Despite Media Narrative, Obama Leads By Over 100 Electoral Votes According To Independent Groups

With all the breathlessness over the minute movements in the irrelevant national polls, the one thing no one seems to be noticing is that the electoral map is still trending very poorly for John McCain (R).

I realize that it cuts against the media narrative right now to focus on anything that doesn't suggest a dead-heat, but it's quite instructive to see how the independent groups (and even right-leaning ones) currently see the state of the race through the only prism that matters -- the Electoral College:

                     Obama  McCain    Margin

Real Clear Politics   322    216    Obama +106
Electoral-Vote.com    316    209    Obama +107
FiveThirtyEight.com   303    235    Obama + 68
Pollster.com          284    147    Obama +137

AVERAGE               306    202    Obama +104

If you think about the reporting of the fluctuating state polls lately that show a tight race, all of them involve red states that McCain can't afford to lose: Colorado, Montana, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Alaska, Georgia, etc.

Despite the media narrative that a number of blue states are competitive, the truth is none of the recent polling shows McCain making any significant inroads in the blue states. Consider:

• In Michigan, McCain had not led in any poll since May;
• In Pennsylvania, McCain has not led in any poll April, and a Republican poll released last week showed McCain trailing by 9, in line with the current Pollster.com average;
• In New Hampshire, McCain has not led in any poll since April;
• In Minnesota, while one recent poll showed McCain within the margin of error, no other poll in the past month (including one poll taken more recently) has him within 12 points.

So, while the media breathlessly reports the national tracking polls which shows a close race, the state polling is still showing a pretty significant Obama lead.

P.S. -- Again reminding us how big of a joke CNN's political reporting has become, their current electoral map has it Obama 221, McCain 189. What a farce.

Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base, and this story was from his original post, "Despite Media Narrative, Obama Leads By Over 100 Electoral Votes By Independent Groups"

Comments

[neesy08]

I came to this post just in time. I just left www.politico.com. Some idiot posted that Obama was loosing in all the states. That is percetnage had dropped! My jaws dropped. This contradicts every state poll. Of course I had to respond and set him straight.

The Republicans are unbelievable! They cannot accept the truth.

[mvy]

The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes " 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

[KHAAANNN]

I live in Minnesota and NO ONE has told me they will be voting for McCain. (Not even the rabid conservatives I work with.)
I have seen thousands of cars with Obama bumper-stickers on them (even a lot with both an old "W" sticker and a new "O" Obama sticker, go figure.)
To say that Minnesota is "in play" is delusional.
I've said it before and I'll say it again;
The election coverage is ALL about eyeballs and advertising revenue.
If the MSM "allows" the public to perceive Obama as the victor, there goes all the ad revenue from the election "horse race". The MUST beat this dead horse to keep the bucks flowing. There are literally billions of dollars in ad revenue at stake here and they cannot afford to let it slip away.
FACTS be damned, it is all about the MONEY. That is what "edutainment" is all about!

[Dustee]

I know you're right!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/despite-media-narrative-o_b_116906.html

[UnbiasView]

I haven't seen 10,000s of bumper stickers and I live in Minnesota too . . . then again I didn't know that elections were decided bumper stickers. Liberals in general are more likely to put bumper stickers on their cars than conservatives . . . I still see a bunch of Gore and Kerry stickers.

[KHAAANNN]

Look, I know numbers and FACTS are something foreign to you (and we all know how much you FEAR anything foreign) but please point out in my post where I said "10,000's of bumper stickers"? No? Fine then.
I still see a bunch of "W" stickers, but you don't hear me making stuff up about it, and BTW, Gore and Kerry both won Minnesota so it only makes sense you would see lots of bumper stickers about them, and the fact that most average people (you, know, the ones who can't afford a new car every four years) would STILL have their bumper stickers on.

[white_mende_man]

If people can recall the election between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter they might recall how the media kept telling the people how close the race was even on the day of the elections and you will all recall how lop-sided it ended up being in the favor of Ronald Reagan... well I have no doubt in my mind that history is about to repeat itself this time in favor of barak Obama and the Democratic party.

[Intelligentia]

CNN is a joke! However, I don't care what the polls say. I care about the electorate! As long as all those Obama-loving White voters stick to their outward exhibitions in the voting booth in November, we will have a landslide for an Obama win. My concern is that the voting booth race genie always seems to hang around the voting booth on election day. If you say it ain't so, ask Bill Bradley what happened to his 15-point lead in California. We have seen it before and it can happen again. I just pray that I am proven wrong! I dread having to post after the election and say: I told you so.

[Yish]

What does "Obama-loving White voters" supposed to mean?

Intelligencia, sounds like you are stereotyping a whole group. Won't change my mind, I will vote for Obama, but unitelligent statements like your's sure don't help the cause of building a coolition based on direvsity -- and that is what it is going tp take -- you are alienating your potential allies with your poison.

And by the way, Bradley is not an African American -- what does he have to do with your point you are trying to make?

[SouthernBlueBelle]

MSM, now that they Obama, are dying to make it look like he can't get elected. Or at least have the electorate worry about that. Face it there are a certain number of people who only vote for whomever they think will win, sad but true. "Be on the winning team" no matter what it does to the rest of us. I remember all those who re-elected Nixon just a few months later saying they hadn't voted for him. If they hadn't he wouldn't have been there. Same in 2004, no matter how bad he was Bush got re-elected because it seemed inevitable.

[FirstShirt]

Independents haven't logged on yet. Your stats are as irrelevant as the rest. What isn't irrelevant is that Reagan was behind until just before the election and then slammed Carter. And, Bush 1 was behind Dukakis. And John Kerry was the scion of the dems. Etc. The difference in the candidates is the John Mccain is known to the electorate...love him or leave him. He isn't an unknown. Barack is unknown and the over 50 crowd isn't impressed by the media glitz or marketing.

