Presidential Forecast, May 19th

by: Chris Bowers

Mon May 19, 2008 at 13:25


McCain 229, Obama 228, Toss-up 81



(Dark Blue means "Solid Obama," or Obama +10% or more
Light Blue means "Lean Obama," or Obama +4.1%-+9.9%
White means "Toss-up," from between Obama +4.0% to McCain +4.0%
Light Red means "Lean McCain" or McCain +4.1%-+9.9%
Dark Red means "Solid McCain," or McCain +10.0% or more
)

Solid Obama: 130 Electoral Votes
State EV's Obama % McCain % Margin # Polls
Connecticut 7 51.0% 36.5% +14.5% 2
D.C. 3 -- -- +80.0% 0
Hawaii 4 61.0% 31.0% +30.0% 1
Illinois 21 59.0% 34.0% +25.0% 2
Maine-AL* 2 52.0% 38.5% +13.5% 2
Maine-01* 1 -- -- +17.0% 0
Maine-02* 1 -- -- +10.0% 0
Maryland 10 52.0% 38.5% +13.5% 2
Minnesota 10 51.5% 38.0% +13.5% 2
New Jersey 15 52.0% 36.0% +16.0% 2
New York 31 49.5% 36.5% +13.0% 2
Oregon 7 51.5% 40.0% +11.5% 2
Rhode Island 4 47.5% 34.0% +13.5% 2
Vermont 3 60.0% 32.5% +27.5% 2
Washington 11 52.5% 41.0% +11.5% 2

Lean Obama: 98 Electoral Votes
State EV's Obama % McCain % Margin # Polls
California 55 50.0% 43.0% +7.0% 2
Delaware 3 50.0% 41.0% +9.0% 1
Iowa 7 46.5% 41.5% +5.0% 2
Massachusetts 12 49.5% 42.5% +7.0% 2
Pennsylvania 21 45.3% 40.3% +5.0% 3

Toss-up: 81 Electoral Votes
State EV's Obama % McCain % Margin # Polls
Indiana 11 45.5% 49.0% -3.5% 2
Michigan 17 43.5% 43.0% +0.5% 2
Nebraska-01** 1 -- -- -1.0% 0
Nebraska-02** 1 -- -- +4.0% 0
Nevada 5 44.5% 45.0% -0.5% 2
New Mexico 5 47.0% 45.5% +1.5% 2
North Dakota 3 42.0% 43.0% -1.0% 2
Ohio 20 43.0% 44.0% -1.0% 2
South Carolina 8 45.0% 48.0% -3.0% 1
Wisconsin 10 45.0% 45.0% Even 2

Lean McCain: 121 Electoral Votes
State EV's Obama % McCain % Margin # Polls
Alaska 3 41.5% 49.5% -8.0% 2
Colorado 9 42.5% 47.0% -4.5% 2
Florida 27 40.5% 48.5% -8.0% 2
Missouri 11 41.5% 48.5% -7.0% 2
Montana 3 41.0% 47.5% -6.5% 2
Nebraska-AL** 2 40.5% 47.5% -7.0% 2
New Hampshire 4 42.0% 50.0% -8.0% 2
North Carolina 15 42.7% 49.0% -6.3% 3
Texas 34 41.0% 50.0% -9.0% 2
Virginia 13 44.0% 49.5% -5.5% 2

Solid McCain: 108 Electoral Votes
State EV's Obama % McCain % Margin # Polls
Alabama 9 34.0% 59.5% -25.5% 2
Arizona 10 37.5% 52.5% -15.0% 2
Arkansas 6 31.5% 58.0% -26.5% 2
Georgia 15 39.5% 53.5% -14.0% 2
Idaho 4 39.0% 52.0% -13.0% 1
Kansas 6 35.5% 54.5% -19.0% 2
Kentucky 8 33.5% 57.0% -23.5% 2
Louisiana 9 37.0% 52.5% -15.5% 2
Mississippi 6 41.0% 54.0% -13.0% 1
Nebraska-03** 1 -- -- -25.0% 2
Oklahoma 7 27.5% 59.5% -32.0% 2
South Dakota 3 36.0% 49.5% -13.5% 2
Tennessee 11 33.5% 55.5% -22.0% 2
Utah 5 39.0% 50.0% -11.0% 1
West Virginia 5 35.0% 53.0% -18.0% 1
Wyoming 3 35.0% 54.0% -19.0% 1

Methodology and analysis in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Presidential Forecast, May 19th
* Maine four electoral votes are awarded as follows: two for the statewide winner, and one for the winner of each congressional district. ME-01 is about 3.5% more Democratic than the state as a whole, while ME-02 is about 3.5% less Democratic than the state as a whole.

