.5 | 99.5 | ||
| LA | 8 | 1* | 542 | 41.1 | 58.9 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| ME | 2 | 2 | 1533 | 58.7 | 41.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ME1 | 1 | 1 | 412 | 63.3 | 36.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ME2 | 1 | 1 | 364 | 53.8 | 46.2 | 85.1 | 14.9 | ||
| MD | 10 | 1* | 792 | 62.4 | 37.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MA | 11 | 5 | 2768 | 62.8 | 37.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 6 | 3817 | 54.2 | 45.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MN | 10 | 3 | 1982 | 54.3 | 45.7 | 99.7 | 0.3 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1* | 717 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 1 | 465 | 48.4 | 51.6 | 31.8 | 68.2 | ||
| MT | 3 | 2 | 1204 | 46.3 | 53.7 | 3.4 | 96.6 | ||
| NE | 2 | 1 | 728 | 44.0 | 56.0 | 1.1 | 98.9 | ||
| NE1 | 1 | 1* | 389 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 9.6 | 90.4 | ||
| NE2 | 1 | 1 | 352 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 49.8 | 50.2 | ||
| NE3 | 1 | 1* | 284 | 35.9 | 64.1 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| NV | 6 | 5 | 2670 | 52.2 | 47.8 | 95.6 | 4.4 | ||
| NH | 4 | 3 | 1408 | 50.6 | 49.4 | 63.1 | 36.9 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 3 | 1709 | 58.0 | 42.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NM | 5 | 2 | 1633 | 54.8 | 45.2 | 99.6 | 0.4 | ||
| NY | 29 | 1 | 1426 | 64.6 | 35.4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 6 | 3555 | 49.8 | 50.2 | 42.0 | 58.0 | ||
| ND | 3 | 1 | 918 | 53.8 | 46.2 | 95.2 | 4.8 | ||
| OH | 18 | 11 | 8476 | 52.5 | 47.5 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| OK | 7 | 1* | 431 | 33.4 | 66.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| OR | 7 | 1 | 499 | 54.9 | 45.1 | 93.6 | 6.4 | ||
| PA | 20 | 6 | 3858 | 54.1 | 45.9 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| RI | 4 | 1* | 495 | 59.4 | 40.6 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| SC | 9 | 3* | 4199 | 48.2 | 51.8 | 4.7 | 95.3 | ||
| SD | 3 | 1* | 474 | 41.8 | 58.2 | 0.7 | 99.3 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1* | 654 | 46.0 | 54.0 | 7.8 | 92.2 | ||
| TX | 38 | 1 | 950 | 42.1 | 57.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| UT | 6 | 1* | 1149 | 27.7 | 72.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| VT | 3 | 1* | 415 | 71.3 | 28.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| VA | 13 | 9 | 9357 | 51.2 | 48.8 | 95.5 | 4.5 | ||
| WA | 12 | 4 | 1859 | 58.3 | 41.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1* | 361 | 42.1 | 57.9 | 2.2 | 97.8 | ||
| WI | 10 | 6 | 5360 | 54.1 | 45.9 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 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.
Sucks for Bob.
Wow. Just wow.
Colorado, Florida, Ohio, even North Carolina trending away from Willard. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in blow-out territory – at least today.
Yup, as you say, sucks for spongebob.
“Obama receives (on average) 341 (+10) to Romney’s 197 (-10) electoral votes.”
Wouldn’t that be a landslide, Bob? Just sayin’. Sucks to be you.
Conservative trolls:
Romney is doomed.
You know it.
Give up.
And most of those polls continue the trend/theme. Make it about the economy. By 3-5% those polled think Obama will be better for the economy than Willard.
The message is out in the open. We’ve seen Reagonomics. We’ve seen Supply-side, we understand the Randian economy as espoused by Romyan and we don’t like it. We know it doesn’t work.
It’s not just the messenger this time. It’s the whole economic theory that no one is buying. Hmmm…maybe killing a Veterans jobs bill this close to the election just to keep people out of work wasn’t a good idea. Maybe letting the press point out that Paul Ryan personally killed Simpson-Bowles in committee wasn’t smart.
OVERSAMPLING, Yaargh!
Can Obama get to 350 electoral votes. That’s really the only real race left here.
North Carolina? Arizona? Missouri?
Wacha think?
NC 60-40 Obama chance. Az and Mo, no way. Az maybe in a couple cycles. Hillary might win Mo this cycle, a black man is unlikely ever.
It’s been clear since before the R primary ended, way before both conventions, that the Rs could not win the presidency with any of their candidates save — perhaps — John Huntsman. He was out of the way early.
It’s all about control of Congress and has been for months now.
But the race that really matters is what the Rs do after they have their asses handed to them despite billions of dollars and scorched earth voter suppression tactics.
Here’s the thing though: what’s left of the Rs have no shame and cannot be embarrassed. It is totally faith based to them with all that entails: immunity to facts and evidence, “conservatism can only be failed”, etc. Only the Rs can fix themselves: repudiate the racists and glibertarians and rejoin reality, or drift into political oblivion.
Gekko/Galt is the anvil
We are the HAMMER
Hammer it home
The President would be hard-pressed to get many more electoral votes, with just about all the “swing states” lining up behind him. It seems that N. Carolina and Missouri are the only ones left within reach for the President.
Romney, on the other hand, has to overcome a HUGE deficicit in the swing states to make a sweep of most of them in order to win, as the contest stands now.
It seems the electorate is settling down to their positions, and I believe the huge amount of money Romney (and his “independent groups”) are going to be pouring into the campaign won’t have much of an effect. This weekend I realized how many people tune out commercials entirely, and political ones in particular. Most people have found that political commercials are supremely un-helpful in making a decision on how to vote. And lots of people just watch TV via DVR or Netflix, where they can skip commercials entirely.
But there could still be an “October Surprise” orchastrated by the Republicans. Given their history in 1980, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Republican operatives didn’t try to get a war started between Iran and Israel (and simultaneously try to blame it on Obama) just to re-set the board.
I’ve wondered if the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya was an initial attempt at such a strategy – the timing is very suspicious, coming about a week or so after the first opinion polls showed that more people trusted Obama in foreign affairs than Romney. The making of the anti-Mohammod movie seems to have suspicious origins in rather secretive circles within the U.S. The producers of the film clearly wanted a war between the U.S. and Islamic nations – otherwise why sub-title it in Arabic and issue press releases to Egyption journalists?
The other trend that many of the new polls continue to show that if Willard can pick up 100% of the few remaining undecideds, he still loses.
So on to other matters. Will Michelle Bachman be settling into a chair on the Fix News set in January? Scott Brown still look good enough to go back to modeling? How much will the Koch’s spend to lose to Sherrod Brown?
One of the Republican party stalwarts (Lindsey Graham?) was quoted as saying that if Romney loses this election, it’s because of demographics – their base (i.e., white male voters) is becoming an increasingly small share of the electoral pie. His solution? Recruit more minorities into the Republican Party. I presume he meant “hispanics”, but he didn’t want to be that specific.
No mention, however, of actually changing the philosophy of the party to serve the interests of those various minority groups. Instead, if Republicans follow past practices, they will continue the same policies, and rely upon a propoganda campaign to try to convince those minorities that red is green and blue is pink.
@ 3
Steve, I’d call that a landslide unless the popular vote were something like 51-49.
Sucks to be me? Well, I’m not crying for myself and no one else should, either. On a personal level, an Obama win means I retire earlier, my family currently thinks. So I’m OK with the outcome regardless of what it may be.
Well, let’s not have a repeat of 2000.
“Sucks to be me?”
For more reasons than one. Loser.
@12 Kornflake,
I think I can give you the assurance of each right thinking non troll who has ever commented on HA that none of us will be crying for you.
You have my word.
But, before you give up the ghost and slink off with your magical steel to Galt’s Gulch, don’t forget that when Obama/Biden defeats Gekko/Galt you need to be writing a $1,000 check to Daryyl’s favorite charity.
And Kornflake,
Weren’t you just on a thread this weekend spewing some BS about solar power?
Tesla Motors Announces Free, Solar-Powered, Supercharger Stations
“Free Market!” capitalists disagree.
Good article debating the validity of the polls.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....cal-polls/
Carter was ahead of Reagan by 7 points a week or so before the 1980 election and lost by 10. Not saying it will happen here, but often incumbents do not fare as well as the polls say prior to the election.
The Election is about turnout.
The Polls are about predicting who will turnout and how they will vote.
@16 Intrade has President Obama 73% Romney 27% and 16 of 16 professionals have long odds on Mitt. http://www.oddschecker.com/spe.....ion/winner
@16
Right. And the charismatic Romney will totally look cooler than the president over the next few weeks and win the day. BTW, you’re looking at a national number. The battleground EV states aren’t close and getting wider with each new poll. Willard may very well pull to a 50-50 type national vote total. But that won’t mean shit when he loses Florida by 6, Ohio by 4, Virginia by 2 and Pennsylvania by 8. 80% of voters in Utah still only gets 6. 100% of Mississippians counts as 6.
If dreaming of a big Mitt comeback helps you sleep….I knew Ronald Reagan and you Willard aren’t even bonzo..
@18–
I never said Romney would win the election. The issue I’m raising is about the validity of the current polls. If you believe all the assumptions in these polls are true, you have nothing to worry about. Carter believed a week before the election in 1980 that he had it in the bag and got crushed. Most reasonable people on both sides aside from the spin that it does all depend on turnout.
Personally, I do not see Romney winning all 3 of the musts for him..Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Romney must win these 3 states to win. I do question the validity of some of these polls as they are polling Democrats in the same % as 2008. I don’t see that happening. I see the turnout closer to 2010 proportions that 2008. You change the %’s of who you poll and you get different results.
It will be interesting to see the pre-election day poll shifts the week before the election. If you see a poll change drastically in the days before the election, you can reasonable assume they were using their poll to try and sway public opinion, not measure it. That goes for Rasmussen, Gallup, NBC, ABC, CBS, Bloomberg etc. Will should be focusing much more on the demographics first of who is being polled than simply looking at the result of the poll.
I do believe you will see some significant changes in the last week of who is being polled as a Likely Voter. No poll wants to be off as much as Gallup was in 1980.
@18–
I never said Romney would win the election. The issue I’m raising is about the validity of the current polls. If you believe all the assumptions in these polls are true, you have nothing to worry about. Carter believed a week before the election in 1980 that he had it in the bag and got crushed. Most reasonable people on both sides aside from the spin that it does all depend on turnout.
Personally, I do not see Romney winning all 3 of the musts for him..Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Romney must win these 3 states to win. I do question the validity of some of these polls as they are polling Democrats in the same % as 2008. I don’t see that happening. I see the turnout closer to 2010 proportions that 2008. You change the %’s of who you poll and you get different results.
It will be interesting to see the pre-election day poll shifts the week before the election. If you see a poll change drastically in the days before the election, you can reasonable assume they were using their poll to try and sway public opinion, not measure it. That goes for Rasmussen, Gallup, NBC, ABC, CBS, Bloomberg etc. Will should be focusing much more on the demographics first of who is being polled than simply looking at the result of the poll.
I do believe you will see some significant changes in the last week of who is being polled as a Likely Voter. No poll wants to be off as much as Gallup was in 1980.
One other interesting dynamic and danger of polls giving a false sense of where things stand. It can affect turnout. If you live in Florida and are told Obama is ahead by 6%, that’s hundreds of thousands of votes. Why bother voting if your guy has it in the bag?
On the flip side, if Romney is able to convince voters that these polls are dead wrong, he can create a groundswell of folks turning out to prove the pollsters wrong.
It happened in 1980.
I’m not saying it will happen again here but I do believe you will see some last minute scrambling by some polls.
Interesting to keep your eye on no matter who you are for.
@20
The Carter was up big is kind of a false assumption. It’s a poll that most people would call an outlier. As in, when doing polls occasionally, and not through sampling bias, you get a wierd result:
WaPo:
A solid debate performance, in the only debate between the candidates in 1980, beat Carter and his 30% approval rating, That has little relevance to our current election. Obama’s approval is much higher. Willard’s likability is as low as any candidate ever. By small but consistent amounts, those polled trust Obama on the economy killing Willard’s sole reason for running.
# 22: Don’t forget that the networks calling it for Reagan long before the West Coast polls closed had a significant impact on turnout. Lots of people had just got off work, were driving to the polls to vote, heard that Reagan had already won, and went home instead.
I’m convinced that the Carter defeat in 1980 would have been much smaller if the networks hadn’t called the result hours before California, Oregon, and Washington voters headed to the polls. He still would have lost, but it would have been much closer, and we wouldn’t be talking about nearly such a wide spread.
Gecko/GaultStench/Gilligan is the gift that keeps on givingRomney-Ryan Rift Features Namecalling like ‘Stench’ and ‘Gilligan’
Politico: Ryan Going Rogue, Calling Romney “the Stench” – Snark/Truth/Gossip/All of Above
Report: Paul Ryan Goes Rogue and Refers to “Stench” Romney
Advice for the Stench/Gilligan campaign:
When the music’s over – Turn out the lights
@24
They’re trying out the idea that the original source was a satire piece. That’s either BS or this is the latest episode of, “Republicans Can’t Do Comedy.”
24. Cornflake, the conservative cereal spews:
Cornflake, don’t tell me you were duped by Politico too? That’s ok, your hero, Paul Krugman, and most of the MSM were too because they were so anxious for it to be true that they believed it before checking it out.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....ed-romney/
That’s ok Cornflake, you are in good company with fools like Krugman.
Krugman is going to get razzed on this for years to come.
Suckers!
@25–
Umm, isn’t the media supposed to like check sources and stuff before running with something like this? Just shows once again the Liberal Bias.
Thanks Krugman.
I can see the last month of the campaign will include setting up the salivating Liberal MSM and embarrassing the shit out of them.
Fun to watch.
So, Fox News is quickly picking up the Romney/Ryan cover story that it was attempt to “punk” the media???? And they aren’t bothering to check out whether or not it’s true, they are just taking the Romney/Ryan explanation at face value????
Wow, the explanation chest is getting pretty bare. Yesterday they claim the airplane comments were “just a joke”, and now they say this was a “stunt”? If so, it sure does prove that Republicans just can’t do comedy at all. It’s not a joke if it’s too believable.
That’s good. Faux News debunking stories. Eh, Faux News has no credibility. They fired reporters for not lying.
Me, I don’t care if the Stench/Gilligan stories are true or not. Just like Faux News doesn’t care if the birfer stories are true or not.
Either way, the Stench/Gilligan ticket is going down.
Looser.