My maps for where the race stands right now and where it will be on November 6th

[Jacob]

If the election were being held today, I think this is how it would shake out in the swing states:

Nevada: Obama
Colorado: Obama
Iowa: Obama
Wisconsin: Obama
Ohio: Obama
Virginia: Obama
North Carolina: Romney
Florida: Obama
New Hampshire: Obama

This gives an electoral vote of Obama 332, Romney 306 if the election were held today.

Here is how I think it will turn out on Election Day (November 6th), 4 weeks from today:

All states the same as above except for Florida and Colorado. I think Romney can win these two. This gives an electoral vote of Obama 294, Romney's 244

I know that these 9 states are technically considered swing states by most analysts, but I would remove NH and NC from the list if I could. I don't see any way that NH goes for Romney. It went for Kerry in 2004 in a year in which Kerry lost 3 Gore states to Bush (IA, NM and WI), and it has been trending very Democratic in the past decade save for 2010. Likewise, I think Obama winning NC in 2008 was because of the huge voter enthusiasm and turnout of African-Americans. I do not think African-Americans in NC will match their 2008 turnout and the voter demographics in NC are certainly less favorable than they are in its neighbor to the north, Virginia.

If you exclude the 9 swing states, Obama leads Romney by 237-191 right now in the electoral college. But let's give Romney NC and Obama NH. That leaves 7 real swing states, and gives us an electoral college vote of Obama 241, Romney 206.

7 swing states remaining:

Nevada
Colorado
Iowa
Wisconsin
Ohio
Virginia
Florida

I am tempted to remove Nevada, Iowa and Wisconsin and put them in Obama's camp guarantees. I don't see how Obama loses these two states. His campaign's turnout operations are superb in all three and Romney is very behind in the turnout game, especially in NV.

If we give Obama these three states, the electoral vote tally is 263 Obama, 206 Romney. If Obama wins Ohio then he is almost certainly carrying Iowa and Wisconsin as well, because Ohio is less Democratic leaning than the above two (most recent polls excluded).

So that leaves 4 swing states:

Colorado
Ohio
Virginia
Florida

I really do see Obama holding on to VA. The large African-American population helps him and the white population is more liberal than every other Southern state (thanks to Northern Virginia). Let's give VA to him. Electoral vote tally: Obama 276, Romney 206.

So now Obama is at 276, and that's assuming he loses OH, CO AND FL. Obama can still lose CO and win. His path to victory without OH is much broader than Romney's. Regardless of what pollsters say, I don't see a path to victory for Romney without OH. Besides the historical fact that no Republican has ever won without winning OH, there's the fact that IA and WI are more Democratic leaning than OH, and it's near impossible to see Obama winning OH but losing IA and WI. Romney would need both IA and WI (and NV or NH) to compensate for losing OH. Just don't see it happening. But anyway, Obama is at 276 in my tally.

That leaves three swing states: Colorado, Ohio and Florida.

I see Romney being able to pull off a win in Colorado. I'm almost certain Latino turnout will be as high as it was in 2008 and I can see Romney winning this state by a point on election day (50-49). Electoral vote total: Obama 276, Romney 215.

I also see Romney winning Florida. The seniors seem to be fooled by Mitt's Medicare falsehoods, and with a decent turnout, I see Romney putting Florida in his column. Electoral vote total: Obama 276, Romney 244.

 I see Obama winning Ohio. I think the auto bailout thing is just too much for Romney to overcome and with early voting restored in the weekend before the election, African-American turnout in Cincinnati, Columbus and especially Cleveland-area will give Obama this state. Electoral vote total: Obama 294, Romney 244.

----

As a final exercise, let's say that Obama loses OH. I still think Obama can hold IA and WI in many of these circumstances in which he loses OH. Let's also give Romney NV for the hell of it, say there's depressed turnout. Giving Romney OH and NV still results in an Obama win. Electoral vote total: Obama 276, Romney 262. Finally, let's give Romney an NH. Maybe the fiscal conservatives come out and reject Obama. Even with NH, Romney STILL loses. Electoral vote total: Obama 272, Romney 266

I don't see how Obama can lose this election if he recovers from the first debate. Assuming he doesn't act completely out of it as he did in the first two, I think Romney wins, even if Romney wins all three debates. As long as Obama doesn't get blown out in the last two, and holds his own like Bush did in 2004, I think he is fine. Kerry beat Bush in the debates and still lost. Americans preferred Bush's personality to Kerry's. Americans will prefer Obama's personality to Romney's and re-elected. Thoughts and criticisms welcome.

[Hoverbored123]

This map represents the latest Rasmussen polls in the swing states:

Nevada is tied at 47 percent, while all the other states have at least a one-point lead.  Romney is down 1 in Ohio and Colorado, and up 3 in New Hampshire, so I think he has a good chance of winning there.  Romney has the same margin in NH that Obama has in Wisconsin. 