** Nebraska's five electoral votes are awarded as follows: two for the statewide winner, and one for the winner of each congressional district. NE-01 is about 6.0% more Democratic than the state as a whole, NE-01 is about 11.0% more Democratic than the state as a whole, and NE-03 is about 18.0% less Democratic than the state as a whole.

Methodology and Analysis
I will update at least once every day between now and November 4th. The methodology is simple and straightforward.

  1. For each state, take all polls conducted for the state over the previous thirty days, and average them.
  2. If one polling firm has more than one poll in a state over the last thirty days, take only the most recent poll.
  3. Every state has at least two polls. If two polls were not conducted in a state over the last thirty days, use the two most recent polls.
  4. If only one poll has been conducted in a state, then only use that poll.
  5. No polling firm discrimination whatsoever. Polls are never excluded because the organization has a bad or partisan reputation.

As we move closer to the election and more data becomes available, the time frames for polls included in the averages will decrease. Also, when the amount of data increases, I will be able to start projecting the swing, "toss-up" states. Right now, however, there just isn't enough data to push those states into one camp or the other.

Right now, the electoral map significantly differs from the fairly static ones we grew so used to in 2000 and 2004. In particular, far more states are in either the "toss-up" or one of the "lean" categories than in the past two elections. There are several reasons for this:

  1. Lack of polling information: Right now, there is relatively little recent polling information for most states. As such, the state averages include polls taken from late February through mid-May. This time frame includes some very positive stretches for Obama (late February, early March and May) and some very negative times for Obama (mid-March through late March, and late April). Because of the wide range of times when these polls were taken, Obama will appear stronger in some states than he really is, and weaker in other states than he really is. As we receive more data, the map will probably approach a more familiar color scheme.

  2. Rasmussen Dominates Averages: Simply because they put out so many polls, right now most state polling has been conducted by Rasmussen. This can skew some results, since Rasmussen has been about four or five points more favorable to McCain than other polling firms this year.

  3. Newfound Democratic Strength. The general pro-Democratic and anti-Republican mood in the country will probably push some surprising states, like Alaska and Texas, out of the "Solid McCain" category. Also, Democratic organizing in virtually every state during the primary season will also result in surprising Democratic strength in unexpected areas, like North Dakota.

  4. Obama's Senior Weakness: A third factor that will cause the maps to look different is Obama's weakness among self-identified Democratic seniors. Until he shores up that base, surprising weakness in states like California, Florida and Massachusetts should continue.

So, for a variety of reasons, some methodological, some dealing with the general mood of the public, and some specific to the candidates themselves, the 2008 map starts out quite a bit different from the 2000 and 2004 maps with which we have all grown familiar. It remains to be seen if the 2008 will start to approach something more "normal" as the campaign plays out and more data becomes available. For right now, however, there are a surprisingly large number of swing states in this election, and some very different maps seem possible this year.

Tomorrow, I will be rolling out my first Senate Forecast of the year. On Wednesday, comes the first House Forecast.  


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Thank You (4.00 / 4)
This is an excellent service.  Thank you.  

Based on personal (unscientific) knowledge I am more optimistic  about Colorado.   I see Obama helping Udall and Udall helping Obama.  

This map also illustrates the importance of keeping Michigan happy and it helps build a case for selecting Ted Stricklen as the VP -  He is a top tier choice.  


Colorado (4.00 / 2)
Right now, Colorado is probably actually lean Obama. However, there have not been many polls, and a Republican firm that shows McCain ahead by 12 there is one of the two polls included in the average.

Hopefully, a new poll will come along, and put Obama ahead.  


