It's been about a month since we last took a look under the microscope at the possible outcomes of the Electoral College vote this November, so it's time for an update. For those of you too busy to read this, I will sum it up for you in advance: Looks good for Obama!
Now, I don't want anyone to be swept up in untimely exuberance, and firmly caution against prematurely popping champagne corks here. There's a lot of time left in this race, and anything can happen. But things are undeniably looking good for Obama's chances of winning versus McCain's.
Let's start off with a general overview of how the race shapes up. A few caveats, first. These graphs were created using data from the electoral-vote.com website, and I can't personally vouch for their accuracy. These are all state polls, and not national polls. Some local pollsters are better at understanding their state's demographics than the national pollsters are, and some are not. And sometimes everybody gets it wrong (see: New Hampshire Democratic primary, for instance). Polling itself may be missing people with cell phones (and no land lines), and may also be missing new voters (many polls only look at "likely voters," defined as those who have voted previously). And these state polls are only updated sporadically, meaning some of this information is months out of date. So I'm not saying that these polls are going to reflect perfectly the outcome of the vote, in other words, but then no poll can really make such a claim. But you have to use the data available, and the electoral-vote.com website has one of the better presentations of available data, so I chose to use their figures.
OK, enough caveats. Polls aren't perfect, I think we all understand that. But they can be instructive nevertheless.
So let's take an overview of the entire race, to begin with. This first chart (click on it to see a larger version) shows John McCain's share of the electoral vote (as determined by state poll) and Barack Obama's share as well. They are shown as percentages. McCain is red, Obama is blue, and ties are white. All of these charts cover the period of time from when Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination to Election Day. There's a lot of blank space on the right side as a result of this, but this way I can keep updating these charts throughout the campaign consistently.
[I am experimenting with livening these dry statistics up with some bright, eye-catching graphics here, but this is the first time I've posted charts, so apologies if they don't come out 100% right.]
Obama starts just over 50% and starts rising. Within two weeks, he has hit a steady range of the high 50s, occasionally bumping up to over 60%. This translates into around 310-320 electoral votes for Obama, a number which has remained fairly consistent since mid-June.
Let's drill down into each candidate's numbers, to see the depth of their support. First, John McCain.
Electoral-vote.com divides each candidate's states up into three categories: Strong, Weak, and Barely (listed on the chart as "Tossup"). Strong means leading by ten points or better in the polls. Weak means five to ten points up. Barely/Tossup is anything below five points. Ties are not counted for either candidate (currently, for instance, three states are tied: Virginia, North Dakota, and Missouri).
As you can see, John McCain's Strong support peaked in early June at around 150 electoral votes, and since then has fallen to the range around 80, where it has remained fairly constant since the beginning of July. But his Weak numbers have expanded at the same time, leaving him just under where he was in early June if you add both numbers together (around 170-175). But even when you add in the Tossup states, he's still over 70 electoral votes away from victory.
As a contrast, let's take a look at Obama's numbers:
As you can see, this is a much happier graph. Obama's Strong support has been recently climbing, and now stands at an impressive 211 electoral votes. Some of this support has come from his Weak states, meaning that the total for the two hasn't changed a whole lot since June. But the key thing to understand is, Obama is just shy of 250 for the total. He stands today at 246 electoral votes from Strong and Weak states. Which means he only has to pick up 24 more votes to win.
Even more impressive is the total when you add in the Tossup states leaning toward Obama. This total (when added to Strong and Weak) has not fallen below 300 electoral votes since mid-June. Let me repeat that number, in case you missed it -- three hundred.
It currently stands at 312. It's been higher than 320 at times.
And that, my friends, would be a landslide.
Calling the race
But the numbers don't tell the whole story. For that, we have to examine the state-by-state matchups and make some educated guesses. I'll keep this brief, since the charts took up a lot of room, and just call the differences from the first article I wrote where I attempted to do this. If you want a little bit more explanation for some of these states, you can review the original column.
Safe States
Obama adds four safe states, and loses none. Connecticut goes Obama (this one wasn't really weak to begin with, it just took the pollsters a while to get around to polling it again). Iowa goes from "probable" to safe this time around as well. Minnesota and New Hampshire can now also be counted as safe for Obama.
Obama's total list of 17 safe states: CA, CT, DC, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA, WI. This adds up to the aforementioned 211 electoral votes (full data is listed at the end of this article, for the curious).
Probable states for Obama have shrunk, but that's because four of them moved to the safe category. And one state -- Oregon -- moves from the "too close to call" category into a probable Obama pickup. Three states total in this category: Delaware, New Mexico, and Oregon, for a total of 15 electoral votes. Add this to the safe states and you get 226 fairly safe electoral votes for Obama.
