Talk Elections

Blank map.

()

As usual --

White... tied.

Results of 2008 are shown here with results 'yellowed'.

under 4%  light
4.01- 9.99% medium
10% dark

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll. I am using only the 60% shading for orange because 70% orange is an ugly color.

()

These are the 2008 results. Current polls will be shown in blue (Republican) or red (Democratic) in subsequent posts.  As you can see, orange does not show up for the two districts of Maine that President Obama won by whopping margins or NE-01 which he barely won. NE-03 and NE-03, which John McCain won handily, shop up deep green.   

As usual --

White... tied.

Results of 2008 are shown here with results 'yellowed'.

under 4%  light
4.01- 9.99% medium
10% dark

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll. I am using only the 60% shading for orange because 70% orange is an ugly color.

()

These are the 2008 results. Current polls will be shown in blue (Republican) or red (Democratic) in subsequent posts.  As you can see, orange does not show up for the two districts of Maine that President Obama won by whopping margins or NE-01 which he barely won. NE-03 and NE-03, which John McCain won handily, show up deep green.  

(I reduced the green shades and got the Dakotas right below).


PPP had polls for Iowa and Ohio today, and neither shows cause for the comfort of Mitt Romney.  In Iowa, the President is up 10%; in Ohio he is up 7% Orange goes red in these two cases. For a state on the other side of this divide, consider a recent PPP poll for Montana in which Mitt Romney has a lead.



()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.01- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Orange -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Add in Quinnipiac polls from last week for Pennsylvania and Florida (the one for Ohio has been superseded):

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.01- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Orange -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Here is a possible troublemaker. Last week a PPP poll showed President Obama winning by 8% if the choice were between Obama and Romney but 12% if a well-known Virginia politician (Virgil Goode) appears as a third-party alternative who would take many right-leaning votes but little from President Obama. If one shows a ternary division of the vote in Virginia, for which I could make a strong case, then  

()

But -- a couple of days later the Washington Post had a poll showing only a binary (Obama-Romney) selection in which President Obama is up by 'only' 7%.  It's still not what Republicans would like to see, but it isn't as ominous:

()

The later poll usually prevails.

Added polls:

Survey USA, NC (Obama up 4%)
Rasmussen, NV (Obama up 9%)
Rocky Mountain Poll, AZ (Obama up 2%)
PPP, Texas     (Romney up 7%)
Marquette Law School, WI (Obama up 9%)
PPP, NM (Obama up 14%)
...Democratic internal poll in ND rejected
University of New Hampshire, NH (Obama up 9%)
Rasmussen, MA (Obama up 11%)
Marist, NY (Obama up 22%)
Rutgers University, NJ (Obama up 27%)
Rasmussen, CO (Obama up 13%)
DePauw University, IN (Romney up 9%)
Epic/MRA, MI (Obama up 4%) -- marginally trustworthy
LA Times, USC, CA (Obama up 21%) 
Hendrix University, AR (Romney up 24%) -- right-wing school
Survey USA, OR (Obama up 11%)
Quinnipiac, CT (Obama up 16%)
PPP, MO -- tie
Nielsen Brothers, SD (Romney up 9%)

Two states splitting their electoral votes:
MPRC, Maine 55-37 Obama CD1: 61-33 Obama CD2: 48-41 Obama

PPP, Nebraska Romney up 12% statewide, up 1% in CD2



()



under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.01- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Orange -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Polls by Rasmussen in Massachusetts and Fairleigh-Dickinson University in New Jersey show no obvious change in the basic reality. 

Suffolk, FL -- Florida switches, but I would not make anything of a shift between being down 1 and being up 1 except on Election Day.

()



under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.01- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Orange -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER

We have a plethora of weird polls today.

Survey USA has a poll on Oregon showing the President up 4 there, which I might accept, except that  the first question is about the choice in the Republican primary. It is easy to understand why such a poll might cause Democrats to disconnect. 

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/KING-5-Poll-Washington-still-blue-but-voters-split-on-Obama-approval-151000375.html

Same pollster, but no such methodological problem.

()



under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.01- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Orange -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Survey USA has a poll on Oregon showing the President up 4 there, which I might accept, except that  the first question is about the choice in the Republican primary. It is easy to understand why such a poll might cause Democrats to disconnect.  

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/KING-5-Poll-Washington-still-blue-but-voters-split-on-Obama-approval-151000375.html

Same pollster, but no such methodological problem.

I don't know this pollster, but I can't see anything too blatant:

http://www.kjonline.com/news/poll-mainers-not-so-down-on-romney_2012-05-11.html

This one is by a blatant R pollster (GA) and not worthy of use:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/poll-shows-most-georgians-are-opposed-gay-marriage/nN4Z8/

New pollster, spurious decimal points, and not too far off (MI):

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120511/POLITICS01/205110457/Poll-Obama-leads-Romney-Michigan (45-39). President Obama will do better in Michigan once the unions kick off their voter drives. Democrats have a winner if they can at least get civil unions on the ballot, but they have to kick out the tea-party types who won in 2010 first.  

This is a likely-voter model more applicable to most special elections (if the Wisconsin recall election can be seen as the usual sort of special election, which leaves one cause for doubt)  than to a Presidential election:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president

and really can't be used. But even if I used it it would not change the category for Wisconsin.

()



under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.01- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Orange -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Good news for Republicans: Romney is now up 2 on a Mehlman poll, up from a 1-point margin earlier.

Bad news for Republicans:

1. President Obama almost certainly wins if Missouri is that close.

2. Senator McCaskill is likely to win re-election there.  

()



under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Orange -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

SO MANY COLORS, MY BRAIN HURTS

The green and orange shades will eventually go as states fill in with relevant polls. I really dislike the dark orange, but I have it there so I can quickly transform it into deep red or even medium red.

Here goes one of the larger remaining chunks of ugly dark  orange:

SUSA, MN:

In a general election for President today, if the only two candidates on the ballot were Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

52-38 Obama

Not that this changes anything:

Siena, NY:

57-37 Obama

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/sny_poll/SNY%20May%202012%20Poll%20Release%20--%20FINAL.pdf


()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Orange -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Orange -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Strictly for aesthetic reasons I am going to turn  the ugly dark orange color to the non-color gray:


()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Orange Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Quinnipiac shows the President up 10 in New Jersey. Are some of the max-out states slipping a little while those closer to the middle are fairly steady? That could be. No new map.

Rasmussen, North Carolina, "likely voters" screen. PPP will release its results for North Carolina soon, anyway, so don't expect this one to last.

President Obama loses a raft of states that he won in 2008 if the electorate of the 2010 electorate is like that of 2010.


()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Orange Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

One-point margin in NC according to PPP. Whom do you want to believe?


()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Now for the count:

Obama 10%+         203
Obama 4-9.9%         97
Obama < 4%            55

Exact tie                     0


Romney < 4%           11
Romney 4-9.9%        83
Romney 10%+          95          

Don't expect to see this count often.

Wisconsin surprises me. Yesterday PPP had Obama ahead by just 1% and today a university poll has the race tied. Sure Wisconsin wasn't a given for Obama, but I didn't expect it to be this close at this point.

I have heard that the GOP is running a fear campaign... and that people may fear that pollsters are often fakes spying on the political preferences of Wisconsin voters to determine which ones can have even more to fear after employers find out who opposes Scott Walker. Even if private employers have no statutory right to fire people for their political expressions off the job, they can make life miserable.

Sure, it is mostly word-of-mouth, but for many people who know what is expected of them the 'safe' response to any pollster is "I stand for Scott Walker!" What they do in the voting booth may be vastly different.

At this point I am tempted to disqualify any Wisconsin poll due to the weird political climate. 

For now until the recall process involving Governor Scott Walker is over and political life in Wisconsin returns to some semblance of normality I hereby disqualify all polls involving the State of Wisconsin. Yellow should be treated as a caution sign.

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Thread title is wrong. It says 'current polling', not pbrower's limited selection of current polling.

It should be pbrower's biased polling or how he feels it 'should' be.  Pick a few polls that he likes and modifies to his liking.

Obama is going to win 50 states + DC, so shut up and stop trolling.

I laugh at that statement, try again.

After the freakish recall election involving Scott Walker is over there will be plentiful polls of Wisconsin. Just wait a month or so. Then Wisconsin will be like other states instead of the focus of political attention by everyone with an axe to grind..

 

Romney could be beating Obama by 2 points nationwide and I bet the map would still look like that.

That is so wrong.  Some Employers might for the first time ever begin to mention the effects of tax/regulation policies on the business.  The vast majority remain apolitical in the workplace.  Whereas the fear mongering (false info) and intimidation tactics employed by the unions have been jaw dropping (and counter productive).  So, maybe you are projecting the Union behavior onto employers??   

Counter-intuitive poll in Tennessee.  It does come from a well-respected university (Vanderbilt), and we get few polls from Tennessee. Romney up 1 (42-41).

Tennessee used to be the most liberal state in the South except for Florida. Huge number of undecided respondents. If it is returning to its pre-2000 pattern, then Tennessee bodes ill for Mitt Romney.

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

This is more credible, and I am going with it (registered voters)

Sunday, May 20, 2012
Poll Watch: Vanderbilt Tennessee 2012 Presidential Survey
Vanderbilt Tennessee 2012 Presidential Poll

    Mitt Romney 47% (42%)
    Barack Obama 40% (39%)

Survey of 756 registered voters was conducted May 2-9, 2012 by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted February 16-22, 2012 are in parentheses.

http://argojournal.blogspot.com/2012/05/poll-watch-vanderbilt-tennessee-2012.html

This bodes ill for Republicans nationwide. Tennessee is nearly a sure thing for any Republican against President Barack Obama, but I can now imagine the state going by high single digits against him, which is a huge improvement from 2008. I can also imagine the Republicans losing a House seat or two from Tennessee.

