| If the election were held today and... | Obama | McCain |
| ...all McCain <5% went to Obama | 380 | 158 |
| ...all Obama <5% went to McCain | 282 | 256 |
| Shift since yesterday: | +0 | -0 |
| Shift this week: | +5 | -18 |
Today's Numbers: | Yesterday's Numbers: |
The chart at the left shows the distribution of electoral votes based on statewide polls. The colors represent the gap in the poll. The darker the color, the larger the gap. 50% +1 or 270 Electoral votes are needed to win, out of a possible 538.
This site is really designed to be used along with Electoral-Vote.com. I provide one useful way to interpret the data, but without the information that is provided at that site, you won't get as much use from this chart.
For a complete explanation of the methodology used, see the Electoral-Vote.com polling FAQ. The raw data used to generate the chart is also available there. Please note that other than using the data that they make available, this site is not affiliated with Electoral-vote.com
10 comments:
Newer more Optimystik scenario:
North Dakota trending blue again (10-13) is a big deal in today's e-v.c map. (not reflected in the chart yet) That suggests that Montana will go blue as they did for Clinton, and South Dakota may be in play, too. Small numbers, but Obama could scrape together 9 more EVs up there.
The regression lines in the state graphs at electoral-vote.com suggest GA, NC, MO, and MT could go for Obama by November. Taking liberties with IN and SD produces a scenario which gets to 404 EVs. That's beyond Clintonesque and almost Reaganesque.
Thanks, poll junkie, for posting the chart from your remote secure undisclosed location.
What's this I hear about The McCain ReLoaded?
i meant to include my 404 scenario
fwiw
If McCain can say something about the economy that makes sense in the next debate, and if Obama does not have a compelling response, we could see the numbers trend toward McCain. Losing candidates often comeback in the last month, as Nate details in his post. The only question is: Will there be an X factor and will the comeback be enough?
The problem with optimism is it's not like Obama is polling 60% vs 39% or something like that. 538 projects Obama to get 52% of the vote, up 1% from Al Gore. He's never been much above that (50, 51, 52%) as in past presidential campaigns. On the other hand, Clinton didn't break 50% and had 370 and 379 EVs. But if the polls roller-coaster back down 11 points the way they went up 11 points in the last 21 days, all the swing states could start swinging back the other way. For that to take place, Obama would need to make a huge gaffe which McCain exploits. Just making sense is not enough to boost McCain (you set the bar rather low, diogenes!). But would only take a normal swing to put McCain on top again.
Bad scenario
I said "would only take a normal swing to put McCain on top again"
I shouldn't say "normal" because Nate demonstrated it was more like a 1/20 chance, 5%.
A 95% chance is a lot better than an 85% chance, which is similar to the 1:6 odds in playing Russian roulette-- only more people get hurt.
I am optimistic. And so is the IEM (McCain 15.5¢, Obama 84.9¢).
The bar is set for those swing voters who are mainly looking for someone to dig them out of this recession/depression. All McCain needs to do is present a reasonable plan that appeals to the swing voters. If McCain can present a simple plan (and keeps that stupid Sharpie in his pocket), and Obama gets too professorial, then its a new game. I think the important issues are global warming and health care, but the swing voters are looking for answers to short-term and practical concerns about the economy. My friends....
Yes… he's an old white former POW(i've heard), so we've been trained that his flip-flops are to be interpreted as distinguished maverickiness. That gives him complete ideological freedom. I've got it! Cancel all debt, abolish the old currency, give everybody 100,000 newbux, and start over again, like postwar Germany. McCommunism- it just might work! Only Nixon could go to China. 2008 is the new Year Zero. All voters with a negative net worth (a majority?) will be attracted by the promised $100,000 each!
Palin can preach a more survivalist solution to the economic crisis, tracking and hunting the herds of wild moose.
Wow... You guy's have been busy this morning. I don't have time to respond to this all, but I need to respond to one comment by Blues:
The problem with optimism is it's not like Obama is polling 60% vs 39% or something like that. 538 projects Obama to get 52% of the vote, up 1% from Al Gore. He's never been much above that (50, 51, 52%) as in past presidential campaigns.
A couple of points... The number that you cite from 538 is the projected number on election day. Nate factors into that number the fact that he assumes that the polls will tighten. In the average of all the national polls today, Obama has an 8 point lead.