McCain also added a few states to his safe list. Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska can all be considered safe for McCain. This improves his total list of 12 states: AL, AR, AZ, ID, KS, KY, LA, NE, OK, TN, UT, WY. However, it still leaves his total safe electoral votes at a lowly 83.
McCain's probable states changed quite a bit from last time, losing two (AR, NE) to the safe list, but also losing two (ND, SD) to the tossup category. But McCain moved three more states (AK, FL, MS) from tossup to probable, so it all balances a bit. His probable list this time around: AK, FL, MS, SC, WV. These states total 49 electoral votes, meaning McCain's overall likely electoral vote is now 132.
The battleground states
The list of battleground states has shrunk a bit, due to the race firming up. First, the states leaning McCain at the moment: GA, NC, SD, TX. Next, the states leaning Obama: MI, MT, PA. And finally, the states which are considered too close to call: CO, IN, MO, NV, ND, OH, VA.
From these three battleground groups, we mix and match to come up with our four scenarios: Best Case McCain, Realistic, Best Case Obama, and (just for the fun of it) Landslide Obama.
Best case McCain
Michigan and Pennsylvania are too close to call on election night. Later in the evening, Montana also is too close to call without a recount. But, unfortunately for Obama, none of this matters, as McCain runs the board of the remaining states (CO, IN, MO, NV, ND, OH, VA, GA, NC, SD, TX), gaining him 271 electoral votes, and the win. I do not consider this outside the bounds of possibility, as if you look at that list you'd be hard-pressed to point out any state where McCain doesn't have a decent shot at winning. Colorado and Ohio are probably the toughest to make a case for, but the possibility does indeed exist.
Realistic outcome
This may be realistic, but it's also inconclusive. McCain picks up Indiana, North Dakota, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas. Obama picks up Colorado and Pennsylvania. This leaves the score at McCain - 216; Obama - 256.
Too close to call: Missouri, Nevada, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia.
To win, McCain has to pick up four of these five states -- and three of them have to be Michigan, Ohio, and Virginia. That's a pretty tall order, but it could happen.
Obama, on the other hand, has to pick up only two of these five states -- and it doesn't matter which two. If he wins any two, he wins the contest. Furthermore, if he wins Ohio or Michigan alone, he also wins the race. Pretty good odds, I have to admit.
Best case Obama
McCain takes Texas and South Dakota. But Obama sweeps Colorado, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Too close to call are Georgia (due to Bob Barr on the ballot), Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and North Dakota.
But none of them matter, because Obama has already won, with 314 electoral votes to 169 for John McCain.
Obama landslide
McCain takes Texas and South Dakota. Obama, however, picks up every state mentioned in the previous scenario: CO, GA, IN, MI, MO, MT, NC, ND, NV, OH, PA, VA.
Surprisingly, Alaska, Florida and Louisiana are too close to call on election night, but nobody will care because Obama will already have 369 electoral votes and the only question is how much bigger his landslide will ultimately be.
[As always, it's been fun (because Obama's doing so well, mostly). Let me know if there are any problems with the charts....]
[Electoral Vote Data]
Barack Obama Likely Easy Wins -- 20 States -- 226 Electoral Votes
Safe States -- 17 States -- 211 Electoral Votes
California (55), Connecticut (7), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Iowa (7), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Minnesota (10), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (15), New York (31), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (11), Washington DC (3), Wisconsin (10)
Probable States -- 3 States -- 15 Electoral Votes
Delaware (3), New Mexico (5), Oregon (7)
John McCain Likely Easy Wins -- 17 States -- 132 Electoral Votes
Safe States -- 12 States -- 83 Electoral Votes
Alabama (9), Arizona (10), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Nebraska (5), Oklahoma (7), Tennessee (11), Utah (5), Wyoming (3)
Probable States -- 5 States -- 49 Electoral Votes
Alaska (3), Florida (27), Mississippi (6), South Carolina (8), West Virginia (5)
Tossup States -- 14 States -- 180 Electoral Votes
Tossup States leaning McCain -- 4 States -- 67 Electoral Votes
Georgia (15), North Carolina (15), South Dakota (3), Texas (34)
Tossup States leaning Obama -- 3 States -- 41 Electoral Votes
Michigan (17), Montana (3), Pennsylvania (21)
Too Close to call -- 7 States -- 72 Electoral Votes
Colorado (9), Indiana (11), Missouri (11), Nevada (5), North Dakota (3), Ohio (20), Virginia (13)
Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Virginia will probably go for McCain because of mining and guns. In Virginia you can strap on a gun and as long as it is not concealed, you can go anywhere except, a court house, federal building, police station.
