5 days to go. Here's my electoral map of the state of the Presidential race as of today:
(previous map is available here)
I've allocated states that are more than +1 in favor of a candidate to that candidate. I realize that makes it extremely sensitive to fluctuations in the polls, but I'm trying to get an accurate take on what the status is today, not a week or two weeks from now. Also, any changes will tend to show up more clearly when displayed this way. Flipping a state from undecided to definite or vice versa will show up as a major change - which it should. It's also important to point out that these numbers come from averages of polls over a period of time, so they don't react as quickly to changes as individual polls.
Here are the states that are considered tossups in the RCP polling averages:
| State | Polling Average |
| Ohio (18) | O +2.3 |
| Florida (29) | R +1.2 |
| Virginia (13) | R +0.5 |
| New Hampshire (4) | O +1.3 |
| Wisconsin (10) | O +5.0 |
| Michigan (16) | O +3.0 |
| Pennsylvania (20) | O +4.6 |
| North Carolina (15) | R +3.8 |
| Iowa (6) | O +2.0 |
| Colorado (9) | O +0.9 |
| Nevada (6) | O +2.7 |
Not many changes from ten days ago, the state classifications and poll numbers haven't moved much.
Not much of a change in the 30 day tracking graph:
Romney's +0.9 lead has turned into an Obama +0.1 lead, but once again looking at the graph it looks like the candidates are basically tied with some noise moving the numbers around within a 1 percentage point range. I should point out that the selection of polls that RCP chooses is showing less of an effect than other poll aggregators, which seem to show a clear 1 to 2 percentage point move towards Obama.
On Senate races, we were previously looking at 47 D, 44 R and 9 toss ups. Currently we're looking at 46 D, 43 R and 11 toss ups. Going by my rule for the electoral map (anything between +1 or -1 are true tossups) I come up with a count of 52 D, 45 R and 3 tossups. The polls are very close in some states, but they generally show the Dems with the lead and most likely to stay at 53 members in the upcoming Senate.
My prediction for the Senate:
Dems take: MA, CT, VA, OH, WI, MO, and MT
GOP takes IN, ND, NV and AZ
Senate winds up 53 Dem, 47 Rep. Unchanged from its current makeup.
Current predictions still show that Republicans will lose seats in the House, but not enough to lose control of the chamber. They also predict that Republicans will pick up several governor's seats.
UPDATED 11/2/12 -
RCP National Average has Obama 47.4 - Romney 47.3, O +0.1
My electoral map is 281 O, 235 R, 22 tossup, unchanged.
Nate Silver has Obama's chances at 81.1%
(#294668)and his chances of winning Ohio at 80.7%, with only 3 more updates of the 538 model to go.
Obama heads into the weekend the heavy favorite.
We Hope and Pray...I See Long, Long Lines for Early Voting...
(#294669)...everywhere, people waiting up to 3 hours to vote today! A heavy turn out has traditionally favored Democratic Candidates...but it will be the ground game, so, if you are involved, go get them, drive them to the polls, make those last minute phone calls.
I can foresee an overwhelming Obama victory in the Electoral College...but I just may be fooling myself and whistling past a graveyard.
We will see.
Best Wishes, Traveller
Plenty of enthusiasm for Romney in OH
(#294671)Driving around there are Ohio State students waving Romney/Ryan signs, there was a rally of sorts in the main space in front of the library, etc.
I pulled up all the Romney lawn signs after the rally was over and threw them away to both booing and cheering.
I see a likely +300 EV election for Obama, but not a landslide.
Alex Tabarrok says something sensible
(#294686)A Bet is a Tax on Bullshit
Nate Silver, whose models give Obama a high probability of winning reelection, has offered one of his critics a bet. “Putting your money where your mouth is,” is a time-honored principle of integrity in my view but the NYTimes Public Editor is very upset. Margaret Sullivan, however, never offers an argument against betting ...
... In fact, the NYTimes should require that Silver, and other pundits, bet their beliefs....
I am for betting because I am against bullshit. Bullshit is polluting our discourse and drowning the facts. A bet costs the bullshitter more than the non-bullshitter so the willingness to bet signals honest belief. A bet is a tax on bullshit; and it is a just tax, tribute paid by the bullshitters to those with genuine knowledge.
I can't believe I have "hear hear!" running through my head in response to an Alex Tabarrok post, but there it is.
Scarborough Missed The Obvious Reply
(#294694)"If you really believe Obama has an 80% chance of winning, how about we bet and you give me 4 to 1 odds?" BS should pay off at the correct percentage, after all.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
That would still be a horrible bet
(#294696)unless Scarborough knows something Silver - and everyone else - doesn't know. If you wanted a reasonable bet, do a point spread on the EV vote. Point spreads are designed to result in 50 - 50 chances (well technically they're designed to split the betting pool 50 - 50, but in the case of two people wagering the same amount that's the same thing).
I blame it all on the Internet
Two cases of voter fraud!
(#294709)First up, a Southern Nevada woman named Roxanne Rubin has been arrested and charged with voting twice, also known as once more than the law will allow, also known as in-person voter fraud. She was caught by an electronic recordkeeping system designed to detect fraud. Ms. Rubin is a registered Republican.