[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
I think you are leaning too much on polls right now Chris. Add some more demographics like Poblano does at least for the states that are under polled beacuse all the non-partisan Colorado polling has shown him tied or way ahead.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
I disagree (4.00 / 3)
Including analysis like that only works when you can have accurate representations of how those demographics will break in terms of vote preference. Of course, you need polls to determine that.

I'm not going to add any special sauce. Been, there done that. Simple poll averaging has consistently proven more effective for statewide, general election campaigns. Special sauce is needed for primaries and House elections, where vote models are hard to come by, but not in general election, statewide campaigns. Polling on that front is solid.  


[ Parent ]
Thanks for addressing this... (0.00 / 0)
I live in Denver and thought the pink tint looked fishy.  (I could have understood toss-up, though I think Obama is showing a lot of strength out here at the moment.)

Target Point survey aside, Colorado is shaping up well for Democrats at this point in the race, if we don't let up.


[ Parent ]
Disagree (4.00 / 1)
I've seen a few internal polls here as well as the public ones Bowers references. It's very very close, and kind of topsy-turvy, with a slight edge to McCain. Obama kicks butt in some very conservative areas, and does well with independents in liberal areas. But McCain does surprisingly well with Latinos and Independents outside of Denver-Boulder. McCain is a Westerner, and until quite recently even hardcore progressive Dems were campaigning on how they "agreed with John McCain" on issues, particularly immigration. That of course has stopped, but it gives a good indication of where McCain stands with voters here.

I think the "leans McCain" is about right. It's winnable, but it will take a lot of work. I really really REALLY hope we don't need this state to get to 270 ...


[ Parent ]
Interesting Map (0.00 / 0)
Washington and Oregon solid Dem while California only leans.  And on the other coast, Virginia and North Carolina lean McCain while SOUTH Carolina is toss-up.

These are pretty obvious artefacts, if you ask me.

I don't think it's wobbly seniors in CA that are hurting Obama, probably just poll fluctuation, as he's had higher margins in the past. +14 with SUSA on 3/15, for example.

The states I would put my eyes on first, hoping for more data sooner, rather than later, would be VA, NC, and SD.  If we're going to break better than expected in the South or West, these are places I'd expect to see it.  But this is largely gut speaking.  I admit to not having really dug into this yet.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


I agree that they are artefacts of an earlier time (4.00 / 1)
However, I intend to only use polls in the analysis. Right now, it is the only data available, so I have to use it.

Hopefully, more data will come out soon, and these numbers can either be verified or contradicted. However, I don't intend to throw out the polls that don't seem to make sense, and only keep the ones that do. That is starting down the road of using selective polls, and I don't intend to travel that road this year.  


[ Parent ]
Understood (0.00 / 0)
Any system's going to have artefacts.  Especially early on.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I Believe You Guys Mean Artifacts N/T (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
I Meant ArtyFax And I Said ArtyFax (0.00 / 0)
Pay no 'tention to what I rote.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Colorado will surely flip to Lean Obama (0.00 / 0)
I don't have much confidence in the two polls from Colorado; Perhaps their turnout model is off. Colorado may not have flipped to blue, but Obama is a good fit here, just like in WA and OR.

Rasmussen April 16 showed Obama +3. The SUSA poll from Feb showed Obama up 9.

Maybe you have more current polls.


[ Parent ]
there are links available (0.00 / 0)
for the polls for every state. Right now, there is a Republican poll showing McCain up 12 in Colorado that is skewing the average there. We will have to wait for a new Colorado poll before it is removed.  

[ Parent ]
Different kinds of averaging (0.00 / 0)
Pollster.com has a good averaging mechanism, some kind a statistical moving average.

Poblano at fivethirtyeight.com uses a different kind of statistical averaging. One useful detail for you would be to include older polls, but weight the recent polls stronger than the older ones.

Poblano's weighting is smart because he reduces the weight appropriate to the sample number. You definitely want to count a 2000 sample poll much more heavily than a 200 sample poll.

Yeah, Poblano does some other things, but a simple weighting procedure isn't too onerous.


[ Parent ]
Why is Obama a good fit here? (0.00 / 0)
He certainly was a good fit in the caucuses, but that hardly represents the state as a whole. He's going to have to do much better with Latinos that he has so far to pull it off (and McCain is quite popular with them).