West Virginia is about 60% pro-gun, just like Pennsylvania, and Kentucky.
You can also put Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, in the McCain column, maybe Ohio.
You can put West Virginia in the McCain column. Obama stands no chance in our state even though it is a democratic state he will not get 5% of the coal miner vote. West Virginia is about 40% mining.
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant by being equal.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote (270 of 538). Then all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes..
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 2/3rds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election.
And currently a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 20 legislative chambers (one house in CO, AR, Me, MA, NC, and WA, and two houses in MD, IL, HI, CA, NJ, RI, and VT). It has been enacted into law in HI, IL, NJ, and MD - totaling 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed.
www.NationalPopularVote.com
mvy -
You're definitely going to want to read the article I post tomorrow. Stay tuned!
-CW
Thanks for the information! Great article.
Thanks for the graphs and the scenario sketches. It's great to be all excited about the politics, the idealism, all that good stuff, but as the Obama campaign has so skillfully illustrated, doing the math is important, too.
Come on now. You know Bob Barr throws a wrench into all those figures. If Ron Paul endorses him in Sept he will start raising enough money to make some serious inroads. States out west were Pauls best showings. Barr, I am telling you, check into him.
It is good for your side to try and make this a 3 way race.
tajitj -
There's one place that tracks third-party polls -- pollster.com. They have Obama v. McCain v. Barr v. Nader charts up. Of course, they don't poll on this as often as Obama/McCain, but it's something:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvOand3s.php
See comment below about Barr. I think you're right, he could make a difference in GA, TX, maybe CO, maybe even AK. A few other places too, perhaps. But then Nader could do some damage himself (he's polling above Barr currently).
-CW
Chris -
Also here on this map http://www.zogby.com/50state/
you can click on the states to see the break down between Obama McCain Barr Nader and Other.
HuffPost's Pick
While of course, I agree Obama has been looking VERY good of late......I've got to thank Chris Weigant for helping us keep things in perspective....I hope the high wizards in the Obama campaign never forget: there's no room for complacency
Her's a "chiller": McCain's "probable" states seem alot closer to "sure things" and in PARTICULAR the battlegrounders "leaning McCain " by my lights aren't far from it!
Call me cynical, jaded, pessimisstic but there's just no way I see Ga., Tex., N.C. as going any way but Republican and Neither of the Dakotas or Missouri seem much like toss ups to me!
Fortunately, I can't see Michigan going Republican for anyone other than a charismatic change agent a-la Ronnie (Ray-gun) which I think we can all agree McCain is quite simply,...... well ....NOT.
Obama looks REAL good in Colorado...and, at this point, perhaps the BIGGEST news is that he's got a very realistic shot in Virginia!
Notice how I'm tacfully not repeating that OBAMA COULDN"T LOSE OREGON IF HE WANTED TO! ha
Question re: VP picks......R's:)Does a McCain "Hail Mary" (Rice, Bailey-Hutchinson, Powell) change any of this?.. ...(Powell might make the diferrence in Va.)
D's:) Webb's not coming and neither is Al.....Q: Does a Hillary pick flip Ark. back blue (yup) ...W Va.?( maybe) solidify Ohio, Mich. Penn. &Nev. (yup, yup, yup & yup)........ Fla? 'cha think?
Great column Chris (albeit, a little sobering)
tm
Rice, Powell....Never would accept!
TommyMcCarthy -
A few quick notes. GA polls have oscillated between Barely JM to Strong JM. I leave it as is because this is the one spot where Barr has the best chance to be a spoiler, and throw it to Obama. Long shot, maybe, but JM's polls haven't been great here. Likewise TX -- went from Weak JM to Strong JM, now back to Weak JM. NC is currently Barely JM, due to strong African American Obama support in the state.
SD recently went Weak JM, and both ND and MO are currently tied -- not "statistically" tied, but actually tied.
While I'd love to see Obama get VA, CO, and OR; VA is currently also tied, and has never been more than Barely Obama. Polling hasn't been done in CO in a month, so that's kind of old info. OR, however, you're likely right about. Obama has opened up a nine-point lead there, and next time I do one of these columns, it'll probably be Strong for Obama, that's the direction it's moving in.
As for VPs making a difference, we come to Michigan. Remember, Mitt Romney's dad was governor of MI....
Anyway, thanks for the comments. It'll be interesting to see these states shift around over time. I'll try to do one of these every three or four weeks to keep folks posted...
-CW
Not a word about the Bradley Effect.
There is evidence it was in play this election cycle in its California birthplace. The Obama campaign was feeling confident that it was going to carry California and of course lost big to Mrs Clinton. Now I don't believe that California is seriously in play in November, but I also don't believe the huge margins that Obama is racking up either.