Next on the docket, from the good state of Oregan, a Clackamas County elections worker is under investigation on suspicion of tampering with ballots.
A much, much more efficient way to tilt the polls in your direction. Prediction: there is going to be widespread, massive election fraud before, on & after Nov. 6 this year, and very few cases are ever going to be brought to justice. Prediction 2: the vast majority of cases will be perpetrated by Republican county elections officials and poll workers.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I'll Blame Truthiness for that
(#294712)Professional Cranks have been telling them of voter fraud this liberal voting fraud epidemic, someone has to even the playing field.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
On this election being closer than it appears
(#294797)http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2012/11/my-election-prediction.php
Good read. It all comes down to whether state polls
(#294812)or national polls are more accurate.
M Aurelius was probably right.
That's A Good Balanced Read
(#294813)I might end up slightly different on details, but it will be that close at the end.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
I don't have enough knowledge to rebut the points
(#294833)Nevertheless I'm skeptical of "all the many independent professional polling outfits are wrong" arguments. The pollsters do this for a living, there's lots of $ on the line, and in nearly every election I've heard these arguments about systemic bias from the side that looks to be losing.
In 2004 people had me believing that the polling was systematically under-representing youthful Kerry voters. The polls contact people on landlines but given the recent proliferation of cell phones, many young people who break significantly toward Kerry don't have land lines! I didn't have a landline at the time and neither did any of my friends. Sounded plausible and then Kerry's popular vote came in about the way polls predicted.
My prediction is we'll see same on Tues.
I think what a lot of people are missing
(#294835)is that whether Obama or Romney wins, it doesn't prove Nate Silver or any other model wrong. The only way to prove it wrong would be to run the exact same election, under the exact same conditions, multiple times and see if the results match his simulations. Which is, of course, impossible. So there's a bit of a disconnect here.
I blame it all on the Internet
The only thing that could be "wrong" is statistical bias
(#294845)in all of the polls. That is, rather than typical margin-of-error reporting, every single swing state poll is somehow undercounting Romney supporters, overcounting Obama supporters, or in some other way squooging things in the same direction. Everyone has to be wrong in the same way. It's certainly possible, but doesn't look like the way to bet at this point.
M Aurelius was probably right.
No, there could be voter fraud
(#294846)That could swing the election and would not reflect statistical bias on behalf of the polls.
For anyone paying attention, we have a Secretary of State in Ohio who is very uninterested in democracy and the law and very interested in what he can get away with.
That wouldn't be a poll problem; it would be an obeying the law
(#294853)problem.
M Aurelius was probably right.
A paranoid person might think
(#294871)A paranoid person might think the concerted effort to discount the poll aggregators and modelers is intended to dampen public outrage over vote irregularities and court cases.
I'm getting really worried about our SoSes
(#294939)Why we have partisan election officials, I'll never understand, but now I'm worried that people will vote for a Secretary of State in order to give their preferred party a boost in federal elections.
The way we run our elections is simply out of control. We need something like Elections Canada, an independent, nonpartisan group of people to run the elections.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
There are several things that could be wrong
(#294850)in addition to catchy's voter fraud. Polling responses may not follow a normal distribution. Aggregations of polls may not follow a normal distribution. There may be some procedural errors among pollsters that add rather than offset when aggregating (like "likely voter" screens). There may be systemic effects regarding the electorate that are either new or have a larger influence this election than in previous elections. There may be problems with responses not being truly random due to low response rates and a certain amount of self selection.
But they all pretty much boil down to either:
1. Polling is generally incorrect, or
2. It's different this time
neither one of which I find very compelling.
I blame it all on the Internet
Sandy is the October surprise
(#294800)Tell me that wasn't predictable....
It's laughably amazing how national disasters strengthen a president's appeal.
You knew about Sandy 6 months ago?
(#294802)That's literally incredible. Or maybe I don't understand what "predictable" means.
I blame it all on the Internet
Oh, Hank, Hank, Hank....
(#294807)you're amazing.
One dimensional communication by typed word cannot possibly be this difficult.
THE REACTION as seen in the polls is predictable. Sheesh. Every face palm I ever have here is further justified in my mind when I get reactions like this.
Y'all need to relax. So difficult and combative....and serious! gruf gruf...
PS: The headline of my previous post was a joke. OBVIOUSLY. Tsk....
Ambiguous writing often leads to confusion
(#294829)sure, natural disasters make presidents look more presidential. But look at your post and tell me that it was clear on what was predictable.
I blame it all on the Internet
It took too much for granted as understood.
(#294854)my bad...
The single hardest problem in any kind of writing...
(#294856)figuring out how much is too much. Not enough is usually slightly better, but only slightly. It amounts to knowing exactly who you're writing for. Makes me nervous just thinking about it.
M Aurelius was probably right.
It's not a big deal
(#294862)people get confused over my writing all the time.
But to get back on track, yes, allowing a President to be Presidential and actually do immediate, concrete things that help people is a severe disadvantage for a challenger. I don't think it's determinative by itself, but it sure doesn't help Romney. Neither does having the co-chair of the Republican Governor's Association go on and on about how great the President is.