[ Parent ]
Short: Colorado is like OR, WA, VT, MN; not OH, KS or WV (4.00 / 3)
Colorado is a Western state with high education, a lot of high tech, fairly large Urban centers, a lot of crunchy types and environmentalists, tourist industry has become as dominant as extractive industry. Colorado, like Oregon and Washington had a lot of growth from the 60s to the present. This brought in a lot of Liberal boomers, Gen X, Y and Z.

The Independents outnumber Democrats, but they are more small-L libertarian, rather than Big-R Libertarian. That is, they are liberal on social issues. In polling they are identifying strongly with the Democrats.

If you look at the Demographics of the Democratic Party, you see two things:

(1) Colorado doesn't have much of the famous "Reagan Democrat" category, working class who got turned off from the Democratic Party based on Vietnam, patriotism, guns, gays and god. .

(2) If you look at the Pew Report: "Beyond Blue vs Red", you see that the category "Liberal Democrats" is particularly high in the West, 27% of the electorate, and fully 2/3 of the Democratic Party.

Finally, if you look at Poblano's great chart on each state's "Liberalness Score", you see that there is a high dichotomy between the voters; i.e. the Kerry voters are much more liberal than the country at large, and Bush voters are much more Conservative. We won't win the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, but the Dems are solid, and the Independents are quite liberal in outlook.


[ Parent ]
The Latino vote (4.00 / 3)
is also a major factor in this election that will help Obama in Colorado, New Mexico and Texas. I also think North Carolina will be much more lean Obama due to an unprecedented African-American turnout.

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.

I don't think this will happen, (0.00 / 0)
but I keep wondering what the effect of Richardson VP choice would have. I saw a chart--somewhere--that showed something like Obama winning Texas, given a 20% increase in Latino vote there and a 5% white shift (which, given Bush's home state advantage ...).  

[ Parent ]
That's interesting (4.00 / 1)
It raises a lot of questions, like any VP-nominee electoral math does.

I think Richardson might be helpful in winning over Latino voters not just because he is Chicano but because (in my estimation) McCain will probably have to pick a VP nominee who is 1) younger, 2) an executive, and 3) strong with the base on illegal immigration, or else quiet on the subject.  (I think SC Gov. Sanford fits this bill.)

If people look more closely at McCain's VP nominee due to McCain's age, and that nominee is giving red meat to the base on anti-immigrant language (dog whistle or not), Richardson could be reassuring to voters in the Latino community who take that issue very seriously.

Of course, this is non-data-driven speculation, but it does make me wonder.


[ Parent ]
Yeah, I'm not a huge Richardson fan, (0.00 / 0)
but he's a pretty impressive guy, and I am a huge 'victory' fan. I just wish I could dig up that article showing the impact of various Latino turnout scenarios.

[ Parent ]
Turnout scenarios (4.00 / 1)
http://progressillinois.com/20...

This article, about 12 days old, shows turnout scenarios due to fluctuations in the youth, Latino, and African-American vote.

It paints a rosy picture in its best-scenario examples.  Then again, showing that the Democratic nominee does so well with demographics with a lot of potential for growth is always a good thing.


[ Parent ]
Thanks. That's actually not the (0.00 / 0)
article I read--mine was focused pretty tightly on Richardson and Texas--but very interesting. And if we ignore Chris's (convincing, to my mind) argument about a 'reinforcing' VP for a moment, and just look at demographics, the argument for Richardson strikes me as extremely strong. Black turnout and youth turnout will rise tremendously without much more than Obama being Obama; add Richardson to the ticket, and we win by seventeen thousand electoral votes, and 319% of the popular vote.

[ Parent ]
No no no (4.00 / 1)
McCain is very popular (for an R) with Latinos and Obama is decidedly NOT. I do not know, or know of, a single Latino Coloradan who supports Obama over Clinton. Now, many will of course stay loyal to the party. But not all, and McCain has major props for his immigration stance. Don't make assumptions.

[ Parent ]
Right on (0.00 / 0)
But to what extent will McCain's rhetoric on this issue be guided by codewords sent out by the RNC to their base?

I know that Obama is not as strong in the Latino community as he is in the African-American community.  (Then again, who dominates a national demographic like that at all?)  McCain has been principled in his rhetoric in the campaign so far, taking hits from his party to do so.