I give Florida, North Carolina, and New Hampshire to Romney.  North Carolina especially, since he's at 51% there.  Colorado seems to lean for Romney, while Iowa, Nevada, and Wisconsin lean toward Obama. 

Ohio is going to be the decider.  Obama leads 50 to 49 among likely voters there, but there are caveats: 1 percent remain undecided, and if they break for Romney it'll be a nail-biter.  Also, we  may not have seen the full effect of the first debate, even though the Ohio survey was done post-debate. 

Here's an aside about early voting: people who vote early cannot vote on Election Day.  Also, people who vote early for Obama were probably going to vote for him either way.  In other words, the fact that early voting seems to favor Obama doesn't guarantee he'll win there.  True, many who vote early do so because they can't get to the polls on Election Day.  But the relative handful of undecided voters will probably hold off until the last minute to vote. 

If Romney can flip Ohio, he'll probably win.  Where we differ, I imagine, is whether he can flip Ohio.

[Jacob]

This map represents the latest Rasmussen polls in the swing states:

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com has categorized the Rasmussen bias this season. It has been an outlier.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, Rasmussen has them tied at 47%. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rasmussen has Obama by 1 in Colorado and Ohio, yes.

New Hampshire? You're claiming that Romney has a 3 point lead there? BS. You're citing a Rasmussen poll from September 18th! Here are more recent polls from NH:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_romney_vs_obama-2030.html

There haven't been any state polls of NH that I've seen since the October 3rd debate. Please let me know if you have any. Your Rasmussen poll is three weeks old, however, and three polls have been done since then. The results range from Obama +5 to Obama +15. I don't think Obama is up by 15 in NH. I think if you held the election today then Obama would win NH by 3 or 4 with no problem. I think on election day he will win by 5.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney does NOT have a lead in NH. You can't cite polls that are three weeks old with any credibility if 3 of them have been done since then! Come on now.

As for Wisconsin, Obama leads by 2 in the most recent PPP poll. You're again citing a Rasmussen poll from 3 weeks ago that shows Obama leading by 3. The PPP poll was taken from October 4th-October 6th, so it captured post-debate voters. Romney still couldn't pull ahead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't give New Hampshire to Romney when 3 recent polls show him losing there! I agree that Romney is likely going to win North Carolina. I agree that Romney has a good shot of winning Colorado and said as much on election day. Iowa, Nevada and Wisconsin are all going to go Obama.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are not only 1% undecided voters in OH. The other 2 polls taken post-debate in OH show undecideds at 5% and 7%. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um, what are you talking about? Everyone knows that you can't vote once in early voting and then again. Lol, an aside? The whole reason that Obama wants early voting is because early voters broke for him in almost every swing state where it was available.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and the same goes for those who vote early for Romney. We know that those who vote early, especially on the first possible dates, are strong supporters of either candidate. The Obama campaign has good turn-out operations in swing states that will bank as many votes as possible in early voting to make-up for a losing margin, if any, among election day voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said this! Obama won early voting by double digits in Ohio but won the state by mid-single digits overall. It just provides a cushion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The second sentence actually hurts Romney more than it does Obama. Obama would probably prefer that undecided voters wait until after the second debate at least. Romney would want them voting now, when he has peaked.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Romney wins Ohio, I give him at least a 60% chance of winning the election (maybe 65%). He can't win without Ohio.

So your math and predictions are quite a bit off in my estimation. I do not see Obama winning CO but losing NH. If he wins CO then he is winning NH, IA and WI, that is almost guaranteed. If you give him CO (a true swing state in almost every sense) then you have to give Obama NH, IA and WI. Kerry managed to win NH and WI while losing IA barely and CO by almost 5 points.

If we divide up the swing states in a way that is most favorable to your predictions WHILE including your false statements about NH, Romney still loses.

Let's make a map giving Romney NC, FL, and CO, as you requested. I gave Obama Iowa, Nevada, and Wisconsin, since you conceded they lean his way. I'm giving Romney New Hampshire despite the fact that no recent poll that I've seen shows Romney leading there, and that leaves us with VA (which you forgot to mention) and OH. I'm going to give you OH and I'll give Obama VA, because he leads in it, even though his margin in the RealClearPolitics average is less than it is in OH.

So here's how I broke down the 8 swing states you mentioned, and the one you didn't:

Nevada: Obama (you agree)
Colorado: Romney (I agree)
Iowa: Obama (you agree)
Wisconsin: Obama (you agree)
Florida: Romney (I agree)
North Carolina: Romney (I agree)
Ohio: Romney (I disagree)
New Hampshire: Romney (I disagree)

Virginia:
Not mentioned, but I give it to Obama. I give Romney 5 of the 9 swing states. What's the result?

Romney still loses. Obama wins 276-262. See how hard it is to draw out a Romney victory? Give him states like NH that I don't think he can win, and he still can't claw together 270 electoral votes.

