| Obama | Romney |
| 99.5% probability of winning | 0.5% probability of winning |
| Mean of 323 electoral votes | Mean of 215 electoral votes |
There were lots of new polls released in the two days since my previous analysis:
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
| AZ | PPP | 17-May | 20-May | 500 | 4.4 | 43 | 50 | R+7 |
| CA | PPIC | 14-May | 20-May | 894 | — | 50 | 39 | O+11 |
| FL | Marist | 17-May | 20-May | 1078 | 3.0 | 45 | 40 | O+5 |
| GA | InsiderAdvantage | 22-May | 22-May | 438 | — | 39.9 | 52.3 | R+12.4 |
| MD | PPP | 14-May | 21-May | 852 | 3.4 | 58 | 35 | O+23 |
| MA | Suffolk | 20-May | 22-May | 600 | — | 59.3 | 34.0 | O+25.3 |
| NC | Civitas | 19-May | 20-May | 600 | 4.0 | 45 | 47 | R+2 |
| OH | Marist | 17-May | 20-May | 1103 | 3.0 | 45 | 40 | O+5 |
| VA | Marist | 17-May | 20-May | 1076 | 3.0 | 46 | 42 | O+4 |
| WI | St Norbert College | 17-May | 22-May | 406 | 5.0 | 49 | 43 | O+6 |
| WI | Reason-Rupe | 14-May | 18-May | 609 | 4.0 | 46 | 36 | O+10 |
The good news for Romney is that Arizona gives him a modest +7% lead over Obama. And Romney will need it, now that Secretary of State Ken Bennett (R-AZ) has concluded that Obama really was born in Hawaii. Although there is an occasional poll showing Obama ahead, the larger trend shows the state in Romney’s column:
Other good news for Romney is that North Carolina has him up by +2% over Obama, and he takes three of the four May polls. The larger trend has favored Obama since late 2010, but things are clearly changing in the state:
Florida is up to its old tricks of bouncing between candidates. After being down -6% in the previous poll, Obama scores +5% over Romeny. The overall trend in FL looks more favorable to Obama, but that can clearly change:
In good news for Obama, we finally get the first poll out of Maryland. Obama has a dominating +23% lead over Romney.
Obama takes another Ohio poll with a +5% lead over Romney. Obama has now led in the last ten Ohio polls, dating back to late February.
Virginia gives Obama +4% over Romney. The recent trend still favors Obama in the state, but there is at least a hint that the state is swinging toward Romney:
Both Wisconsin polls give Obama the lead over Romney, and solidify his lead in the state.
Today, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 99,494 times and Romney wins 506 times (including the 51 ties). Obama receives (on average) 323 to Romney’s 215 electoral votes. In an election held now, Obama would have a 99.5% probability of winning and Romney, a 0.5% probability of winning.
The probability is a slight improvement for Romney, up from a 0.2%. On the other hand, Romney’s expected electoral vote total drops from 220 to 215, as Obama’s increases from 318 to 323.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama:
- 328 electoral votes with a 3.77% probability
- 318 electoral votes with a 3.42% probability
- 312 electoral votes with a 3.24% probability
- 319 electoral votes with a 3.19% probability
- 313 electoral votes with a 3.04% probability
- 327 electoral votes with a 2.88% probability
- 303 electoral votes with a 2.86% probability
- 322 electoral votes with a 2.53% probability
- 321 electoral votes with a 2.22% probability
- 304 electoral votes with a 2.13% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Obama wins 99.5%, Romney wins 0.5%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 323.3 (19.6)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Romney: 214.7 (19.6)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 322 (287, 364)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Romney: 216 (174, 251)
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 | 105 | |||
| Strong Obama | 159 | 264 | ||
| Leans Obama | 39 | 39 | 303 | |
| Weak Obama | 15 | 15 | 15 | 318 |
| Weak Romney | 10 | 10 | 10 | 220 |
| Leans Romney | 40 | 40 | 210 | |
| Strong Romney | 132 | 170 | ||
| Safe Romney | 38 |
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* | 754 | 37.8 | 62.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| AK | 3 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| AZ | 11 | 2 | 1329 | 45.6 | 54.4 | 1.2 | 98.8 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1* | 679 | 36.8 | 63.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 1 | 796 | 56.2 | 43.8 | 99.3 | 0.7 | ||
| CO | 9 | 1* | 564 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 49.4 | 50.6 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1* | 1460 | 58.9 | 41.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| DE | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| DC | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| FL | 29 | 5 | 4448 | 49.3 | 50.7 | 26.3 | 73.7 | ||
| GA | 16 | 2 | 952 | 43.7 | 56.3 | 0.3 | 99.7 | ||
| 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 | 1* | 447 | 45.0 | 55.0 | 6.8 | 93.2 | ||
| IA | 6 | 1 | 1086 | 55.4 | 44.6 | 99.4 | 0.6 | ||
| KS | 6 | 1* | 442 | 45.0 | 55.0 | 6.8 | 93.2 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 528 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 7.3 | 92.7 | ||
| LA | 8 | 1* | 542 | 41.1 | 58.9 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| ME | 2 | 1 | 552 | 54.3 | 45.7 | 92.5 | 7.5 | ||
| ME1 | 1 | 1* | 488 | 64.8 | 35.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ME2 | 1 | 1* | 421 | 53.7 | 46.3 | 85.7 | 14.3 | ||
| MD | 10 | 1 | 792 | 62.4 | 37.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MA | 11 | 2 | 1015 | 62.7 | 37.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 1 | 508 | 53.3 | 46.7 | 85.6 | 14.4 | ||
| MN | 10 | 1 | 467 | 58.0 | 42.0 | 99.3 | 0.7 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1* | 717 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 1* | 465 | 48.4 | 51.6 | 31.7 | 68.3 | ||
| MT | 3 | 2 | 1278 | 46.9 | 53.1 | 6.2 | 93.8 | ||
| NE | 2 | 1 | 460 | 42.4 | 57.6 | 0.8 | 99.2 | ||
| NE1 | 1 | 1* | 389 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 10.0 | 90.0 | ||
| NE2 | 1 | 1* | 252 | 49.6 | 50.4 | 45.2 | 54.8 | ||
| NE3 | 1 | 1* | 284 | 35.9 | 64.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| NV | 6 | 1 | 480 | 54.2 | 45.8 | 90.0 | 10.0 | ||
| NH | 4 | 1 | 1093 | 56.4 | 43.6 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 2 | 2077 | 56.5 | 43.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NM | 5 | 1* | 494 | 57.5 | 42.5 | 99.1 | 0.9 | ||
| NY | 29 | 1 | 720 | 60.7 | 39.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 5 | 3611 | 50.3 | 49.7 | 58.1 | 41.9 | ||
| ND | 3 | 1* | 480 | 41.3 | 58.8 | 0.3 | 99.7 | ||
| OH | 18 | 4 | 3674 | 52.0 | 48.0 | 96.3 | 3.7 | ||
| OK | 7 | 1 | 448 | 30.4 | 69.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| OR | 7 | 1 | 1327 | 52.0 | 48.0 | 84.2 | 15.8 | ||
| PA | 20 | 3 | 2063 | 54.3 | 45.7 | 99.7 | 0.3 | ||
| RI | 4 | 1* | 495 | 59.4 | 40.6 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| SC | 9 | 1* | 1833 | 51.7 | 48.3 | 84.9 | 15.1 | ||
| SD | 3 | 1* | 442 | 44.3 | 55.7 | 4.9 | 95.1 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1 | 654 | 46.0 | 54.0 | 7.3 | 92.7 | ||
| TX | 38 | 1 | 460 | 38.9 | 61.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| UT | 6 | 1* | 688 | 33.0 | 67.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| VT | 3 | 1 | 528 | 67.8 | 32.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| VA | 13 | 3 | 2502 | 53.3 | 46.7 | 98.9 | 1.1 | ||
| WA | 12 | 1 | 481 | 57.8 | 42.2 | 99.1 | 0.9 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1 | 373 | 40.8 | 59.2 | 0.7 | 99.3 | ||
| WI | 10 | 6 | 3349 | 52.6 | 47.4 | 98.4 | 1.6 | ||
| 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.
THIS is the Romney “bump” from becoming the presumptive candidate? He’s got one more chance at a “bump” as a result of the convention, that’s a lot of ground to make up without much to support it. Romeny’s electoral vote strategy seems to be non-existent – he’s relying upon the same sates McCain carried, plus a couple more – the “southern & mid-west red states” – to pull off a win, which is a failing strategy.
Romney’s one big advantage is that there is NO WAY he’s going to lose Utah. And the Confederate states are also solidly in his pocket, no need for him to waste money competing there. Everything else is either solidly Democrate or in play.
Good to see Wisconsin in Obama’s column, along with Ohio and Virginia. If he wins those states he doesn’t even need Florida.
Darryl: Always appreciate the regular poll analyses. What about the gov/recall race in your old home state of Wisconsin? Granted, not a local or national race, but one with national significance, and where it’s been running pretty close.
@1: Glad to see that Romney’s presumptive bump can be measured in .1%s.
Are you weighing all these polls equally in determining your projected State by State results?
I’d have to say any poll that shows Obama or Romney winning by 10+ points ought to be discounted or eliminated.
RealClearPolitics poll of Polls shows Obama @ +1.6% points today.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....-1171.html
Have you done an analysis using the RealClear polls results??
As a veteran of numerous prez campaigns starting with LBJ in 64 I’m well aware that things will get a lot tighter. I think that Obama will pull it off but keeping the Senate out of Republican hands is even more important. I’m personally looking forward to getting out of Las Vegas and back to Eastern WA to work and vote to dump McMorris-Rogers.
GetFactsFirst @ 5,
The analyses take into account the size of the sample for each poll. The FAQ explains the methods.
GetFactsFirst @ 6
“RealClearPolitics poll of Polls shows Obama @ +1.6% points today.”
That RCP average is based on national polls and then simply averages the polls—pretty simplistic stuff. First, using national polls is an approximation of the popular vote. Yet we elect presidents through the electoral college, not the popular vote.
So, my analyses differ in that I only use state head-to-head polls, and then I use the rules of the electoral college.
Additionally, I am particularly interested in predicting the probability that each candidate would win, based on current polls—something that averaging cannot address. Therefore, I use a statistical method called Monte Carlo analysis. Essentially, I simulate 100,000 elections using samples corresponding to all recent state head-to-head polls. The analysis yields unbiased estimates of the probability that each candidate would win, based entirely on the evidence contained in the polls.
“Have you done an analysis using the RealClear polls results??”
Well…RCP doesn’t have any “poll results”, per se. They simply collect polls and create averages. They do collect state head-to-head polls as well, but they don’t aggregate the results according to the rules of the electoral college.
I don’t do the Monte Carlo analyses on the national polls, simply because the winner of the popular vote isn’t always the winner of the election (as we learned in 2000).
Getfactsfirst @ 5,
“I’d have to say any poll that shows Obama or Romney winning by 10+ points ought to be discounted or eliminated.”
WTF? There are many good criteria for “discounting” polls, a double digit spread isn’t one of them.
Consider this: In 2004 there were 34 states* in which the state was won by a double digit lead. In 2008, there were 39 states* in which the state was won by a double digit lead.
For obvious reasons, states that go for the D or R candidate by double digits are usually not polled as often as “purple” states. Still, there are plenty of them, and we should expect numerous accurate polls with double digit leads for one candidate or the other.
* An actual state or D.C.
Yellowpup @ 4
“What about the gov/recall race in your old home state of Wisconsin? Granted, not a local or national race, but one with national significance, and where it’s been running pretty close.”
Thanks for the suggestion. There have been a bunch of polls taken for that race this week. If I get a chance over the weekend, I’ll do an analysis of them….
The more I see of Mitt Romney, the less I like him. I think that will be the country’s reaction to him as well. The guy just doesn’t connect, on any level, with the average person. The national polls indicate a close race, but I think Darryl’s numbers show what the electoral vote will be. Not that close.
Darryl–
I understand and agree..as it is the EC that really matters. The question is really about what polls & data you include in your State by State analysis. Seems like outlier polls that use different criteria about who they poll (say % of Known D’s and R’s) can really skew the results. What I meant to say was why even include a poll that shows Obama up by 25% or Romney up by 11% Nationally…their State by State data is likely to be less credible.
If Walker wins big in Wisconsin recall (say by 4 points or more), how do you think that will translate into the Nov. Presidential Vote??
Statistics revolves around credibility of underlying data and assumptions. You can eventually get whatever result you want by the data and assumptions you choose. I appreciate that you are explaining that Darryl. It would be interesting in how things would change if you yanked the “outliers” on both sides.
GetFactsFirst @ 13,
Essentially…I use every valid poll that is released to the public. (As it happens, my collection of poll is far more complete than RCP.)
But in order to be included, a few “quality control” criteria must be met. The FAQ gives a strict set of criterion for inclusion:
If a poll meets these criteria, I will include it regardless of whether or not it looks like an “outlier.”
The idea of picking and choosing “outliers” is far more troublesome than including all polls. As the election season moves on, there will usually be multiple “recent” polls per state included in the analysis, so “outliers” are at least watered down.
Here is the RealClearPolitics poll of polls on the Wisconsin Recall–
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....-3056.html
Walker up by 4 in the Democrat Poll and 5-6 in several others and 12 in yet another.
I know some Wisconsin lifelong State Employee Union members nearing retirement who will vote for Walker. Others are choosing Walker because of the Recall precedent. They fear that if Walker barely loses, the R;s will launch a Recall after 1 year. Too costly just because you are sore losers. Plus retirees, even government workers, love Walker’s efforts to keep down government costs, bring in new private enterprise etc.