I just think that the right-wing noise machine might eat itself on this issue.  It is driven by xenophobia and hard-right stances very often.  It can't give ground, because that's what its commercial audience most doesn't want.  And if the McCain campaign placates them, it could blow back into their faces.


[ Parent ]
Polling Data (0.00 / 0)
Please back up your assertion that McSame is more popular than Obama with Latinos.... I don't you'll find any.

Now making the statement, HILLARY is more popular with Latinos than Obama is true.


[ Parent ]
Texas voters (4.00 / 2)
Until I saw this chart I had assumed Texas would once again be solid red.  Seeing how close it is (50-41) I'm thinking about getting some Bob Barr signs and doing my part to split the GOP vote here.  There are a lot of angry fiscal conservatives looking for someone to represent them, and with the levels of disgust with the GOP it makes me wonder if Barr could reach double digits here.  

Is it worth turning the GOP's Nader strategy against them if Barr becomes a major player?


Missouri (4.00 / 2)
Even without McCaskill on the ticket, Democrats are energized and Republicans are dispirited.  Black voters especially, in Kansas City, St. Louis, and the Bootheel will turn out in huge numbers, while Ron Paul's die-hard supporters, small but highly motivated, will never vote for McCain.  Together those two factors could add 3-4 points to the margin for our side.

Indiana and Ohio (4.00 / 1)
The closeness of Indiana and Ohio reflect what I consider a lost opportunity of Obama this past week to campaign in Kentucky.  Appearing in Louisville and the Evansville area would have given him some positive media in Indiana.  Appearing even at the Cincinnati airport (which is in Kentucky) would have given him some media in the Cincinnati markets.  

I have no doubt the campaign knows what it's doing, but Ohio is so damn important.  And Indiana -- I never dreamed I would live to see the Dems having a solid shot there.  

Thanks for your analysis Chris.  It's flawed, but any method now would be and I really like the clear way that you set forth the methodology.  I'm sure regular readers know this, but other sites do this as well, each by their own means, eg. Rasmussen and http://www.electoral-vote.com/.  EV.com's problem is it just uses the most recent poll.  Rasmussen includes "other factors."  


I am actually surprised it is so close (0.00 / 0)
With all we hear about Dem voter turn out and Republican burn out I am amazed it this close.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

You shouldn't be! (0.00 / 0)
Surveys do not do a very good job with turnout.  Many use registered voter samples that don't consider who is likely to turn out within that sample.  Others use likely voter samples that are frequently determined by past voting behavior.  Neither system is particularly sensitive to changes in the current electoral cycle in the propensity of various social groups to turnout.  

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
you shouldn't be (0.00 / 0)
he's not super Barack Obama at all....It turns out that Hillary does a better surer shot at winning the elelctoral vote as was said all along.

He's weaker than he should be and the Republicans have the best candidate they could have in McCain....at least in terms of appealing to conservative Dems,  Indies and liberal Republicans. the latter 2 are supposed to be Obamaa's appeal and McCain is limiting it and he's weak with the Democratic base.

If yu had spent any time at some pro Hillary blogs you would have seen that she consisitently always got mor eEV's than Barack Obama.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Map color request (0.00 / 0)
Can you darken the pink (= lean McCain) states a bit?  It's really hard to distinguish them from the white (= toss-up) states, at least on my monitor.

Great post.


Electoral Map Shows Imperative of HRC as VP (0.00 / 0)
A tie, before toss-ups, is BAD NEWS right now.  In the generic, Dems lead GOP by double-digits.  The map shows the problems:
==Reagan Democrats, in the rust belt
==Latinos, in NM, NV, CA and FL
==elderly, in FL
The only singler person in the Democratic party today who has IMMEDIATE clout with all these demographics is HRC.  

Yes, there are mid-western governors who could...but who outside OH know Strickland?  Yes, Richardson can theoretically pull Latinos (although he DIDN'T in his own race).  Neither pulls both.  Only HRC can, not to mention uniting the party.