()

What's your excuse?

Tourettes.

No surprise here in Oklahoma (62-27 in favor of Mitt Romney). Nobody needs argue about accuracy here:

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I am using 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Pennsylvania, PPP, Obama up 8 -- no change. Arizona (P) and Florida (Q) should be more interesting tomorrow.

North Carolina needs to go blue.

Survey USA, North Carolina. Romney up 1. Note what I said about Florida a few days ago when the state went grom a 1-point lead for Romney to a 1-point lead for Obama.

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

I never knew that. I've always thought that was one of the most reddest states.

http://www.wcax.com/story/18579959/poll-shumlin-would-win-gubernatorial-race

Vermont:

Any surprise here? President Obama is ahead by about 30% in Vermont. You have to read down because the focus is on a gubernatorial race. At this level (see Oklahoma for the mirror image) precision is of little importance.

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Time to flip FL to Romney.
Quinnipiac:  Mitt Romney (R) 47%
                   Barack Obama (D-inc) 41%
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/florida

You need to change AZ as well to Romney, because Rasmussen showed a 9-point lead.

And the upcoming PPP poll with it's 46-31 GOP sample won't be very favorable for Obama either.

It looks like Romney can actually win this thing. 

nail down 1) NC, 2)FL, 3)VA, 4)OH... it's like clockwork. 

You're forgetting that Obama will still have 272 EVs. Even with all four of those, Romney will still need one of CO/NM/NV/IA/NH, which are all looking solid Obama at this point.

Yeah, thanks for being late on that. I just spent 15 minutes staring confused at how Romney loses while picking up Indiana, Nebraska CD, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia AND Ohio. Jesus.

Romney aint gonna win based on the sheer demographic mountain he has to climb. We are entering an era of Democratic presidential dominance based solely on the growing number of minority voters. Why do you think Democrats have dominated in most presidential elections since 1992? States that used to be easy GOP pickups are becoming increasingly out of reach because of rising minority populations.

Romney can try to make inroads with these voters, but he's certainly not going to win hispanics, for instance, after his party based their entire election strategy in 2010 on bashing and scapegoating them. And don't try to tell me that there is a difference between legal and illegal hispanics. Even most of the legal hispanics found the attacks on illegal immigration disgusting.

Things will change of course. After these minorities become more assimilated they will begin to split more between the parties, but it's not happening for a while. I wish Romney luck trying to win Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and even Arizona. But I think he's going to hit a wall with these voters that he can't break through.

I think Romney is still going to win Arizona and has a 50/50 shot to take Florida. I agree he will lose CO, NV, and NM.

In 2010 the Republicans still won 38% of the Hispanic Vote. The mistake that was made by Romney was he ran to the far right on the issue of immigration alienating Latino's.

From 1992-2004 the Republicans mainly lost Electoral Votes in the Northeast and Illinois and CA. In 2008 they did lose states that they previously won(easy pick-ups) as you said(NC, IN, VA, and NV.)

You forgot to mention 2000 and 2004 when Bush won most of the Hispanic vote. 

Besides, the Hispanic voters are over-estimated since many can't vote since they are not citizens.

No, Bush W. won 40% of the Hispanic Vote in 2000 and 44% of that vote in 2004.

I haven't done an in depth study, but the nation wide Hispanic party-voting percentages may often be skewed by the large numbers of that population living in California and New York and voting somewhat accordingly.  Also Urban districts play a role etc.  

I have a hard time believing that Catholic, intact families, with a work ethic will become a massive monolithic voting block that democrats can take for granted.  Given the Obama administration's hostility to the Catholic church, traditional families, and jobs; I don't think they are the panacea you suggest.  

Also working class Catholic whites are finally fleeing the democrat party that abandoned them over 35 years ago.  I wouldn't ignore that.  Trading OH, PA, MI, WI, and MN for CO, NV, and maybe AZ is a net loss of 48 to 59 EV.            

No - 35% in 2000 and probably around 38%-39% in '04, though 44% was the official (likely wrong) number from initial exits.

Articles like this (http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/nadler200412080811.asp).

Yeah, and Republicans would have control or at least a tie in the senate if they hadn't lost the races in Nevada, Colorado, California and even Washington. Hispanics kept the democratic incumbents in power in those states. You had a chance to win them over but you decided to use the anti immigration rhetoric and it blew up in your face, especially in Nevada.

I also said that Dems now have an advantage in PRESIDENTIAL elections. Midterm voters still sway older and whiter.

Facts: Dems have won the popular vote in 4 out of the past 5 presidential elections. From 1992 onwards, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico have gone from safe R to tossup or lean dem largely because of hispanic voters. California has gone from safe R to safe D largely because of hispanic voters. Even Arizona cannot be taken for granted by the Republicans now because of hispanic voters.

1) Bush beat Gore in 2000, so your "popular vote" caveat is misleading
2) Clinton lost a majority of votes in 1992, also misleading
So, your pet number turns into 2 of 5.
3) Republicans won the 3 previous elections from your starting point of 92
So, your pet number turns into 2 of 8.     

1) The election was basically decided by an activist Supreme Court and a political infrastructure in Florida that was in the bag for Bush, so I could care less than Bush technically won that year. Gore still received more votes.
2) Clinton got 43%, but Bush only got 37%. Don't pretend that the Perot effect didn't exist. It pulled down the vote share for both parties, but Clinton still came out on top in both elections.
3) 1992 was a realignment that shifted the country away from the Reagan/Bush years. I consider it a new political era, as do many political experts, so that's why I'm going from there. My whole spiel was about political "eras". Get it?

If this still isn't enough for you, then we can look at electoral vote averages since 1992.

Democratic candidate: 326 electoral votes
Republican Candidate: 211 electoral votes

This contrasts sharply from 1968 to 1988, which is why I consider 1992 the start of a new era.

Folks, could y'all take your arguing over what the results will be in November elsewhere?  I actually enjoyed having a thread that only covered the current polling.

Seriously? As Mr. Poll Dissector in Chief, I thought you of all people would know that the demographics of midterm elections are whiter and older than general elections, and that given that, those demographic trends "in place" will lose most of their potency in midterms.


How has Obama been hostile to traditional families? What is a traditional family? Do you define it as a having a wife and kids? He has that, and talks lovingly of them every day. Or does supporting gay marriage make you automatically hostile to "traditional families"?

The only working-class whites who seem to have abandoned the Democratic party since 1996 are southern white (largely Fundamentalist) voters and perhaps the largely-Catholic Cajuns in Louisiana (watch 2012 to be sure).

President Obama has about as traditional a family as is possible allowing for only one variation: it is upscale. Does Sarah Palin show a traditional family? But let us remember that the Republican Party has recently abandoned the educated part of the middle class -- the old bloc of Rockefeller Republicans whom the Tea Party and the Religious Right have largely pushed aside. That might not be as big a bloc of voters as southern white Protestants, but it is strategically located. Reagan won those reliably in the 1980s and Ford got them in 1976; Barack Obama seems to have them now.

Any Presidential election before 1992 says nothing about any beginning in 1992. We have probably seen Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia drift away from the Democrats to the extent that President Obama is more likely to win Texas than any of them.  No, I don't think that President Obama has a good chance of winning Texas; it is just that he is such a poor match for those states that went twice for Clinton in contrast to Texas. 

I did little if any posting in the last two days; I have been involved in the nasty business of moving my mother from a nursing home to an assisted-living place. So I have a surprising number of polls to account for:

Arizona, PPP, Romney up 7%  

Maryland, PPP, Obama up 23%

Ohio, Marist, Obama up 6%

Virginia, Marist, Obama up 4%

California, Obama up 11% among "likely voters" -- suspect as such, but changes nothing.

Florida -- three polls, average less than 1% difference -- tie

North Carolina -- Civitas 2% advantage to Romney.

Wisconsin -- I'm not showing Wisconsin polls until after the recall election  

 

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Rasmussen shows a 7% lead (likely voters) for Romney in Indiana... in a state that Republicans usually take for granted. This time President Obama won't be campaigning from the neighboring state and taking advantage of the difficulty of the Republican nominee for President  campaigning from far away.

Indiana looks like a "Soft R" state, especially in view of a contested Senate race.  Indiana probably offers the 370th to 380th electoral votes for President Obama.

Those are mainly voters in New Jersey, New York State, Delaware, Michigan, Connecticut and Maine maybe. States that are slightly left of center but not left-left. Vermont used to be a state like that but it went left-left. Maybe include the state of Maryland on that list too. The Republicans did win Maryland in both 1984 and 1988.

Paradoxically the Republican Party has been losing the Hispanic vote as Hispanics have outpaced every other identifiable ethnic group except Asians in joining the middle class. Could it be that the nativist tendencies within the current GOP have suggested that Hispanics aren't welcome in the American middle class? Could it be that the attacks on learning and education have been attacks on the one tool that Hispanics have in avoiding consignment to a permanent underclass?

Every prominent Republican is typically a huge force for strengthening/ improving education.  Unfortunately, the teachers Union stands in the way of change+reform at every step of the way, maybe that's what you call "attacks" ? ?? I don't think outmaneuvering a destructive organisation is an "attack."     

This is cliche, but illustrative:
Democrats don't want Hispanics to work, but want (illegals) to vote.
Republicans want Hispanics to work, but don't want (illegals) to vote (illegally).

Which one leads to being a permanent underclass?  obviously the dems preference.   

 

Both questions are correct, it's pretty hard to vote for a part that is bent on nativism and is against your kind, and against letting you move up the social mobility ladder.

I think Obama's "choom gang" widespread marijuana use in hawaii may hurt him in the polls. 

At the very least, it will help Romney solidify his support amongst christian families and even catholic families.  In many ways, Romney is more mainstream/main street than Obama.  Soccer moms would be hesitant to vote for bigtime pot heads and cocaine user. 

On the other hand, legalization advocates, like college students, will get a boost knowing that Obama personally favors legalization, even though he may not be able to politically enforce legalization. 

How is the GOP preventing(i.e, Hispanics here legally) from entering the middle class? I don't see that as an issue at all.

Your reading way too much into the education issue by saying the GOP doesn't wantlegal immigrants to be educated properly.

The issue is the GOP base in the deep south doesn't want like giving illegal immigrants amnesty. I do think there is some relevance that the GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill do like illegal hispanics doing cheap labor though.

The dirty little secret is that a lot of those soccer moms were 420 friendly when they were young too. Obama grew up, ditched the pot and so did they. Some people may feign moral outrage with this news, but it's not a game changer at all, in fact it humanizes Obama to the swing voters he's trying to win.

And in all honesty, who is more out there to the average American? A guy who did drugs when he was younger, or a guy who pushed the limits of teenage rebellion by taking a puff of a cigarette, taking a sip of alcohol, and then never touching either again?

Two polls:

New pollster, CO... Obama up 4%, and this was a Democratic insider poll. It is a huge decline from the most recent poll, so it must be accepted.  

CA -- President Obama up 20%
 

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Hey, this is a very well written post. And I would like to think that I had some influence on how it started off to boot. :)

PPP, Michigan... Obama up 14%. What will it take for right-wingers to recognize that Michigan is not a swing state barring a complete Obama collapse? There was plenty of wishful thinking on the Titanic immediately after it hit the iceberg.
 

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Romney has led in Georgia by double digits in at least 2 polls.

One GOP-connected polls that get little respect, and the other is too old for inclusion here. Q doesn't poll Georgia, but maybe Marist, PPP, or Rasmussen will.  The only insider or special-interest polls that I use are those that undercut one more favorable to the nominee. Would you trust a poll sponsored by the UAW or the NAACP? I wouldn't even though I respect both organizations.

At this point I suspect that President Obama is behind by high single digits. The pale green for Georgia looks as pale as it does because 40% saturation is pale for green that I show for anything between 4% and 9.9%. If you want to see what pale green looks like, then look at how I show Alaska with 20% saturation (not that I believe that Alaska will be close) on my next map.

 

PPP, Missouri. Obama up 1. I wouldn't make too much of the apparent swing, as (1) it isn't much, (2) all recent polls of Missouri have been deep within the margin of error, (3) I have said the same about polls involving Florida and North Carolina, and (4) the event is consistent with my bias.

I am showing a 20% saturation in green for Alaska only to show what 20% saturation in green looks like. It's not so much lighter than the 40% saturation that I show in Georgia, North Dakota, or South Carolina.

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Delayed polls (family medical emergency):
 

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. (Wisconsin -- I am not showing anything until after the recall is over)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

Q, Virginia, Obama up 5 with or without Bob McDonnell as the VP nominee:
 

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. (Wisconsin -- I am not showing anything until after the recall is over)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

We Ask America, Wisconsin, June 6 (day after the recall election): Obama up 5

Rasmussen, Colorado -- even.
 

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. (Wisconsin -- I am not showing anything until after the recall is over), and I am now showing polls. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

In case you are wondering about the EPIC-MPRI poll of Michigan... it has nothing to offer except wish-fulfillment for the people who think that FoX Newspeak Channel is objective information. 

Rasmussen, Missouri. 
 

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. (Wisconsin -- I am not showing anything until after the recall is over), and I am now showing polls. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.



[/quote]

Do you just ignore polls from a while back, because I'm certain there has been polls in every green state except Idaho and Wyoming.

Georgia has been polled, but pbrower doesn't want to include it because it's unfavourable to his desired outcome.

...which is why he included NC and OH. ::)

This is roughly just the polls since Santorum through in the towel and it became a two person race.

He forgot to include the latest Purple Poll for Florida.

That, to me, is subjective and biased. I'm just calling it how I see it.

On the subject of Georgia, the atlas database lists exactly one poll that has been done there since the start of May, and that was registered voter poll by a company for which we have no other polls to compare with to see if it is any good.  It's not as if pbrower's map is showing that Georgia is in any danger of falling into Obama's column.  Pretty much any state that shows up in green or orange can be considered so safe no one is bothering to poll them now.

Then why isn't South Carolina included?

Yes. I am showing nothing from before March, and I forget what cut-off I use. It's safe to assume that until one finds out otherwise any state in deep green is not going for President Obama (although Texas and Tennessee have had some tantalizing polls).

I do not use polls commissioned by any campaign or special interest. That's why I reject EPIC-MPRI in Michigan. If someone got a poll from the NAACP showing that Georgia was going for President Obama, would I use it? (The NAACP apparently does no polling).

I have been accepting Rasmussen. 

()

Fixed it.

Mason-Dixon, North Dakota -- Romney up 13. Florida -- Purple Strategies, PPP averaged
 

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

Michigan, Rasmussen : Obama up 8 with a "likely voters" screen. Quinnipiac, Pennsylvania: Obama up 6. PPP, Nevada: Obama up 6.


()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

Which poll are you using for Wisconsin? The latest one I saw was the junk poll from Rasmussen that showed Romney up.

We Ask America, Wisconsin, June 6

I hadn't been showing polls for Wisconsin because of the then-current recall election. The Rasmussen poll is junk; Wisconsin is not 11 points more R than Michigan.

Maine, WBUR Radio (NPR, Boston University, Boston MA -- likely voters)... President Obama up 14. It is safe to say at this point that unless something drastic happens, President Obama wins everything northeast of the Potomac decisively. Maine (unlike Nebraska)  is homogeneous enough that NE-02 is "Safe Obama".

http://www.wbur.org/2012/06/18/wbur-maine-poll

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

There are polls on Georgia and it doesn't seem that it's a viable goal for Obama any longer:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ga/georgia_romney_vs_obama-2150.html

At the least a non-target. There is no Senate seat up for grabs. Arizona and Indiana are both far more attractive places for the Obama campaign because of open Senate seats.

My remark was also that GA should be in blue. Or I have misread your colour code ?

I'm not familiar with Insider Advantage or landmark polls. The Survey USA poll is too old to be included in this mix.

The green indicates that there are no reliable recent polls, but that President Obama lost the state. Georgia would be deep blue if I accepted one of those two polls by unfamiliar organizations.   

PPP. Colorado -- Obama up 49-42.


President Obama is still up 2 among whites.

Comment: this may have sealed the President's re-election. Those most immediately affected might not be voting, but those close to them will often be voting.

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

PPP/Project for a New America, Arizona: Obama down 3... and the Senate race is a tossup.  Mitt Romney absolutely can't win without Arizona, and President Obama can't win Arizona without  passing 360 or so electoral votes. The Senate race is bigger.

Arizona has demographics closer to those of Colorado or Nevada than to any other state (next-closest are California, Florida, New Mexico, and Texas which are all quite different), but is clearly more R than either. The Republican governor is highly unpopular, which will be no help. A state that has gone for the Democratic nominee for President only once since 1964 doing so in 2012 would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP.  

I'm not showing the Elway poll for Washington (Obama up 8 ) because PPP will show Washington and I am likely to average the two.


 


()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

You forgot to count Rasmussen in Wisconsin.

It is inconsistent with other polls, including Rasmussen polls, within a week.

Uh, what? Numerous polls during the recalls showed a close result. You just tossed them aside because you didn't like then.

Shrug.


How is it, anyway, that an 'inconsistent' NJ D+27 poll passed this filter?

Peter Browler's a hack. Don't bother.

Nobody reasonably believes that President Obama is going to be close to losing New Jersey.

Nobody reasonably believes that he will win the state by 27%....except maybe you.

My model does not distinguish between a 12% lead and a 40% lead which does not matter in a winner-take-all system. Note that it is possible for the President to win Pennsylvania and its 20 electoral votes and lose Arkansas and its 6 electoral votes by a larger margin and end up with 20 electoral votes. 

We ask America (R) --

Obama up 1 in Iowa, down 2 in Michigan. Averaged with Rasmussen in Michigan, replaces old poll in Iowa.

 


()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

Montana, Rasmussen... Romney up 9. Washington, PPP... Obama up 13 (and even if averaged with the Elway poll it would still be Obama +10.5.

No new map needed.

Marquette Law School, WI -- Obama up 6. The Rasmussen poll must have been an outlier.

 


()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

BIG ONE -- FLORIDA (Quinnipiac). Obama up 4. At the margin of error, but up 7 from the last Q poll, which is a huge shift. That could be the news cycle.  


()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

What, you thought that Mitt would actually do better in the NE than Santorum? Sucks to be you.

NE -- Obama down 12, which is less than the 15% he lost the state by in 2008. If he were down by 16% I would have to assign all districts to Romney... but a 12% margin suggests that one of the districts is a pure toss-up.  That may be charitable to Romney.

NH -- Obama up only 5%, according to Rasmussen. This is consistent with Obama up 8% in Michigan.  


()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

NE -- Obama down 12, which is less than the 15% he lost the state by in 2008. If he were down by 16% I would have to assign all districts to Romney... but a 12% margin suggests that one of the districts is a pure toss-up.  That may be charitable to Romney.

NH -- Obama up only 5%, according to Rasmussen. This is consistent with Obama up 8% in Michigan.  