[BaltimoreSteve]

Shhhhhh. Keep the national number appear tight so that we get a big turnout.
If a pollster calls you say you're a republican voting for McCain.

[BobsNotWorking]

Boy, I disagree. I think there is a huge group of voters out there who vote under the spell of mass psychology. In other words, they are inclined to vote for who they perceive is going to be the winner. I think it's far better to try to make the Republicans feel demoralized. That, I think, will tend to suppress their turnout at the polls. Not only that, but they should feel demoralized. They've led our country to the brink of ruin while poisoning our society with condescending hateful intolerance. Everything they've been touting for forty years has now been proven, not only wrong for America, but wrong in fact.

[FirstShirt]

Yeah, you can just see the demoralization at the Sturgis rally. And, of course there was no intolerance between the Hillary supporters and the Obama supporters. Talk about a classless society, that was truely classless.

[StillAmused]

Cable political chatter is a serious threat to mental health. Watch only in brief increments (strictly for the laughs), then move on to something productive and give your intellect a chance to recover.

Cable 'commentators', ostensibly the most informed observers of the political scene, bite on every adolescent narrative, misconstrue and mischaracterize every controversy and generally make a mockery of critical thinking.

Other than that, they're a waste of time.

[FirstShirt]

"Other than that, they're a waste of time."

I disagree. While their opinion is no more important than yours or mine, the historical narrative of what worked in the past and where candidates were in the polls is interesting and informative. Better than the marketing of either candidate.

[StillAmused]

So, uh, you find it "interesting and informative" that the talking heads bite on every adolescent narrative, misconstrue and mischaracterize every controversy and generally make a mockery of critical thinking?

[MrTender]

Of course... all of this depends on them counting the votes correctly

[CyrusBeaucephus]

They have software that "corrects" everything. Keep an eye on the exit polls again, just for laughs, of course. You can't cheat on an election that is a landslide, so its importatnt to lie about the closeness of the race on a daily basis. We have had two illegetimate elections in a row, why won't there be a third one? Its not like anyone has had to pay a price for electoral fraud. The corporate news media won't even report it. We are a fascist country, and have been for quite some time

[ARonHenry]

Don't kid yourselves, this is going to be a close election. If anything, political outlooks and electoral voting patterns have hardend. I don't see this year's election being much different from 2000 or 2004. And remember, historically speaking, Democratic presidential victories since 1960 have tended to be narrow. That trend probably isn't going to change now.

Obama MUST win all the Kerry states from 2004. He should do that, but he can't let ANY get away, including New Hampshire and Michigan, both states where McCain is close. Remember that little New Hampshire helped do it Al Gore in 2000.

Forget about most of the South or the Plains states. They're hopelessly. Most of them would still vote for Bush. If Obama holds ALL the Kerry states McCain can't win without Ohio and Florida. Go after them. Make the Rethugs spend as much of their money there as you can. And then flip Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado from red to blue. Even if McCain takes Ohio and Florida Obama could still win by taking those 3 states. Nevada and especially Virgina would just be icing on the cake.

Obama could potentially pile up about 350 electoral votes in a best case senario. I think he's more likely to end up around 273 to 277. Either way, he wins the election, and that is what is most important. Barack Obama MUST win this election. For the good of the world I hope he can EFFECTIVELY deploy his formidable resources.

[FirstShirt]

"Remember that little New Hampshire helped do it Al Gore in 2000."

Also, remember that Gore Lost his own state of Tennessee.

[FastMovingCloud]

The media has a vested interest in keeping the race close and, coincidently, nearly all of the pollsters are sponsored by news organizations. If the race isn't tight, then no one watches the chatterbox shows.

[joebhed]

And, therefore, we can expect a further move to the right.

Or, compromise, as they call it.

[elcojonu]

Folks, campaigns use the Electoral Vote Polls to formulate and carry-out their strategies.
National popularity polls are merely a curiosity in our electoral system; elections are won and lost in the Electoral College.
Follow the Electoral Vote Polls for a more precise indication of how things really are.
The other polls will make you angry and frustrated.
THE ONE is way ahead, that's why he's so confident and relaxed.
Barring a catastrophe, we're there; start making your plans for an inaguration day party in January, get your Tuxes and Evening Gowns ready; we're gonna PARTTTY !

VIVA THE ONE

[lastcallmd]

It's called denial guys, the libs (oh, progressives, lol) are always at their amusing best when they engage in it.

[Leftybydesign]

Electoral-vote.com has Obama 289 McCain 236 Ties 13. SurveyUSA just did a recent Florida poll showing McCain in the lead 50-44 which was not the case prior.

Obama is still ahead but the negative stuff will have an effect. Going negative this early is probably not a smart strategy though. Usually, you wait till October for that so that you don't give your opponent a chance to rebut. that's what Hillary did to go up in numbers at the end. she wouldn't have been able to pull that off earlier in the campaign. Obama seems like he responds pretty quickly. The media has been more blatant in spinning than I've seen them before. Usually, its quite subtle but not anymore.

[pbfishtaco]

I think you hit on something. Going negative so early is from desperation. McBush clearly doesn't like what he's seeing over the next few weeks, and is trying anything, including the kitchen sink to slow the Obama juggernaut. You can only appeal to so many fearful people, and it's not enough this time to get close enough to cheat their way into the White House.

I've always felt that the Corporate Media has a vested interest in either a McBush win, or a horse race for ratings and ad buys. I've stopped watching most of the talking head shows, and only read online.

I'm heartened by this article; IGNORE THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE TOTALS.

I like fivethirtyeight....

Thanks Mark Nickolas!