Minnesota and Wisconsin (4.00 / 1)
This relates to a post of Anglachel's (possibly the best Hillary site I have seen). In Missouri political culture, and in St. Louis political culture based on years of reading the American, you can divide up the state into "good whites, bad whites, and blacks" in Anglachel's somewhat snarky terminology even without having been to a prestigious college, but seeing the facts on the ground. The good whites are in the areas which McCaskill won and are willing to ally with blacks. The bad whites are in the areas which Talent won, but you have to be competitive among them. Especially in St. Louis in my lifetime, blacks gain citywide political power by maneuvering to get the support of the whites who are willing to be non-racist. But Minnesota and Wisconsin political culture in my limited experience is not like that. The "bad whites" are somewhere else. The states are liberal because of a Scandinavian and New England tradition of communities taking care of each other across class lines. I hope someone like Sara will come along to flesh this out.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

Yea! Team! Go! Bowers! (0.00 / 0)
I predict a landslide. Surprises in the south and the west.

Seniors (4.00 / 2)
Obama has trouble with seniors against McCain or against Hillary? I have seen the data regarding the latter.

Dole did badly with seniors against Clinton. Seniors tend to distrust candidates who are too old.

Plus, there's the whole social security privatization and medicare thing, not to mention the war they oppose . . .  

Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.


this is a pretty sickly looking GE map (0.00 / 0)
So now you put out  amap showing how weal Obama is in th electoral college.

White states where there should be roayl or powder blue....gee whiz I think they're the states Hillary Clinton was winning in in GE poll matchups.  Whaddya know if you did the same ones with Hillary there instead of Obama it would be a bluer map.  

Now you make it apparent.  How come you didn't notice this before? He doesn't just have trouble with seniors, but with working class, non black voters and with women...lots of women.  The potential nominee is not a map expander..he is merely a map diverter.....different states with a more tenuous grip and he needs more of them to win.

This map is sickly even at what should be the a good time frame for the Obama camapign.  John Kerry polled his strongest as he tied up the Democratic nomination.....his numbers should be the best now ...at least historicially....  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


Sigh... (0.00 / 0)
If you are going to make a stupid post such as this, have the courtesy to AT LEAST type and spell it right, and make it semi-readable.  

[ Parent ]
I can't type well that is true (0.00 / 0)
but I won spelling bee competitions...and no it's only stupid to those who won't see.

The electoral vote numbers have been available for some time...but sad to say Chris didn't post the joint ones comparing her electoral vote totals and his....Hers have always been higher.  She get Ohio and Florida and he doesn't.

He has to get another 5-6 states, which are also reaches for him....He could win.  She would win.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
New Hampshire (0.00 / 1)
Am I the ONLY one who feels that if NH goes for McCain AFTER being one of the states that helped give us George Bush, THEN FUCK THEM during primary season.  Let the GOP have that state and relegate those bastards to the end of the line.  


Am I missing something (4.00 / 1)
Or is South Carolina both early in the primary season and not-so-rich in progressive tradition?

[ Parent ]
New Hampshire is not going to vote for McCain (4.00 / 1)
I don't care what the polls say, there's just no way.  New Hampshire is the front crest of the wave of blue that has rolled over New England.  The 06 midterms here were as resounding a defeat of Republicans as you're likely to ever see.  We now control the whole state Congress (for the first time in 100 years), the governorship, both national Congressional seats, and we'll get one of the Senate seats in November.  Lynch won by 50+ points in the governor's race.

McCain has a lot of residual supporters who remember him as the maverick in 2000, but that will fade as the campaign heats up and people realize he's just another one of the suits they've been busy kicking to the curb for the last 3 years.


[ Parent ]
this site covers this topic every day (0.00 / 0)
www.electoral-vote.com

he posts every day, and you can view several types of electoral college maps. i highly recommend it.


Conservative Blogger Has Obama Winning (0.00 / 0)
I don't know what methodology he uses, but this conservative blogger has a pretty good track record (though biased towards Republicans). His map looks more traditional and currently has Obama winning 279 EVs to McCain's 259 with the Democrats picking up Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio and losing Wisconsin compared to 2004. He shows Democrats picking up 4 Senate seats (Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Virginia).

Nebraska and Maine (0.00 / 0)
I'm glad that you're splitting the Nebraska and Maine projections up. I can't speak for NE-01, but here in "Obamaha" it's going to be down to the wire for NE-02. (We've got a competitive House race here as well).  

Further Reading

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox