If black voters are participating in cross-voting as much as white dems, that could really influence MI-13.
http://electionate.com/2012/02/28/michigan-too-close-thoughts-on-democratic-crossovers/

I'm going with this map
justification here
http://electionate.com/2012/02/26/michigan-primary-preview/

I still haven't done my projection map, but I think Livingston County is solid Romney:
-highest median household income in the state
-5% of households make more than 200k (Romney hasn't lost a single county in a primary where more than 5% make 200k+)
-Huckabee did poorly / Romney did well
-Not especially evangelical
-More than 10% have a post-grad education. Romney has won every county where more than 10% have a postgrad degree, except Alachua County, FL

So I haven't made a prediction map yet, but one kind of fun thing to think about is the strong, negative correlation between Romney's 12' vote and Huckabee's 08 vote. It's a great predictor of how Romney will fare in a given county, and would have almost exactly nailed the Florida map. For the statistically inclined, the r^2 is .8

I wrote a blog post on it here, and there's also a map of how that would play out in Michigan.
http://electionate.com/2012/02/19/predictions-revisited-the-ghost-of-huckabee/

I didn't predict the final #'s, but I did make some nice maps. I made them quickly at work, so I bet there are some errors! I think the Minnesota map is a little too Romney-friendly, so adjust a little bit toward Santorum. I wrote a little bit about it here: electionate.com

I made some maps at work today, but pretty quickly so I'm sure there will be much to quibble with. Let me know what I have wrong. I think I've given Romney too much in Minnesota, but I acknowledge that in the accompanying post at electionate.com

That's a great map. Conspicuously similar to mine, although I think Romney might do worse in central Florida and better in the western Panhandle:

http://electionate.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/florida-primary-preview/

Since Romney looks to win by a significant margin, you can give all of those toss-ups to him, and I imagine he might even win a few additional counties.

I made a county by county assessment of SC. What do you think?
http://electionate.wordpress.com/

The post agrees Romney would do worse in caucuses than he did last time, though I disagree that "all of his advantages" are gone, since he was a mainline, establishment conservative and he still appears to have the support of that same group of voters. Depending on whether the caucuses are mainly Tea Party activists or longtime establishment GOP party members, Romney's advantage may either be reduced or eliminated. I don't know the answer, and that's why the post has a speculative tone.

If the every state held a caucus, I'd be more receptive to the argument that Romney won't win most of them, but most of these caucuses are in states that ought to be pretty strong for Romney, given Romney's higher levels of support in the west and in affluent metropolitan areas.

Finally, I didn't even consider Paul, mainly because it's too hard to judge how well he'll do, but also because even if he were the winner, I don't think it would matter. A Paul victory is (on balance) a Romney victory, and thus largely supports the direction of the post.

great blog! amazing how long you've stuck with it. I added you to my blogroll

These posts might particularly interest the demographic and map minded:

On the income-facet of Romney's coalition, and consequences for South Carolina:
http://electionate.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/romneys-south-carolina-income-problem/

On southern Iowa's love of southern candidates:
http://electionate.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/why-isnt-santorum-doing-better-in-south-carolina/

On Romney's advantage in the next nine states:
http://electionate.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/schedule-favors-romney-sc-more-important-than-usual/

On whether caucuses will support Romney big time in 2012
http://electionate.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/will-caucuses-support-romney-again/

On whether the 08' McCain vote will be good for Romney
http://electionate.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/what-does-2008-tell-us-about-2012/

what's your blog?

I've been lurking here for years and I recently decided to start blogging about elections. I can't really think of any group that would enjoy the demographic/map focus more than the folks posting here, so in case anyone is interested, I thought I'd throw it out:
http://electionate.wordpress.com/

Auburn's population growth is also due to annexation.

far less rapidly than suburban Seattle areas like Marysville (137%)

I'm sorry, but I find that idea hilarious.

Which idea is hilarious?  Marysville is the fastest-growing city in the state in percentage terms.  Granted, its 2000 base population was much lower than most - but even so, it picked up more residents than any city except Seattle and Renton.  It jumped from the state's 36th largest city to its 15th.

Snohomish County (17.7%) grew at a faster rate than King, Pierce or the state as a whole.

No, no. I don’t doubt you. I’ve just lived in or near Marysville (about 15 minutes west of) for most of my life, and my dad used to work for the City of Marysville as their finance director once upon a time, and the notion that Marysville is a Seattle suburb is a strange one to me. If anything, it's a suburb (sorta, it's complicated) of Everett.

Also, on the population growth, a good chunk of that growth in Marysville was from annexations of surrounding suburban areas that were previously unincorporated. It did grow, and quite a bit, don’t get me wrong, it’s just a bit inflated.

Growth due to annexations is one thing that takes further analysis to unravel.  The census bureau does not differentiate between growth in the old city area or growth in annexed areas.

It does make sense that Marysville would have seen explosive growth in the past decade, as the Seattle-Tacoma metro area raced up the I-5 corridor.  Auburn is another area at the fringes of the highway system where one would have expected to see explosive growth, too.

I don't post often, but we shouldn't completely discount the possibility for ND to be unusually close.
Obama's strength in Minnesota and Montana (and the entire northwestern quadrant of the country) suggests he ought to be strong in ND. Obama's unopposed advertising and campaign stop should also give him higher standing in the polls than he would have otherwise. I think that the *trump card* the Obama campaign has is McCain's opposition to agricultural subsidies and the farm bill. Agriculture is the largest industry in ND, and opposition to agricultural subsidies is like opposing their way of life.

Obama would do better than Clinton in WA.

General election polling by state seems to indicate that determining whether or not Clinton or Obama is better suited to a state directly corrolates to the education and income of the state. Just like the primaries, Obama is much stronger with the rich and educated, while Clinton does better in working class states.

A quick glance at exit polling data from 04' seems to confirm this

% of voters that make more then 50K a year in 04
National Average: 45

WA    61
VA   61
MN   60
NV   59
CO   58
MO   52
PA   48
OH   48
KY   42
WV   39

% voters that have graduated college
National Average: 42

MN   60
WA   53
CO   51
NV   42
OH   38
MO   36
PA   36
WV   35
VA   ?
KY   >?

I think this is pretty close to the polling we've seen so far - Obama looks good in states like CO, WA, MN in the head to head match ups, while Clinton looks much better then Obama in KY, WV, and the data is more contradictory in MO, OH, PA (though I think it generally has tilted clinton, but most of those polls are old and don't reflect Obama's increased strength)

Bottom line - Washington is an ideal state for Obama - highly educated and affluent. Additionally, the prominence of independents/moderates in western washington and king county is a bit of a liability for Clinton vs. McCain. Clinton will comfortably win the state. Obama would win it by a more significant margain.

Taking another look at that Survey USA poll...


1)  Obama only leads by 3 among 18-34 year olds (25% of the electorate). I would be surprised if Obama only led by 3 given other state polling and exit poll results from finished contests.

2)  African Americans are only 8% of the electorate - I would expect something more like 12-16. Hispanics are 27% of the electorate, which is possible, but is probably slightly high.

3)  Obama is losing badly in Greater Los Angeles 63-32, while leading in the Bay Area 55-38. Last week, Obama was losing Los Angeles by a more reasonable 52-36 margin, but was tied in the Bay Area at 42.

Assuming that the general consensus of polling is correct (Obama steadily gaining, even if not necessarily leading), I think it's fair to suggest that the Bay Area number is fairly accurate and that the Los Angeles total (which, granted, is a sub-sample) exaggerates Clinton's lead. Take that into account and readjust the composition of the electorate to be Black 13, Hispanic 24... and my new number is:

Clinton 47.15
Obama 44.85

***yes, stats/math people, you're right. what i did isn't really allowed. i'm not claiming this is a statistically meaningful result, i just substituted (somewhat) arbitrary numbers into surveyusa's internals.

Interesting note in the internals...

"The race may not be as tight when Democratic voters go to the polls next week on Super Tuesday. Among registered voters who say they will vote or have already voted in a Democratic primary in states holding contests Tuesday, Clinton leads Obama by 49% to 31%."

I'm not voting, but I think Virginia will be very close.

Hillary should do as well or perhaps slightly better in northern virginia then kerry and should be stronger in souther virginia. Hillary seems to be doing better with less educated / rural voters both nationally and in state by state polling vs. Giuliani. I can think of two reasons why this might be true
1)  Kerry was particularly unappealing to working / rural dems because he was successfully characterized as a rich out-of touch northeastern elite liberal who likes windsurfing.
2)  Rudy fragments GOP support in rural areas, especially in comparison to Bush.

I would contend that the combination of these two factors will make Hillary stronger in several other states like west virginia, missouri, kentucky, north carolina. I suspect that Hillary will not win a majority of these states, but she will be *more* competitive (NC/KY/IN) and in some cases, very competetive (MO/VA/WV).

Demographic trends in Virginia, while not nearly rapid enough in itself to create a Dem victory, will contribute to these advantagous circumstances and create a very tight race in Virginia.

Favorite: Barack Obama, Ron Paul
Least Favorite: Mike Gravel, Rudy Giuliani

[the % are just 00 still...]
clinton -= blue
obama = dark red
edwards = green
richardson = pink

note: this assumes a national primary - i obviously doubt that if AZ is in may that richardson would still be in it to win, for example

***an interesting thing i noticed was that CA/TX/PA/MI were pretty hard for me to decide.

i think edwards would have a difficult time getting the nomination. I think if Clinton drops out, obama would win most clinton states - if Obama dropped out i think that it would be very tight, leaning clinton. Obama vs. Clinton seems like an Obama blow out to me.

I think in an essential even election in the popular vote  we are talking
Obama-McCain=
AZ = - 10
LA = -9.5
NC = -7.5
AR = - 7
WV = -4
MO = - 3.25
CO = - 2.5
VA = - 2.5
FL = - 1.5
NV = - .5
OH = TIE
IA = + 1
WI = +1
NM = + 1.25
NH = 1.75
OR = + 1.75
MI = +3.75
MN = + 4
PA = + 4.5
ME = + 7
WA = +8.5
NJ = +9
DE = +9
CT = +10

since i more or less think that Obama beats McCain by 1.5 pts - i think we're looking at...

hmm interesting.

I would think that Obama/Richardson would be pretty strong in Michigan by generating high african american turnout, I'm surprised that you think that it would swing from +3 for the  Dems in an election they lost by 3 to + 3 to the republicans in an election they lose by 3. Thats a pretty strong switch.

I think that Oregon would be the most likely blue state to switch in that election - it has a very high amount of independents that McCain would be pretty effective at. i think that if mccain couldn't win enough independents to take oregon, he probably can't win the election given that the dems will be energized by any of their best options, years of gop control, and mccains position on the iraq war, while the gop base won't be incredibly enthusasitc to vote for McCain in anything similar to the present environment.

damn.
oh well, thanks anyway

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/109909.asp

Gregoire narrowly defeated Rossi in a contested election in 2004.