[Obamalite]

No way! Obumble will be lucky to win New Jersey, Minnesota, Oregon and Maine. He's dead in the swing states, dead.

[opebo]

Now:

Election day:

[Jacob]

Um, where is your evidence that Obama would lose NH?

[opebo]

Um, where is your evidence that Obama would lose NH?

I've long thought that the whites there would be less susceptible to the racist strategy.  But I just threw it in for good measure, as I think there's a huge wave.

[Jacob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe in facts and evidence, not baseless conjecture. You have no evidence that if Romney wins, it will be because the country is rebelling against a black president.

[Hoverbored123]

This article is a good summation of why I don't consider Nate Silver a reliable source:

http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/10/why-nate-silvers-cozy-insider-status-with-obama-for-america-in-2008-matters-in-2012/

[Jacob]

This article is a good summation of why I don't consider Nate Silver a reliable source:

http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/10/why-nate-silvers-cozy-insider-status-with-obama-for-america-in-2008-matters-in-2012/

His 2008 and 2010 predictions were rock solid. If you folks are gonna cite Rasmussen (a Republican Party supporter), then you're gonna have to do better than this.

C-.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This article is a good summation of why I don't consider Nate Silver a reliable source:

http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/10/why-nate-silvers-cozy-insider-status-with-obama-for-america-in-2008-matters-in-2012/

Nothing in there says anything about how that impacts his reliability as an analyst.

[Vern]

I'll let you know what my map is after the 2nd debate.

[J. J.]

Right now, my prediction is:

Romney:  275

Obama:  263

With a 30% chance of the Romney/Ryan Republican Romp.

[auburntiger]

Right now, it's this...

But I think on Election Night itself, we're more likely to see a narrow Romney win or a 2008-style Obama win. IIRC, there hasn't been an election in the modern era at least since 1900 where a president was re-elected to a second term with fewer electoral votes AND a smaller share of the popular vote.

So, in the end, if I may make two maps, we're going to either see this:
Obama wins in the swing states and his GOTV effort is able to re-2008 itself:

Or this:  Romney wins in the swing states and his GOTV trumps and early voting is a wash for either side. I think we're already seeing that happening.

I would bet against something to the effect of having a regional split where Obama wins OH, VA and Romney takes NC, FL, CO.
We have 26 days til Election Day. I still think it's Obama's race to lose.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is where I think things are now... despite the good FL polls...

294-244

I'm not too worried about what history says... all of those rules exist until they don't and new ones are written.

[5280]

[Ljube]

Once again it's all about Ohio. To quote Wolf Blitzer: "Ohio, Ohio, Ohio!"

[5280]

Once again it's all about Ohio. To quote Wolf Blitzer: "Ohio, Ohio, Ohio!"

I have a gut feeling it's going to be a toss between Virginia or Ohio that decides the election.  Otherwise, it's a bit early to make that prediction.

[Jacob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait, what? Where are you seeing that Romney's GOTV is trumping Obama's and that early voting is a wash? More curious about the first claim. Everything I've read suggests that Romney's GOTV effort is mediocre compared to Obama's.

[Ty440]

Excellent analysis, IMO Obama has a built in electoral college advantage, Romney needs to win the popular vote by at least .5% to be confident of victory.

[traininthedistance]

I agree with Polnut and 5280's map.

VA, CO, and NH are probably closest right now.  Florida is slipping away from Obama, but Romney is a spectacularly bad fit for Ohio, and the Dems always always underpoll in Nevada.

[auburntiger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait, what? Where are you seeing that Romney's GOTV is trumping Obama's and that early voting is a wash? More curious about the first claim. Everything I've read suggests that Romney's GOTV effort is mediocre compared to Obama's.

Sorry I meant trumping the 2008 GOP GOTV efforts essentially closing the gap with Obama's advantage. Still 3 wks to go. It could happen. Like I said, it's two different scenarios.

[Comrade Funk]

This article is a good summation of why I don't consider Nate Silver a reliable source:

http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/10/why-nate-silvers-cozy-insider-status-with-obama-for-america-in-2008-matters-in-2012/

Great source bro.

[Biden 2024]

I believe the election will be:

[Alcon]

This article is a good summation of why I don't consider Nate Silver a reliable source:

http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/10/why-nate-silvers-cozy-insider-status-with-obama-for-america-in-2008-matters-in-2012/

Nothing in there says anything about how that impacts his reliability as an analyst.

Agreed.  Not only that, but they say he's not independent because he received Obama internals.  How do they prove he can't be independent because of this?  They don't.  Instead, they say he attacked Scott Rasmussen "because Rasmussen openly did some work for the Republican party during the 2004 election cycle."  That's not what he attacked Rasmussen for, if you follow the provided link.  The rest of this "take-down" is comparably lame:  Silver was only useful because he got inside information from the Obama campaign, and now he must not have it, so he's useless--or something.  This is another middling attack on Silver by someone too lazy to engage his methodology in any meaningful way.