I blame it all on the Internet
I think it very well may be determinative, Hank
(#295025)Whatever slight chance Romney had within the margin of error of the most favorable polls in key states just got eradicated with the after math of Sandy. A few thousand votes here, a few thousand there. Pulling off Ohio and locking in some other crucial states all at the same time just went from slightly possible to improbable.
I meant compared to the overall campaign
(#295028)but sure, with Romney at + or - 1 or 2 points it could make the difference. If things weren't that close I don't think it would matter much by itself. For example, I think the first debate and Romney's 47% comments were much bigger deals.
I blame it all on the Internet
Of course John didn't KNOW...
(#294806)...that's why it's a surprise!!
Why "laughably amazing'?
(#294863)Multi-state disasters are what federal executives are there for, essentially. Co-ordination, response, resource allocation decisions, medical emergencies etc.
Do you think very large-scale disaster management is unimportant? Or that it should not be planned for?
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
I think what he meant was
(#294866)a natural disaster like this is a godsend for the incumbent.
I blame it all on the Internet
"natural disaster a godsend"??
(#294902)Well, it wasn't clear (sorry, John) - and in any case, it's only true if said incumbents don't botch up the response or relief efforts too badly: one has to wonder what political ramifications would have been if Hurricane Katrina had devastated New Orleans in 2004, rather than 2005....
OK, more qualifiers
(#294911)if the incumbent is capable and if the disaster was totally unforeseen and if the incumbent knows how to direct the government to make an effective response ...
then it makes the incumbent look very good.
I blame it all on the Internet
It's laughably amazing
(#295024)because people can do a 180 and go from supporting one candidate to another. Or if it happens outside of election season, it can send a president's approval rating sharply upward. See Bush after 9/11.
Yes, I find that laughably amazing that people can be so fickle. I don't think it's a coincidence that Obama closed the popular vote gap during Sandy. So that means that people who supported Romney last week now support Obama in enough numbers for a 1+% swing. To a political cynic and eye-roller like me, that's laughable. Gag me with a spoon. Of course, there's a pandora's box of predispositions I have about politics, government, voters, issues, politicians and the whole darn ball of wax that drive that kind of reaction. They all just amplify and strengthen when things like this happen.
It shouldn't be amazing.
(#295027)There's such a thing as rallying around the figure of authority in a crisis.
You may not like it, but amazing it is not (or as I said, shouldn't be). Also, executives probably do not relish producing jobs plans or digesting day to day legislative waffle, and are both enthusiastic and effective when there is an identifiable "a job to be done" - showing their best, as it were.
I get the carping on this forvm, but IMO (that of a foreigner, naturally) both candidates are pretty impressive. Mr Obama's was always a compelling story (of how he got to where he has), but perhaps more so Mr Romney's tough, gritty character and ability shown in this no-holds-barred streetfight.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Monday: Free concert with Obama, Bruce Springsteen, and Jay-Z
(#294980)I think the message that Ohioans are much more important than the residents of other states has been clearly made.
Ask yourself: Is there a big free concert with Bruce Springsteen and Jay-Z in your city the night before the election? No? Well, maybe you're just not as important.
Hope They Draw More Than Stevie Wonder Did
(#294984)Springsteen might gut himself right there on the stage if only two hundred people show up.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
If that does happen to Springsteen,
(#294999)I know what song he'll singing at the event.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Vote For the White Guy for President! (Video)
(#295065)Best Wishes, Traveller
Jeff, Chet and Barry, lol. -nt-
(#295066).
M Aurelius was probably right.
Gallup Comes to Jesus? Romney 49 - Obama 48.
(#295069)After suspending its tracking poll for Hurricane Sandy, Gallup gets back in the came with some sharply different numbers than what they'd been calling for the past several weeks. After having Romney +5 among likely voters, they're now showing a large 4 point shift in Obama's favor, and incidentally bringing them in line with nearly all other polling outfits in the country.
So what happened? Did hundreds of thousands of voters suddenly have a change of heart. Did Gallup tweak their LV mix? Did Sandy skew the results (thousands of uncharged cellphones going unanswered?). Is this poll itself an anomaly? Or did Gallup just get tired of being called an outlier and decide to head back in towards reliability before their credibility's shot for good?
M Aurelius was probably right.
As I said elsewhere,
(#295070)I think Sandy and its aftermath influenced more weak leaning voters toward Obama.
And only Gallup picked up this movement?
(#295071)Gallup had Obama down by 5 before taking a break last week.
No other polling outfit had that kind of movement towards Obama.
The best explanation is that Gallup changed, not the electorate.
Exactly, Gallup's the only poll showing a 4 point jump.
(#295074)My theory is that they took a little hurricane break and came back ready to regain some credibility. You've gotta beat Rasmussen. At least Rasmussen.
M Aurelius was probably right.
As a general trend,
(#295077)The polls tightened across the board. Romney lost his popular vote lead across multiple polls.
I've seen 538 and votamatic
(#295078)I've seen 538 and votamatic mention "herding" of the polls, specifically state polls I think. The assumption is they are changing their methodology to pull the topline numbers in line with the other pollsters.