()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

When is Michigan turning light blue?

Last 3 polls are tied, Obama +1, Romney +2.

Light blue is not a favourable colour for pbrower. You should know that.

If u think romney's leading in Michigan ur nuts.

OH, PPP -- Obama up 3
VA, Old Dominion -- Obama up 7
VA, We Ask America -- Obama down 5
UT, Dan Jones, Romney up about 40 (no surprise there)

"We Ask America" shows no crosstabs -- beware. 



()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

This is a map based on polling, which has happened to show Romney doing very well in Michigan. Sorry bout ur readin comprehension.

Not exactly.
Junk pollsters and unknown pollsters show the race to be a toss-up. (Not "Romney doing very well.")
Respected pollsters PPP and Rasmussen show Obama leading handily.
Sorry bout ur wishful thinking.

Going only off Atlas polling, this would be the map if the election was today:

()

So while Obama has an actual lead of 231 to 187, Romney would take a 269-263 lead. So based only on the polling average in each state, Romney would be elected President.

MI, OH and FL are in the Obama column - as per recent polls from Rasmussen/PPP/Quinnipiac.

I'm just taking the three poll rolling average from this site. I'm just calculating what the map would be on this site with no tossups (other than Iowa, which is pure tossup on the polling map).

A toss-up in Michigan means the GOP is doing very well, at least relative to recent results. Re: "junk polls," PPP has so far proven itself to be the epitome of junk. And when five other polls show virtually the same result, something more is going on.

OR, PPP - Obama up 8. Not a blowout.
NC, Rasmussen -- Romney up 3, which is far too close for GOP comfort.



()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

I recently had it on Florida, Iowa, and Ohio and have it on Arizona and North Carolina. Of course, I would really love it on Texas!

...I told you that I didn't like the dark orange (60% saturation) and replaced it with gray.

Okay, then why isn't Virginia light blue?

Why would it be light blue, when Obama is leading ?

Three Q polls:


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/presidential-swing-states-%28fl-oh-and-pa%29/release-detail?ReleaseID=1767

Recent poor polls for the President offered by organizations that seem to be consistent R hacks in IA and MI and occasional R hacks in WI now seem out of line. It could have been a bad news cycle. Disclosures on Bain Capital refute the contention that Mitt Romney has the sort of expertise in private industry that would make him a good leader for America as a whole. It may be possible that some private-sector experience might make someone a good President, but I have yet to see what sort of experience would be relevant. Maybe "self-employed long-haul trucker" would allow one to know how the economy really works to a better extent than "corporate raider".  


()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything. This category is now dormant.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

Isn't Ohio tied at 49-49% a piece per Nate Silver? What is Ohio still doing in the Ohio column? Its a pure toss-up right now.

Silly Kids...


Looking at summer polls...


Presidential polling just doesn't work very well in the summer....

Wait till labor day.. :)

Rasmussen, AZ -- Romney up over 10%, in case you believe it.

PPP, MA -- Obama up at least 20% in MA  


The most recent credible poll has President Obama up 7%... a bit high unless you believe that Romney has no chance to win a state that relies heavily on the auto industry.

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

I don't get why Republicans post on this thread complaining every map update.  It's not like Pbrower is influencing the election in any way.  If you think his maps are biased, ignore the thread and check out the map listed at the polls link at the top...

Marist surveys: MI, NH, NC.

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

Fresh game tomorrow. No, I don't mean something recently hunted down.

Alabama, Capital Surveys: Romney up 15. About as I would expect. Reversion to the mean?

()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

This source

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/06/poll_mitt_romney_leads_preside.html

suggests that


A pollster for a teachers' union lobby would likely understate GOP support in a state. It still corroborates that Mitt Romney would clearly win the state, and my model does not distinguish between an 11% lead and a 70% lead. My map shows the same color saturation for Arizona and Utah -- and Arizona is going to have a result closer to that of Colorado than that of Utah.

Civitas, NC. I don't fully trust this pollster, but PPP will be polling NC this weekend, so this won't last.
 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

Field, California. Obama up 18. Nothing new or surprising.

There was a FL poll that had Obama up 1.

We Ask America. Methodological problems have been identified. That's why I have Iowa in yellow -- it had President Obama up 1 in Iowa and that was an improvement (for Obama) over an earlier Rasmussen poll.

PPP, Virginia -- Obama up 8 in a binary matchup with Mitt Romney, a disaster in itself for a Republican in a State that has gone for the Democratic nominee only three times since World War II (1948, 1964, and 2008). With Virgil Goode on the ballot (I understand that he will be) President Obama beats Romney by 14%, so what I show is charitable to Mitt Romney. At this point I am doing only binary matchups.

PPP, North Carolina -- Obama up 1%. Mitt Romney must win this state firmly to have a reasonable chance. The above two states suggest that in a little less than four months from the election, President Obama is about where he was in November 2008.

...Goode would be interesting in states other than Virginia. He suggests cultural ties to the conservative-leaning parts of the Mountain South that neither Obama nor Romney has. I'm not saying that he would win any electoral votes, but I can imagine him swinging a state like Kentucky... or Georgia, Missouri, or North Carolina.
 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

Rasmussen has a virtual tie, but it is a 1% Romney lead. I trust that far more than I trust We Ask America, so it appears here. I suspect that Florida will not likely be called before states on the West Coast. 
 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

Copious polls out today.

http://weaskamerica.com/2012/07/11/pa-nm/

Pennsylvania

Obama 47
Romney 40

New Mexico

Obama 51
Romney 40

They look about right, except that others have shredded this pollster. As it turns out that is what I already have for Pennsylvania and New Mexico so at most they would be corroboration.

(Partisan poll for Obama Super Pac)

http://www.prioritiesusaaction.org/blog/2012-07-mitt-romneys-central-qualification-becomes-a-signifi

Colorado: Obama 49 - Romney 42
Florida: Obama 48 - Romney 44
Ohio: Obama 48 - Romney 41
Pennsylvania: Obama 49 - Romney 40
Virginia: Obama 46 - Romney 43

Blatantly partisan pollster even if it basically confirms what I suspect.  If I accept this I would also have to accept polls from entities related to groups associated with the GOP, Karl Rove, or Grover Norquist.

I am not using them.

Wisconsin, PPP:

President Obama is up 6% against Mitt Romney with a generic VP choice. He's up 1% if Romney selects Rep. Paul Ryan for VP. Until we see Mitt Romney's VP nominee I am going with the 1% margin; I think that Mitt Romney is desperate enough to try to win Wisconsin with such a choice if it is available. For that reason I am going with the Romney-Ryan margin until I see otherwise. But I am using an dagger(†) for that.

Note well that Congressional Representatives have poor records as VP nominees. Walter Mondale lost New York State with Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 (although there were only five states of 49 that Mondale lost by a larger percentage), and Jack Kemp failed to deliver New York State in 1996.  Kemp was a fine politician, really.

Whether Paul Ryan would be a good choice for swinging even Indiana, let alone Ohio, is a different question altogether.
 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

† Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan. The dagger does not show up as such on the map... but something does.

To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee:
+  That's not a dagger.
†  That's a dagger!

[http://www.prioritiesusaaction.org/blog/2012-07-mitt-romneys-central-qualification-becomes-a-signifi

Colorado: Obama 49 - Romney 45
Florida: Obama 49 - Romney 51
Ohio: Obama 48 - Romney 44
Pennsylvania: Obama 49 - Romney 40
Virginia: Obama 46 - Romney 43

Blatantly partisan pollster even if it basically confirms what I suspect.  If I accept this I would also have to accept polls from entities related to groups associated with the GOP, Karl Rove, or Grover Norquist.

I am not using them.
[/quote]

Wisconsin, Marquette Law School

President Obama is up 8% against Mitt Romney with a generic VP choice.


According to PPP he's up 1% if Romney selects Rep. Paul Ryan for VP. Until we see Mitt Romney's VP nominee I am going with the 1% margin; I think that Mitt Romney is desperate enough to try to win Wisconsin with such a choice if it is available. For that reason I am going with the Romney-Ryan margin until I see otherwise. But I am using an dagger(†) for that.

ND, Rasmussen, Romney up 15%. No change.
FL, Rasmussen, Romney up 1%. No change.
FL, Mason-Dixon... Obama up 1% unless Romney picks Rubio, in which case it's Romney up 1%. That is a tie, and averaging this and Rasmussen gives a margin less than 1%. Tie.
NC -- Real Clear Politics shows a composite and not a poll. Not usable.  

 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll*.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

*All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

† Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan. The dagger does not show up as such on the map... but something does.

Look's like Dave's map maker can't handle non-ASCII characters gracefully, so forget about using a proper dagger.

Iowa, PPP -- Obama up 4%.
Florida, Purple Strategies -- Romney up 3%
New York -- the expected Obama blowout.
New Hampshire --  Obama up 5%.
Florida, Survey USA -- Obama up 5%.
 

 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.

Civitas, NC -- Romney up 1%.
Survey USA, WA -- Obama up 9%
Michigan, Rasmussen -- Obama up 6%.
Pennsylvania, Rasmussen -- Obama up 5%.

 

 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.

Civitas, NC -- Romney up 1%.
Survey USA, WA -- Obama up 9%
Michigan, Rasmussen -- Obama up 6%.
Pennsylvania, Rasmussen -- Obama up 5%.

California, Pepperdine University -- Obama blowout.

 

 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.

New York, Quinnipiac -- Obama blowout.
Michigan, PPP -- Obama up 14%. (Mitchell poll discredited)
Pennsylvania, PPP -- Obama up 6%.