Where the Bradley Effect might be happening is in a couple of the battleground states, most notably Ohio and Michigan. A LOT of historical racial animosity in those states. No evidence to back those theories up either.
Anyway, enjoyable column as always
You should explain that the 'Bradley Effect' is all about voters saying one
thing & doing another. Specifically, saying they'll vote for a black candidate
(to pollsters) and then not. Named for LA mayor Tom Bradley, after he failed
to get elected CA governor. (Not NJ ex-Sen Bill Bradley, as you might have thought.)
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=268328
Not a word about the Bradley Effect.
There is evidence it was in play this election cycle in its California birthplace. The Obama campaign was feeling confident that it was going to carry California and of course lost big to Mrs Clinton. Now I don't believe that California is seriously in play in November, but I also don't believe the huge margins that Obama is racking up either.
Where the Bradley Effect might be happening is in a couple of the battleground states, most notably Ohio and Michigan. A LOT of historical racial animosity in those states. No evidence to back those theories up either.
Anyway, enjoyable column as always. And totally agree that a lot can happen between now and November. And probably will.
HollywoodBill -
[Whoa! Looks like my picture now gets posted with my comments! I just know I'm going to get sick of seeing my face when I comment too much, so I apologize in advance if anyone else feels the same.]
You're right, I should have included the Bradley Effect in the caveat section. Although I disagree about California, I remember that Obama was hopeful of CA before Super Tuesday, but not that they were confident about it. Hillary had out-polled him in CA for the most part, but the size of her victory (I think she won by about 20 points) was more impressive than most were saying before it happened, so I guess you could still make a case for a BE here.
But I do agree that in Michigan and Ohio, and possibly Pennsylvania as well, it is possible for a BE to show up. I will definitely be keeping my eyes on them.
-CW
Clinton's California victory was not as big as it looked.
Sorry I don't have the exact numbers, but a LARGE percentage of Californians voted absentee well in advance. Remember, Clinton was the presumptive nominee going into the primaries. It took a while for the Obama campaign to overcome Clinton's name-recognition advantage. Super Tuesday happened in the middle of that process. Minds had changed by the time the votes were counted.
Besides that, there were lots of complaints of people receiving incorrect instructions regarding cross-party voting. 50,000 ballots in one polling place alone were discarded because the registrar claimed there was no way to interpret the voters' intentions. Why? Voters had clearly selected a presidential candidate, but instead of selecting the party to which that candidate belonged, they selected "independent."
A thorough job as usual BUT we still have the Veep choices to go through. Obama will lose
ground during that process because of the negative reaction he will get no matter what choice he
makes. McCain is still in it.
Johnnn -
Yeah, I've been avoiding the VP picture, you're right. Looks like I should pay some attention to it, because the rumor is that Obama will pick his before the Olympics, which means right after he gets back to the US. You can take that with a grain of salt if you wish, but that's what the grapevine is whispering...
But you ignored the key question: did the graphs look OK?
:-)
-CW
For me, these graphs don't explain much. The figures are straightforward enough
and just not that complicated. Still, a lot of smallish Red states & not so many
largish Blue states, and too many *critical* 'toss-up/cross-over' states. But
at least for the moment, Obama is seems to be doing REALLY well.
(VP? At the moment, I think it should be Bayh.)
Your graphs look great - you must have spent the whole day on this! Though, its all a little overwhelming for me. Pretty spiffy blogger response box, too.
I do hope you're right about Obama picking his VP as soon as he gets back from his trip. I don't think I can take it much longer. If he doesn't announce it soon someone may have to...you know...shoot me.
The graphs are an excellent way to show the polls. I like them. Especially because
I would say that until one of the candidates gets safe state electoral votes of 270 or more, it's too early to call. Obama hits around 226 according to your data. That doesn't convince me he's won this yet. Not at all. Too many toss-up states remaining.
As I said before, I promise to make my prediction later. You have my attention!
In a candid interview via satellite from China, Olympic...
Update: Keith Olbermann had Rachel Maddow on "Countdown" Tuesday night to celebrate...
UPDATE: A day after Roseanne's blogs from below...
"How honest are we if we tell the truth most of the time &...
Obama's been to Hawaii. We're moving...
I've read the comments. I know what some of you think. Yawn. It's not a story. He's not...
LOS ANGELES — Barack Obama is getting praise from Nashville, courtesy of one...
The New York Times' Kit Seelye is backing up NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who reported on...
NEW YORK — The suspense didn't quite compare to the identity of "Deep Throat,"...
Loading comments…
Posted July 21, 2008 | 05:47 PM (EST)