Pol Watching, Part II
Last month I did a state-by-state analysis of the Presidential race using data gathered from Pollster.com. Since we’re expecting Vice-Presidential picks this week, including keeping an eye on Evan Bayh, here’s a breakdown on where the candidates are. Remember, if there is less than a 3-point difference between the candidates, I consider it a tie.
John McCain
- Alabama, 49-36.
- Arizona, 50-40.
- Arkansas, 47-40.
- Georgia, 48-42-2 (Barr).
- Idaho, 53-37.
- Kansas, 49-37.
- Louisiana, 54-34.
- Mississippi, 51-41.
- Nebraska, 55-45.
- Oklahoma, 50-32.
- South Carolina, 47-37.
- South Dakota, 45-40.
- Tennessee, 50-35.
- Texas, 47-41.
- Utah, 60-30.
- West Virgina, 45-37.
- Wyoming, 53-40.
Barack Obama
- California, 50-37.
- Connecticut, 55-33.
- Delaware, 50-41.
- Hawaii, 61-31.
- Illinois, 52-35.
- Iowa, 47-41.
- Maine, 49-41.
- Maryland, 55-30.
- Massachusetts, 54-35.
- Michigan, 48-43.
- Minnesota, 50-38.
- New Hampshire, 48-42.
- New Jersey, 50-37.
- New Mexico, 49-41.
- New York, 53-32.
- Oregon, 49-42.
- Pennsylvania, 50-40.
- Rhode Island, 53-30.
- Vermont, 60-33.
- Washington, 50-38.
- Wisconsin, 51-38.
Toss-Up
- Alaska, 44-42 (Obama)
- Colorado, 48-45 (Obama)
- Florida, 46-45 (McCain)
- Indiana, 43-42 (McCain)
- Missouri, 47-44 (McCain)
- Montana, 47-45 (Obama)
- Nevada, 45-42 (McCain)
- North Carolina, 48-45-2 (McCain)
- North Dakota, 45-42 (McCain)
- Ohio, 46-43 (Obama)
- Virginia, 47-45 (Obama)
Applying the math to the electoral map, here’s the breakdown.
- Obama – 264 Electoral votes, down 8 from the last survey.
- McCain – 154 Electoral votes, up 20 from the last survey.
- Undecided – 120 Electoral votes.
The biggest move was Georgia, although slightly from the undecided column to the McCain side. Georgia has 15 electoral votes. However, McCain is still defending more traditional red states than Obama is blue. If we did a little speculation and gave the states to the candidate who was ahead, Obama wins 312 electoral votes to McCain’s 226. But don’t get too excited or distressed, November is a long way away.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I love polls. However, history has shown that in presidential politics the polls drastically change after both conventions have had their traditional bumps and the heat of the campaign has begun. In between all those events someone usually makes a boo boo, saying something, doing something that is incredibly stupid. So I am waiting on the polls that gages which one of the two does the stupid thing first. I will read that one.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Two sites that do an excellent job of monitoring the polls are http://www.electoral-vote.com, and http://www.fivethirtyeight.com. Both run by left-wingers, but the data is the important thing, not their commentary.
I found electoral-vote.com to be a great resource in 2004. I believe fivethirtyeight is new to the scene for this election cycle.
My own analysis of the data at electoral-vote.com can be found at
http://chrisofrights.blogspot.com/2008/08/battleground-states-2008-0815.html
August 17th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Excellent post. Thanks.
I’m for Obama, but to be fair, I don’t think Indiana is a toss-up. I think it’ll be close, but I cannot imagine this state voting for Obama. I can hope, but…
Just returned from Florida, where a reputable poll there has Obama up six. He’s doing particularly well in vote-rich SE Fla.
Ain’t it fun?
August 17th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
August 18th, 2008 at 12:15 am
I must ask all to review Senator Bayh’s votes on all questions. He is not only bland, he panders to whomever might advance his, personal, political, goals. He endorsed Hillary. Now, he endorses Obama.
Does he have our intrests in mind – our his?