Technically I am averaging the Rasmussen and PPP polls in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Neither is really a swing state.  Condi Rice supposedly makes the contests much closer in both states -- but she has no experience in electoral politics and would be no asset. 

 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.

Partisan wish fulfillment aside, PPP and Mitchell are probably about equally wrong.

Ipsos, Illinois. One state that rarely gets polled is polled.

Obama up 20. Boring!

 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.

Survey USA -- Obama up 5 in Florida
Rasmussen -- Obama up 5 in Nevada.
Monmouth University -- Obama up 13 in New Jersey.

We Ask America -- Romney up 9 in Missouri (wouldn't change the map, but a suspect pollster).
 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.

It's been interesting how much Obama falls when only likely voters are polled. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

Note well the commonplace observation of Barack Obama in 2008: that the vote for him goes well beyond the "likely voters" model that fits a pared electorate because the electorate is not excited. He campaigns so that he can win over people who might be not-so-regular voters. Such indicates a strong campaign and an adept politician.

"Registered voters late in the campaign"  well described Obama in 2008, but "likely voters" well described the midterm election of 2010.  "Likely voters" tend to be older voters who vote in any election. If the not-so-likely voters are younger and different in their voting habits than the older "likely voters", then pollsters who rely upon "likely voters" models can get a Presidential election very wrong (they didn't see the Reagan landslide in 1980 coming and underestimated that of 1984) but might get a midterm right (1982, 2010). Note that voters born around 1960 were much more 'conservative' on most issues than were their elders and made the difference between the elections of 1976 and 1980. Reagan got the young-adult vote in 1980; he couldn't have done so in 1972 or 1976.   

Barack Obama is a masterful politician with a superb organization. At this point I see no cause other than a collapse of the campaign of either Obama or Romney for the 2012 election to look significantly different from that of 2008. The Obama campaign is going to recruit lots of new voters and goad them to vote. 

Insider Advantage, Georgia -- Romney up 9.  Suspect pollster; I might expect Georgia to be Romney up 6 or so, but that gets the same result. The Republican Governor is popular despite scandals? Uh-uh. 

40% saturation in blue looks much darker than 40% saturation in green. There has just been little recent polling in Georgia. I doubt that, barring a Romney collapse, that President Obama wins this state. He isn't going to campaign there as there are easier wins and no Senate seat up for grabs (contrast Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, and Montana, three of which he lost in 2008, let alone Ohio and Virginia).
 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.

I don't think he's experienced as a politician and therefore says whatever is on his mind resulting in things like going to 57 states so far. Obama tried to recruit new voters and it didn't happen. In 2008 as I said before he polled much better than he did against Clinton and to a smaller degree McCain. The youth turnout was exactly the same in 2004 but he did manage to do better amongst them. That said, he still didn't recruit new voters but simply turned more young voters. I don't understand what's so masterful about winning an election where the housing market has collapsed and the incumbant president has a 25% approval rating. As for comparing 2012 to 2008, it's too early to tell because no one is paying attention yet.

Needle to be withdrawn from arm!

Today is the last day for meaningful pols until a few days after the Olympics.

Obama behind 5 points in Rasmussen polls. What a bad number to freeze for over two weeks!

Rasmussen reports LV which is more accurate than registered voters too. At this point those who are likely to vote would vote that way.

Despite Romney's shortcomings this week, the race is still his to lose. He is up by 5 pts in today's poll.

He's also down 8 points in Ohio, which for him is a must-win.

Yes in July. Let's wait until November to analyze actual votes rather than polls that are taken in the dog days of summer. How many Democrats were polled in that poll. Now that's something to analyze... 60% maybe?

Then let's wait on that R+5 national poll. You can't dismiss polls favorable to the opposition because it's summer and then say "Look at this one!".

You can take it into consideration if it's LV which is what Rasmussen does. Now I'm not getting too excited about it either. At least it's more accurate though. There is never a point to analyzing polls before an election takes place unless it's to determine battleground strategies.

Just look at how well experience served Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana primaries this year.

Worth noting is that the youngest voters are much more liberal than the national average. In 2008 voters under 29 voted 66-32 for President Obama. They were only 18% of the electorate, to be sure, but that is a horrible trend for Republicans. Ask yourself what the GOP can do to win that age group that will encompass voters up to age 33 in November. How can you win them if your economic program is aid to people much older and richer through which such aid must filter as profit before it reaches down as jobs with low pay? If your culture is 'believe-it-or-burn' religious fanaticism?

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.UBMd_vWMiSo

Political patterns do not change rapidly among a group of people. Any group that votes 66-32 for the liberal Democrat is decidedly liberal. This is the only growing age category.  Groups voting more for President Obama were "liberals", "Democrats", "homosexuals", "people with incomes under $15,000", and "any non-white ethnic groups". It trumped region and even "union households".  (I saw nothing for "Jews", so I shall remain silent).

It may be that President Obama was running against the consequences of the policies of George W. Bush... but GOP policies are essentially the same in 2012 as in 2008. Beyond any question, George W. Bush makes President Obama look great by contrast.

Politics is marketing... but for good reason Ford Motor Company gave up on the Edsel within two years. The GOP needs a new product.   

Indiana Senate and President of the United States are apples and oranges. We will never win the youth vote and they will never be over 20% of the electorate. No Independents in 2012 are going to remember exactly how bad things were in 2008 because they don't pay attention as much as Republicans or Democrats. Obama has taken us further into debt and had an average unemployment rate higher than the average during Bush's 8 years. We had our deadliest months in Iraq during the latter first year of the Obama administration. His response to the Gulf oil spill made Bush look like Superman regarding Hurricane Katrina. As far as winning we need nothing but money and advertisements. Of course we aren't going to recruit Democrats anymore than they're going to recruit us but to independents concerned about limited government when it comes to the free market, the GOP will do quite well. As far as who will win this election, as I've said on every thread, it's July. Obama is about where Mondale and Dukakis were at this time.

Independents are not - contrary to your opinion - dumb s. They are sentient people who suffer economic pain like the rest of us. They are aware of the recent economic trajectory and realize - like most of us - that things have gotten better. They may be upset at the pace, but they do remember 2008.

Also, I love how you admit that your party is trying to buy this election. Some honesty, finally. 

When did I say independents were dumb? I know what you mean about economic pain but I think that's the end of where we agree. Things have gotten better? Stop! Oh I'm sure they remember the promises made in 2008 about how everything was going to be perfect if we just voted Democrat. When did I say buy the election? Let's grow up and realize that both parties do the same thing to try and win.

You're right about politics being marketing. I'm glad that you've admitted that and I agree. It's also the lesser of two evils. While we don't agree on a whole lot we at least agree on those things. I think that's where our agreement stops though. What were you saying about religious fanaticism?

Things have...we aren't loosing 700k jobs per month...

but that's a fact, so you don't like those...

Big woopdy doo! Things could be alot better and we could have alot more freedoms. I'd like to see an Obama ad that advertises not losing 700,000 jobs a month. "We're no longer losing 700,000 jobs a month, vote for Barack Obama in November." Come on!

For some reason, Gallup didn't release numbers today at noon. The data will be dumped at the start of Olympic coverage. I wonder why?

Maybe that's precisely why. They're waiting for a better time to release information. There won't be a reliable poll until the middle of August now.

Just enjoy the Games. Let it be a respite.

How many times do I have to point out that polling shows that as of early 2012 George W. Bush has a better approval rating than Barack Obama?


Not really. Their product was very successful in 2010, and it seems more likely than not they'll gain the Senate in 2012, although admittedly Obama is favored for reelection to the Presidency.

PPP, Florida: Obama up 1.

Rasmussen, Wisconsin: Obama up 3.

Quinnipiac -- three states:

FL: 51-45 Obama
OH: 50-44 Obama
PA: 53-42 Obama

Since when does Quinnipiac give stronger results for the President than does PPP? Both are now "Likely Voters" models. I can average P and Q on that one.

According to Quinnipiac, Pennsylvania is now on the fringe of competitiveness and Ohio is Likely D. Even if one averages Florida... it is almost on the margin of error. I cannot say "Romney collapse" yet.

 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/poll-obama-leads-romney-in-three-swing-states-130728.html?hp=l5
Poll: Obama leads Romney in 3 swing states: politico

NC, Rasmussen: Romney up 5.
Someone else -- AL, Romney up 25.
CT, PPP -- Obama up 8.
 
()

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- Last poll discredited (like anything from We Ask America)

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

All states (and DC) in this category were overwhelming Obama wins in 2008 -- Delaware, DC, Hawaii, and Rhode Island -- and they are likely to act similarly in 2012.   Gray looks infinitely better than dark shades of orange or yellow.

* Wisconsin -- about a 6% margin (40% saturation) if Mitt Romney chooses anyone other than Paul Ryan.

You made a mistake on CT

()

Corrected.

How exactly is Virginia colored that way given that the last 3 polls are  D+1, tie, D+2?

I checked the most recent polls on Virginia -- and you are right. Marginal Obama.

Rasmussen (usually tolerable) just gave the results of an on-line poll for Indiana. Romney is up 16.

Oh -- but it is on-line. I do not accept any on-line poll from any source, as they are too easily manipulated.  President Obama is not going to win Indiana again except in a Romney collapse, but the state is not 20% more R than Ohio or 25% more R than Michigan or Pennsylvania. 

()

 

Fresh poll for Virginia from an entity known as Capital Marketing. Virginia, Obama +4. Up by the margin of error. Senator Allen is up on Kaine... maybe George Allen isn;t making the same mistakes that he did in 2008.

()

  

PPP, Colorado:  Obama up 6. Rasmussen, same state: tie. 
PPP, North Carolina: Obama up 3.

()

  

Quinnipiac, Colorado -- Romney up 5 (averaged with PPP and Rasmussesn -- basically a tie)
Rasmussen, Wisconsin -- Obama up 6
Rasmussen and Quinnipiac -- small leads for Obama

(CO looks like an inversion, but Quinnipiac corrects those fast).

()

  

Metro Washington DC (WTOP, CBS-9, Washington DC)

Editor's Note: The D.C. metro phone survey was conducted among 550 adults age 18 and over, between July 26 and July 29, 2012.

This included representative samples of 200 people in Virginia (Arlington, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun, Prince William, Spotsylvania, Stafford) 250 in Maryland (Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, Prince George's and 100 in D.C.

DC: 83-11 Obama

MD: 65-22 Obama

NoVa: 48-46 Obama

()

  
Incomplete polls for Maryland and Virginia, so I can't use those. But DC -- I finally get to fill in a square. 

Yeah, but PPP polls have been producing huge outliers for Democrats.  The notion that Obama leads by 10 points in Iowa and 7 in Ohio is ludicrous.

...Not really. Also, that was from May. This is August.

Two that I find hard to believe:

Iowa, Rasmussen -- Romney up 2
Missouri, SurveyUSA -- Romney up 2.

()

  

University of New Hampshire, New Hampshire

(What -- were you expecting Louisiana?)  -- Obama up 3.

Ohio -- Rasmussen... Ohio tied. PPP, Obama up 3. Averaged.

()

  

PPP. New Hampshire. This poll may be contaminated because some of it is taken before the Ryan pick and some afterwards. Such as it is I average it with the university poll:

()


I'm not going to say what effect I expect from the Ryan pick in polls. Outliers one way or the other will test our patience. We shall soon see what is a blunder manifesting itself in an electoral disaster, a brilliant stratagem, or basically no effect at all.

ME -- Obama up 15 in a poll by an R pollster. Maine is out of reach for Republicans now except in 400-EV landslides.

http://agreetodisagree.bangordailynews.com/2012/08/14/maine-politics/poll-shows-kings-numbers-slipping

()

I'm not using the Purple Poll (no crosstabs, and no record) or the interactive Zogby polls for either Florida or North Carolina (a hint: they look good for the President).

I don't know much about this pollster, but Oklahoma doesn't get polled often. Reason:

Romney 58, Obama 29.

It was roughly 65-35 for John McCain in 2008. The state probably has enough Hispanics to prevent anything like the 74-24 split in 1972.

That's 13% undecided, and an even split of those probably gives another 65-35 split of the vote.

No need for a new map. 

About 4 states need to go blue based on the latest polls. The latest colorado and wisconsin polls from Graves Marketing, PPP, and Rasmussed have Romney in the lead.

2 more would go blue if you didn't selectively discard the purple poll for having the same attributes as other used polls.

()


Wisconsin -- now averaged. Just because one poll appears on Thursday and another on Wednesday does not mean that one picks the Thursday poll. Colorado was averaged into a tie.

There is one in Florida that shows Romney/Ryan up 14.... Something like that is either a new pollster not getting things right at first or a partisan pollster. Mitchell in Michigan has been shown to have problems.

Romney's up in VA and OH.

Tomorrow's PPP poll shows Romney in the lead. I'd figure one would average the PPP and rasmussen polls both showing Romney in the lead as both are LV polls and superior to an RV poll.

I'm curious how 'Capital Markets' provides an adequate Virginia Poll while 'Purple Poll' does not.

Hey krazen, hacks in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Wisconsin, PPP -- Romney up 1 in a R+2 sample uncharacteristic of the state. Paul Ryan must have some favorite-son effect for now. Will that last? Who knows! Until then the bare edge goes to Romney.

Virginia, PPP:

Obama 50
Romney 42
Goode 4

Reality -- Goode probably takes some conservative votes, mostly from Romney. He is a good cultural fit to Appalachia, recently a good area for Republicans getting votes. Obama up 8 is unlikely to stick. But look what I show in Wisconsin.

New York, Siena, Obama 62-Romney 29. I have no category for near-30 gaps; I don't distinguish those from +10 gaps.

Georgia -- an odd new poll shows Romney and Obama tied among registered voters and up 2 among 'likely voters'. Georgia was in contention this time four years ago. This is a shocker... until you see some of the early polls of Tennessee. Except for the Atlanta metro area, northern Georgia is probably much like Virginia, and Virgil Goode could make the state something not so 'peachy' for his electoral chances.


()

Interesting. If pbrower2a did not arbitrarily exclude some polls, Romneymentum has just won 269 electoral votes.

Shouldn't there be a Romney +1 added to CO?  It would be light blue.

Do you mean the ludicrous polls in which Romney leads by 4 in Michigan and 14 in Florida? That pollster could probably show a poll that shows President Obama losing Connecticut or New Jersey.

Colorado is averaged between at least two polls.

I have to wait for a credible poll source to come out because I obviously don't trust the Purple Strategies polls and don't trust Rasmussen either.

Rasmussen, Montana -- Romney up 17.
Rasmussen, New Mexico -- Obama up 14.

SurveyUSA, Nevada -- Obama up 2.
Marquette, WI -- Obama up 3 (averaged with PPP, and that is Obama +1 as an average)
Gravis, Florida -- Romney up 3 (don't like it? There will be plenty of Florida polls)

Alabama, Capital Surveys -- Romney up 17 (no cause for dispute)
Washington, Moore Information (R) -- Obama up 10 (likewise)




()

Quinnipiac/NYT:

Florida:

Obama: 49

Romney: 46

Don't Know: 5

Ohio:

Obama: 50

Romney: 44

Don't Know: 4

Wisconsin:

Obama:49

Romney: 47

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/23/us/politics/23poll-docs.html

Quinnipiac is probably more trustworthy on the states that it polls than is any other pollster. 

Don't Know: 3

Castleton, VT -- Obama up 37 (my system does not distinguish anything above 10%)

Florida and Wisconsin are averaged. I trust Quinnipiac of Florida more than I trust Gravis...but rules are rules. All in all, the Romney/Ryan campaign has its work cut out.

()

PPP, Missouri: Rumors of the chance of President Obama being close to winning the state are premature at best.

Muhlenberg, PA -- Obama up 9 in the Keystone State.   

()

Virginia, Rasmussen -- tie. Average with a recent poll.
Missouri, Rasmussen -- Obama up 1. This is not the way I ordinarily do things, but I see the bungled statement by the Republican Senate nominee making the more recent PPP poll obsolete. Averaged with two earlier polls here and PPP ignored. 
Colorado -- Obama up 4.

()

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Inquirer -- Obama up 9. Corroborates an earlier poll -- exactly.
Massachusetts, new pollster -- Obama up 11. No surprise.
Missouri, Mason-Dixon, Romney up 7. Figure that it is about Romney+4
Michigan, Glengarriff -- Obama up high single-digits (I missed this one)
 

()

I recommend making MO yellow for a while.

I concur. Strange things are going on in Missouri, and polling there is like asking about wind direction in a hurricane.

It's hard to believe that a Senate nominee could throw the state's overall election. 

Why?  It's fairly clear by now that Akin's gaffe is not having much of an effect beyond his own race.  If this were a Senate polling thread, I could maybe see it, but not for this thread.

The polling's been varying wildly on the presidential leve.

I think the Mason-Dixon Poll having Romney up 7 was correct, and it corroborates PPP's Monday poll having Romney up 10. Missouri is Blue.

However, there are also several polls showing the race as a toss-up.

North Carolina, two polls (Survey USA an exact tie, Time/CNN --Romney up 1); CNN/Time in Florida: Obama up 4. Less than 1 is a tie.

PPP will have Iowa tomorrow.
 

()

Missouri will fluctuate for a while, but I believe that it will be in the Republican column come November. I'm very curious to see the new Iowa poll, since there hasn't been one after the VP pick.

The Rasmussen poll was likely Dem heavy so as to produce a poll that would hopefully get Akin to quit, and the Survey USA poll also had a pronounced Dem tilt. (and a heavy youth tilt).  The other recent poll to show a tossup was by a newbie polling company with no track record.   There's uncertainty over whether Romney is over or under +10% in Missouri (probably under), but none whatsoever as to whether he is over +4%.

If they Obama campaign can get out the youth vote then the election will be a Democratic landslide -- a reverse of the 2010 wave except that the Senate will stay much the same on the net. There just are few opportunities for D pickups in the Senate. 

Quinnipiac, CT -- Obama up 7.
PPP, Iowa -- Obama up 2. This is without any talk of ethanol subsidies.

This is about what one expects when Missouri is up in the air, but likely R.
 

()

PB, SUSA's crosstabs for their last Missouri poll require not only a massive youth vote over and above what was seen in 2008, they also require the 65+ crowd stay home and not vote.  There never was a credible poll that showed Missouri close since the Akin gaffe, not one.

There will be more polls. When I see credible pollsters ranging from D+1 to R+10  within a week, then no poll can be trusted.

Let things cool off a bit in Missouri and I WILL replace the yellow shade.

Nevada, PPP -- Obama up 3.
Connecticut, PPP -- Obama up 13. (even averaging it with Q from this week that is Obama +10).
Ipsos Illinois -- 55-29... may be an exaggeration, but in that area I don't distinguish between +10 and +25 in a winner-take-all vote.


()



Outside perhaps the Deep South and Mormon country, Likely-Voters polls are floors for the President. At this point the President wins re-election at a minimum 333 electoral votes. Assume that the bumps from the conventions will wash, and no sudden scandals or economic collapse for which time is running out.

West Virginia...52-38 for Romney. Almost certainly out of reach for the President. Could be closer than in 2008 if the undecided split 50-50. President Obama looks like a poor cultural match for the state.


()

PPP, post-convention, Florida and North Carolina, likely voters. No change for PPP in either state, which is the real story.

The GOP love-fest has little effect. If there were a bounce, then both states would be clearly R at this point. Guess who gets the attention now!


()

pbrower's election prediction thread looking through a blury spectacle and a touch of fairy dust...

You ignored the poll which shows Romney leading by 4. Your prior ruleset would have that averaged with PPP.

Isn't that true of every prediction of this point?

We all assume something unprovable. We can't all prove that Vermont isn't slipping away from the President or that Utah Mormons aren't converting to Judaism en masse and becoming hostile to Mitt Romney.  But either is absurd. Cast off the absurd and the crystal ball gets much less murky.

We have electoral history of recent year as a precedent, but we must use polls as checks. I had my expectation that president Obama would lose a little from his near-max-out numbers in some states and gain some (but far from enough) in states in which he got clobbered in 2008, and usual swing states will remain swing states. We can also predict that President Obama, whose personality is much the same as it was in 2008, will have much the same ability to campaign as needed for a win.

Much defies prediction. I think that we can all predict that President Obama loses his re-election bid if we have a 1929-style or 2008-style crash or has a sex scandal, if figures in his administration are fingered in bribery, or if an nuke-possessing Iranian missile incinerates a large American city.  Does anyone think that any of those events will happen?

We have seen that Mitt Romney had his chance to offer himself as an alternative to a President that highly-partisan Republicans loathe. It's not definitive yet, but his best opportunity to establish himself has not gone well enough to put him ahead of the President. Add to that, President Obama gets to show anew what sort of politician he is at the Democratic National Convention. He seems as good at that as he was in 2008.

I am predicting nothing about how well he will do at the Democratic National Convention. We shall see soon enough. He may use a teleprompter,  but he certainly has editorial control over what goes on the teleprompter.

It came out later or under the radar.  The rule remains for an incontrovertible poll.
Are you satisfied? Polls for Florida and North Carolina are still bad news for Mitt Romney on the whole. Let's see what attention President Obama gets this week. President Obama wins the election if he wins either -- and can win without either of them.  Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia at this point all clinch for the President -- as do Missouri (if you believe some of the polls of the last two weeks), Florida, and North Carolina. Those six states are different enough that Mitt Romney cannot quickly develop a pitch that wins them all without reshaping the electoral reality nationwide.  

Even five of the six as 50% chances implies that the President has 31 chances in 32 by random chance alone of winning -- more than 96%.  

You know, I think we can start accepting MO polls now. The Akin controversy seems to have died down for now.

I'd still have to average Missouri, probably about Romney +8.

CO. PPP, likely voters, Obama up 3
MI, likewise, Obama up 7.

Likely voters -- the Obama floor.  Such voters tend to be old.

()

Quinnipiac, New Jersey. Obama up 7 this weekend. Probable nadir.

Likely voters -- the Obama floor.  Such voters tend to be old and R-leaning.

()

PPP, Ohio, after the Democratic Convention. No change in the shade for Ohio...  but Obama leads 50-45 in Ohio among likely voters. But for PPP, this is a gain of 2%. That might not look big, but in a state like Ohio that is a huge difference.


Ohio Survey Results

Note well: it is impossible to beat 50% without cutting into the 50% of the Other Guy. Romney gained a little, but not as much as did President Obama. A 5% margin is out of the margin of error in most states (Alaska and Texas are the most obvious exceptions).

Arguably the real star of the Democratic Convention is:


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OH_9912.pdf

If President Obama is getting his gains in southeastern Ohio, then such bodes ill for Romney's chances in a raft of states in which the last Democratic nominee to win was Bill Clinton sixteen years ago. 

Likely voters -- the Obama floor.  Such voters tend to be old and R-leaning.

()

You are missing this New Mexico poll.

http://www.nmtelegram.com/2012/09/09/abq-journal-obama-leads-by-5-heinrich-by-7/

More like rightfully ignoring it.  Not much of a track record to judge the firm by, and what little there is suggests a hefty pro-R bias in their numbers.  This poll would seem to indicate that at best Obama has only a high single digit lead, with about a 50-50 chance of a double digit lead.  And that assumes Johnson actually gets 7% of the vote, which is dubious in the extreme (tho not his currently polling that high, as that is t be expected).

You have it right there. I do not post the polls of advocacy groups, special interests, or partisan think tanks.

PPP gives a likely-voter poll of North Carolina after the Democratic Convention.

No reason to think that poll is any of those.  All the available evidence indicates that they aren't very good at political polling, and the groups most likely to be missed in New Mexico polling are also ones that tilt Democratic.

Three polls, all of them with Obama up 10 or more in states that he is not going to lose:

Washington SUSA
Minnesota SUSA
Massachusetts, Kimball (R)

Likely voters -- the Obama floor.  Such voters tend to be old and R-leaning.

No new map needed for these.

()

PPP, AZ -- Romney up 9%. I didn't realize that the Arizona electorate was that elderly and white. Possible D pickup -- if it is a Dodge or very old Datsun vehicle. Otherwise, it does have a close Senate race.

SUSA, FL -- Obama up 4%.  Just on the margin of error.

Likely voters -- the Obama floor.  Such voters tend to be old and R-leaning.

()

At this point the safest bet on the 2012 election is a near replay of the 2008 election. President Obama would win everything that he won in 2008 except Indiana and the Second Congressional District of Nebraska without making any other gains.     

I would quibble on North Carolina :)

And on the downballot. Unlike 2008, where Democrats did well everywhere, this is going to be a victory for Obama personally, and only that. Republicans seem set to pickup 5 seats (Democrats will gain Maine; Republicans will gain MT, ND, NE, WI, and then take your pick of CT or VA), and run about even in the House, with perhaps minor Democratic gains.

Close in the Big Sky State (MT, PPP)

Q3 The candidates for President are Democrat
Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney. If
the election was today, who would you vote
for?
Barack Obama................................................ 45%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 50%
Undecided....................................................... 5%

Q5 If the candidates for President this year were
Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt
Romney, and Libertarian Gary Johnson, who
would you vote for?

Barack Obama................................................ 43%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 46%
Gary Johnson ................................................. 7%
Undecided....................................................... 5%

I'm going with the three-way contest... Montana is close also in the Senate and House races. President Obama does not need the three electoral votes; the Senate race is more important, and the at-large House seat would be worth grabbing.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MT_91212.pdf

Likely voters -- the Obama floor.  Such voters tend to be old and R-leaning.

()

I wouldn't be so sure on MT:


There are lots of close Senate races, including those in AZ and IN, states that few think that President Obama has a chance to win.  Tester (MT) should be extremely vulnerable having barely won in 2006 against one of the most corrupt members of the Senate.  That is down from a 3% lead in April -- but that is five months after a barrage of negative ads.  First PPP poll since April, so we have been in the dark.

I think Republicans will probably win the Senate, but does that really change much?  Sure, it provides Republicans with good talking points, but without a supermajority nothing is possible.   

If Romney wins I can see them passing a few things through budget reconciliation.

EPIC-MRA, a very R pollster operating only in Michigan. Obama up 10. These fellows have had had President Obama behind early. No wonder the Republicans have abandoned Michigan. I have frequently argued with this pollster, but when it goes Obama +10 in Michigan,  the R nominee for President is ... in troubled waters.

Likely voters -- the Obama floor.  Such voters tend to be old and R-leaning.

()

It's beginning to look much like a replay of 2008.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/white-voters-giving-romney-huge-texas-lead/ (Romney 55, Obama 40)

Qualitatively right, probably a quantitative exaggeration. Nobody can poll Texas effectively, so we beggars can't be choosers.

Likely voters -- the Obama floor.  Such voters tend to be old and R-leaning.

()

It's beginning to look much like a replay of 2008.

Virginia is miscolored based on the latest Gravis poll. This map has used Gravis polls before.

That poll is junk.

Nobody is going to question a Quinnipiac poll that has President Obama up by well over 10% in New York State, right?  We Ask America has a poll with Obama up 17% in Illinois, and I am not going to dispute that. I don't distinguish leads over 10%.

Rasmussen has Obama down by 3% in Missouri. This is post-Convention, and after a powerful speech by Bill Clinton -- who might have some influence over voters who warmed up to him in 1992 and 1996 and did not warm up to Barack Obama in 2008. Missouri is now a legitimate swing state.

It's beginning to look like November 2008.

Likely voters -- the Obama floor.  Such voters tend to be old and R-leaning.

()

Polls in Florida and Ohio -- Rasmussen and ARG, razor-thin leads for President Obama.
WMUR, New Hampshire -- President Obama up 5.
PPP, Minnesota -- President Obama up 7.
SUSA, California -- Obama up by a huge margin.
 
An entity known as Associated Industries of Florida or something to the effect showed a significant lead by Romney -- junk pollster, and everyone knows how his employer wants hm to vote. Gravis, Virginia -- pollster that says nothing about itself. Not used.

()

Marist, WSJ.

In both Florida and Virginia, Obama is ahead of Romney by five points among likely voters (including those leaning toward a particular candidate), 49 percent to 44 percent.

In Ohio, the president’s lead is seven points, 50 percent to 43 percent.

That's with "likely voters", the floor for President Obama.

It's huge for registered voters.

(averaged with some Rasmussen polls for Florida and Ohio -- it's still past the margin of error).

KDVR-TV (Denver's FoX station): Obama up 49-44.

Romney's chances seem to be falling before the autumn leaves get a chance to do so.  