Second, you can't directly compare polling data to election results. Polls include undecideds. It's hard to predict where those undecided will go, but there are a few things to consider. At times of international crisis, it seems reasonable to assume that undecided will generall break towards the incumbent for stability. At times of domestic crisis, it seems reasonable to assume that undecideds will break towards the challenger for change. Right now, we have elements of both, but every poll shows the economy as the number one concern by a big margin, and most people seem to place the majority of the blame on deregulation-- and the Republicans have been running on the issue for so long that it's really hard for them to swivel and blame the Dems for this one. They're sure trying, but almost no one seems to be buying it.
You also can't compare Clinton's numbers to Obama's. When Clinton ran, there was a strong third-party candidate who siphoned many votes away from the Republican candidate. The same is not true to any significant degree today.
Finally, remember that there are factors that suggest that Obama may be underrepresented in the polls. Pollsters don't call cellphones and most polls report "likely voters", but this election is expected to have a record number of "unlikely voters" turn out. Finally remember that, despite the nuts who show up to cheer for Palin, the vast majority of Republicans don't really like their candidate, while the vast majority of Dems LOVE ours. Expect record low turnout numbers for the Republicans and record high turnout for the Dems. All of these factors are very much in Obama's favor, so even if they don't all turn out to be true, the overall effect should at least be enough to counter any Bradley effect.
The only significant factor that worries me is voter disenfranchisement. That is a real issue, but they will need to disenfranchise so many people in so many states that it would be VERY obvious what happened. It could certainly happen, but such a scenario wouldn't be ignored as it was after 2000.
I don't think McCain will come out with a new, radical, popular economic program, although last week he suddenly said he had a plan for energy independence. George Bush said he would tax carbon or have a carbon trading system in 2000. He was going to have a humble foreign policy. Rovean politics is to always steal or destroy (swift-boat) their opponents' strengths. However, McC wouldn't be believed, and would lose more support than he would gain.
McCain polls higher on one remaining measure: being considered capable of commanding the troops. That kind of crisis *probably* won't come up. Not naturally.
I think the biggest underestimated area for upset is the high expectations of Obama in the debate. We already expect Obama to win. If McCain does half as well, they will say McCain won, he beat expectations. Obama has become smoother, steadier, more direct, simpler, and less professorial in speech. He has stepped over potential land mines so well we may have forgotten they are there. If he seems to be condescending or makes some major gaffe, that could become a rallying cry for McCainiacs and Palinophiles. Wright is played out, Ayers isn't catching fire, so it would have to be something new. Poland is free, you're likable enough, John, I could no more renounce this person than I could renounce my own grandmother, clinging to guns and religion, I don't look like the presidents on the dollar bill, can Bill dance? But something new. I hope he could recover from that by blaming his staff for giving him the wrong medication: "I had asked for a BUFFERIN, but a junior member of my staff…"
In other words, rather than J.S. McCain III suddenly appealing to swinger-votes, I think Obama could say something that would turn them off. McCain has done that a dozen times, but we are grading on a curve here. Our culture has trained us (or at least our televised media) to overlook idiotic statements by old/white/Republican/veteran/men but regard Democrats and/or darker-skinned men suspiciously.
I think McCain will continue to speak poorly and Obama will continue to improve, but they could have a night where it is reversed.
About those numbers, Obama's lead is still very close to 50% --or under-- even if his lead is 6 or 8 points. 538 IS calculating how undecideds would break. Nate would only have to be off by 2 or 3 percent. Events in the real world have a way of randomly happening which the models don't model.
I think the biggest underestimated area for upset is the high expectations of Obama in the debate. We already expect Obama to win. If McCain does half as well, they will say McCain won, he beat expectations.
I don't think so. I said almost the exact same thing after the first debate (and in fact posted about it), but it never came to pass. Unlike previous years, ( and despite what the right-wing says to the contrary) there really isn't a media darling in this election. Or maybe it would be more fair to say that both candidates status as media darlings cancel each other out. Regardless, I don't see the expectations game suddenly becoming a major factor on the third debate when it wasn't on the first two.
You're right that Obama could blow the debate, but I think that is extremely unlikely. Unlike McCain, Obama and his campaign is extremely disciplined. They haven't made any major screw ups so far, so there's no reason to see one as likely now. Even if they did have a screw up, it would have to be a wrold class screw up at this point to even put a significant dent in his numbers. McCain screws up daily, so even with a screw up from Obama he would be seen as the more reliable candidate.
Post a Comment