Just a checky-check.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Remember that the “Polls” said that Kerry would be President. Remeber that Peterson would win by a landslide? So much for the polls.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:17 am
David,
The polls did not say Peterson would win by a landslide. They had him ahead but it was within the margin of error. Secondly, more important than polls is organization. The Obama people have a hell of a ground game, particularly here in Indiana. I doubt they will the state, but it forces the McCain camp to spend time and energy in places that they shouldn’t have to, making it more difficult to compete in battleground areas.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:57 am
susan,
I’m sorry, but your logic is backwards. You say that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states, but then you say that we need a nationwide popular vote for President.
Such a vote would make most of the nation “spectator states”. Candidates would campaign in the biggest cities, and forget about the rest of us. Why go to Des Moines, Iowa where you can talk to 5,000 people when you can to go Atlanta and talk to 5,000,000?
Not only that, but forget about issues that might be important to farmers or anyone in the rural area. The only issues that candidates would talk about and form positions on are the issues that would be important to those same city-dwellers.
No thanks.
Abdul is completely correct re: Indiana, however, if McCain doesn’t do something soon here, he could actually lose it. I don’t think it’s likely unless it’s a landslide for Obama, but certainly his recent ads here have been effective. McCain? Has anyone seen a McCain ad on local television or heard one on local radio here? I haven’t.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:18 am
BTW, it’s not that I’m against changing the Electoral College. I don’t like the way it works either. But a national popular vote would be worse.
I’ve always thought we should vote by Congressional District. Whoever wins that District gets 1 EV. Whoever wins the state gets the two “Senate” EV’s. That weights every congressional district fairly evenly and gives the candidates reason to go to Des Moines, Iowa. It will be easier to pick up the “extra” 2 EV’s for Iowa than for California, for example.
Such a structure seems to fit our “bicameral system” the best as well.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Abdul, David Myers IS right. Early on in 2007, it was predicted by everyone that Peterson would win by a landslide. It was only in the fall that the polls started to show that Ballard was close. I vividly recall when everyone predicted that Peterson would win by a landslide. That’s why he had the arrogance to raise our COIT.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Another thing….I think local governments should charge both private political parties for the primaries. It’s a huge public cost to the taxpayer that should be met by these PRIVATE organizations of democrats and republicans.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
If we did away with the electoral college, conservative-leaning states like Indiana would be irrelevant in the general election. Every presidential election would be decided by big cities (states where they are located) like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, etc., etc., etc.. God help us all if that happens.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to give voters a basic civics test to determine their eligibilty to vote (an idea that I used to believe you would support, Abdul). Since Dems, and in particular Libs, depend on the ignorant, uneducated, and ill-informed to get elected, candidates like Obama wouldn’t have a prayer. Libs votes are driven by their feelings not their thoughts. That is why a charming and charismatic man with neither conviction nor character can be so popular simply by offering change and hope.
America proved by electing Bill Clinton twice that a man’s character no longer means anything as long as he makes us feel good. If Barack Obama is elected in November, then this once great nation has sunk to a new low.
By the way, Abdul, it is you who should not get too excited by your numbers. Most rational Americans are terrified by the prospect of an Obama presidency.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Rico,
I don’t get excited over numbers. I tell people what they say and let them draw their own conclusions. Like you just did.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Looks like Sen. Obama is attempting to pander to the ignorant black democrat voters by taking a swipe at Justice Thomas, a black republican, who has a hell of lot more experience in office than he does.
Sen. Obama has been very careful not to be photographed with predominant black audiences during this campaign. He really does think he is more white than black, and has visibly courted every non black ethnic and religious group to date. He does not need to take the black vote for granted because he hasn’t convinced all of us to vote for him yet. He needs to prove that he is a legal U.S. citizen first before November, and quit talking down to other black men because his father left his mother. Barack has a complex and it is evident in his speechs.
Obama: Clarence Thomas Unfit for Supreme Court
Monday, August 18, 2008 2:41 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama declared that he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court because he was not a “strong enough jurist” for the job.
Appearing at a forum at pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., on Saturday, Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain were both asked which Supreme Court Justices they would not have nominated.
McCain said, “with all due respect” the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.
Obama said: “I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he … was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.”
He added that he also wouldn’t have nominated Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, “though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job,” The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial on Monday.
The editorial continued: “So let’s see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second most prominent court.”
Obama, on the other hand, “isn’t yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note [with] his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a ‘community organizer’ and law school lecturer,” The Journal observed.
“Justice Thomas’s judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama’s presidential résumé by any measure.”