()

Don't forget the ARG poll of Obama +2 on Romney in CO.  If you don't include that, then your polls are moot.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/CO12.html (http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/CO12.html)

ARG is, and has always been, a bad pollster.

Fun fact: even if Romney won all of the 'pink' states on your map, he would still loose.

University (Fairleigh-Dickinson, NJ) -- Obama up 14.

Rasmussen, NC -- Romney up 2.

()

Philadelphia  Inquirer --

PA, Obama up 11. NJ, Obama up 14.

SUSA, Kentucky -- Romney up 14. 

()



It looks as if Mitt Romney will get an early lead in the Electoral College as Kentucky and Vermont will be the first two states called. 8-3 Romney.

Rasmussen, Colorado -- Romney up 2 (even if the President has an approval of 48%)
SUSA, Oregon -- Obama up 9.  
Suffolk, Massachusetts -- Obama up 33%
Washington Post, Virginia -- Obama up 8.
Southern Illinois U, Illinois -- Obama up huge.
ARG, New Hampshire -- Obama up 2.

()

I think the CO is junk lol.

So do I -- but rules are rules.

Quinnipiac, NYT -- Obama up 6 in Wisconsin. Fringe of competitiveness.


It is Obama up 17 if people are asked 'Which candidate cares about your needs and problems?' This is before the '47% of all people don't pay enough taxes like you noble tycoons and executives' gaffe leaked out.

()

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/presidential-swing-states-%28co-va-and-wi%29/release-detail?ReleaseID=1799

For Romney to win those three states, he must either get people to forget that he doesn't care about their economic distress or get them to believe that if they sacrifice on behalf of the Master Class they will get enough benefits to justify the sacrifices. That will be a difficult sell.

Mitt Romney couldn't convince the French to accept a religion that requires them to reject wine.

()

How does Rasmussen's Colorado poll and Quinnipiac's Colorado poll average to pink?

He takes the most recent or atleast credible poll.

It should average to white, not pink.  That's not credibility, that's bullsh*t.

There's still no way that Romney is leading in Colorado. Out of dozens of polls he leads what? 2 or 3?

Marquette University Law School, which got the Walker recall right in Wisconsin, now shows the President up 14 in Wisconsin. Averaging this with Q I get an average of 10. Deep red. Could Wisconsin be spiraling away from a possible R flip?

Maine, PPP --- Obama up 17.

()

Pbrower has at least a dozen times in this thread averaged recent polls, just as he just averaged the recent Wisconsin polls.

+2 Romney and +1 Obama average to +.5 Romney. You can then round that either way, but certainly not to pink.

CNN -- Michigan, Obama up 8. CO averaged (under 1% -- white. The edge goes to Romney, but not enough).

()

Krazen realizes that his guy is going to lose the real election, so he's clinging to any last thing he can find, like pointing out minor unintentional errors on a map that changes daily and will have no impact whatsoever on the election.

From the pollster that FoX News Channel goes to (Opinion Research?) when it wants accuracy:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/obama-has-edge-over-romney-in-three-battleground-states/#ixzz26yXrTMwN


()

No change in the map shades -- but apparently a disaster in the making.

Mitt Romney will not be President of the United States, barring some miracle on his behalf.

From the pollster that FoX News Channel goes to (Opinion Research?) when it wants accuracy:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/obama-has-edge-over-romney-in-three-battleground-states/#ixzz26yXrTMwN

Poll by the Hartford Courant, one of the oldest newspapers in America: Obama up 23 in Connecticut.  


()

No change in the map shades -- but apparently a disaster in the making.

Mitt Romney will not be President of the United States, barring some miracle on his behalf.

Marist/NBC

CO: Obama 50%, Romney 45%;
IA: Obama 50%, Romney 42%;
WI: Obama 50%, Romney 45

NC, FoX-8, Greensboro

46-43 Obama

Their previous poll from end-August was the exact opposite: Romney+3

http://myfox8.com/2012/09/20/hpufox8-poll-obama-regains-edge-with-nc-voters

()

I am not going to use the YouGov interactive polls. I do not accept interactive polls for these maps. Sure, I understand that those polls look valid. Not everyone has Internet access, and the people who vote in such polls might be vastly dissimilar to the electorate.  I might back down on this if I see a poll for such states that get polled rarely (Alaska, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Rhode Island) but only for such states.  Beggars can't be choosers, you know.

Neilsen, which got the last poll that I have for South Dakota, has Romney up in double digits.

Purple Strategies, AZ -- Romney up only 3.

()

Omaha World Herald, Wiese  -- Nebraska. Romney up 11, NE-02 a tie (44-44), NE-01 no runaway.    

()

Can someone please tell me what the colours mean?

Also on this site, why do you use blue for republicans and red for dems?

Because this site is Naso-esque and uses the media party colours from the 80s.

Dark red- Safe Obama
Red- Lean Obama
Pink- Barley Obama
Light blue- Barley Romney
Blue- Lean Romney
Dark Blue- Safe Romney
Green- Not enough info.

https://uselectionatlas.org/note.html

Also, of course, to any non-American observer the other way round doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Is there any other political party not at least arguably left of center that uses red for anything? Can't think of one.

"Red" used to mean Democrats and "Blue" used to mean Republicans. Because Leip logs elections going back to George Washington, a change from the traditional pattern could be confusing.

The map that I have shows reliable polling where it exists, with darker shades (more saturation) implying a stronger lead for Romney or Obama. White is for anything under 1%, the pale shades for 1% and 3% margins, medium shades for 4% to 9% margins, and a dark shade for anything over 10%.   4% is the usual margin of error, and 10% suggests that a state is out of reach. I do not distinguish anything beyond 10%.

Green is for those states that have no recent (that is, since February!) polls. For such states I am going with the performance in 2008. Except for South Carolina, all such states went for John McCain by more than 10%, and they are in dark green. South Carolina is in medium green.

I had orange for states that Barack Obama won in 2008 that had not been recently polled... and saturation represented how President Obama did in 2008. What remains of such states that President Obama had won that have not since been polled -- Delaware, Hawaii, and Rhode Island -- were overwhelming  victories for him in 2008 and will almost certainly be much the same in 2012. The dark orange color was incredibly ugly, so I replaced it with "no color" -- gray.

I do not use insider or interactive polls, or polls by advocacy groups (like Susquehanna Research in Pennsylvania) or by politicians themselves.

 

PPP, Florida -- Obama up  50-46.
PPP, Colorado -- Obama up 51-45.
University of Cincinnati, Ohio : Obama 50-46.

"Brunhilda" prepares to sing even if the map does not change. 
 
()

We Ask America, Wisconsin - Obama up 12.
Rasmussen, Michigan -- Obama up 12.

The Blue Firewall is hardening quickly. Those are R-friendly pollsters.
 
()





[/quote]

Romney +10 in AZ

http://today.yougov.com/news/2012/09/21/arizona/

FLORIDA

50-45 Obama

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/FL12.html

IOWA

51-44 Obama

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/IA12.html

NEVADA

51-44 Obama

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/NV12.html

Choose your own metaphor. 

Civitas, North Carolina: Obama up 4. This pollster has given some big advantages to Romney most of the season. When this pollster gives the President a 4% lead... things are going bad for Romney.

YouGov: I do not use interactive polls.
 
()

I have great news for Republicans to behold. A fringe pollster (right-wing Hendrix College) can give unqualified evidence that President Obama will lose Arkansas by 21%. Even if it is biased, by a factor of 3, that is a decisive lead.  

New Jersey, Monmouth: Obama up 15. The last time that New Jersey went for a Republican nominee was 1988. Republicans can win without it.

Nevada, PPP -- Obama up 9. That would be the borderline of competitiveness in July, but probably past that now.

Washington Post, Florida -- Obama up 4. Ohio, Obama up 8...  I'm tempted to say that when a candidate is up by more percentage points than there are weeks left, limit 5... it's over.  
 
()

Quinnipiac, Ohio ... Obama up 10. Florida, Obama up 9. Pennsylvania -- Obama up 12. Franklin and Marshall, Pennsylvania -- Obama up 9.

The two definitive swing states have swung far away from being close if you believe the two polls. Outliers? Not likely. Quinnipiac has been a fine pollster so far, and these polls may indicate that what recently was a close contest is no longer so. Horses can come up lame in horse races; baseball teams can have 10-run innings that change the character of the game. We may be seeing a 51-47 popular election becoming a 56-42 election, which happens when a nominee offends constituencies once assumed safe. 

As September approaches its end I begin to think that the difference between an 8-point lead and a 15-point lead is a quibble.       
 
()

Iowa, PPP -- Obama up 7.
Gonzalez, Maryland -- Obama up 18.
Rasmussen, Massachusetts -- Obama up 15.

No need for a new map.

Chilenski, Missouri. Registered voters: Romney up 6.

All recent polls are for likely voters, and I am unfamiliar with this pollster. I can;t use it. I expect more Missouri polls, in view of the Senate race.   

pbrowser2a...make AZ blue again, lol

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2012/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=402012925016 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2012/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=402012925016)

AZ, Rasmussen... Romney up 10.  
IN, Howey-Depauw... Romney up 12.
CT, PPP... Obama up over 10   
 
()

Marist:

NV: Obama 49, Romney 47
NC: Obama 48, Romney 46
NH: Obama 51, Romney 44

NH is this poll only, and NC and NV polls are averaged with others.
 
()

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/09/29/des-moines-register-iowa-poll-obama-leads-romney-by-4-points/article?nclick_check=1

49-45 Obama. No need for a new map, but the state is that important and has been polled little.

()

This thread is now closed. The difference between "up 8" and "up 11" is becoming less relevant. The new and more relevant map is now here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=160426.msg3444040#msg3444040