Mid-October Polling Update

I have continued tracking and charting all of the polls in each state and deeming the winner of each state as determined by the median active credible poll.  As of today, these are the thirteen closest races that will determine the presidency.  I have presented them in descending order of likelihood of a  Mitt Romney victory.
(Jump to the senate graphs!)
Mitt Romney's baseline is 170 electoral votes.  He needs to find 100 more to win. 

Arizona (R+8) - The wild Hispanic voting bloc has long been rumored to live in this state.  Many Obama supporters claimed to have spotted it, but it remains elusive in shaping elections.

 

Missouri (R+6) - Obama was never expected to do well in this former bellwether state, and he isn't, though Rasmussen's recent poll showing Romney up by 11 is a bit of an outlier.

 

Florida (R+2) - On October 3rd, the night of the first debate, the median poll spread showed Barack Obama up by three points.  Today the median spread has him down two.  Florida experienced one of the largest post-first-debate swings (5 points).  It is interesting to me that Florida has been so competitive given the fact that it has more retirees, more Republican-leaning Latinos of Cuban descent, and more Southerners than the typical swing state.  I will be surprised if Barack Obama can win the critical I-4 corridor.

 

 

North Carolina (R+0.5) - The median poll shows North Carolina still in play. This is because the median uses some polls from September, during Obama's pre-debate surge.  Polls in October show an increasing Romney lead.

 

With these states and all the other ones that are not competitive, Mitt Romney has 235 electoral votes, only 35 away from the presidency. 

Virginia (tied) - Yesterday the median showed a one-point margin for Mitt Romney, though a PPP poll this morning moved the median to a tie.  On October 2, the spread was Obama +5. Since then, Romney has surged and Obama has slipped.  Should Romney improve any more nationally, Virginia will be one of the first states to tilt to Mitt Romney, adding 13 more electoral votes.

 

Colorado (tied) - Colorado has been very close for a very long time and continues to be close. Nine more electoral votes for Romney would give him 257 out of a needed 270.


















New Hampshire (O+1) - Still blue for now.  In 2008 Obama earned a 9-point victory in New Hampshire.  In 2004, New Hampshire was the only state Bush won in 2000 to go for Kerry.  Basically New Hampshire has moved from being a slightly red state to being bluer than the nation as a whole.  Not this time though.  Obama's post-debate slump has narrowed his margin in the Granite State from 6 points to 1 point in the median poll spread.  Should this state, one of many in which Romney owns property, continue to tilt towards its summer resident, Romney will have four more electoral votes (261).

Iowa (O+2.5) - Iowa was originally thought to be one of Obama's strongest of the "swing state firewall" states, but Obama's margin has shrunk as it has in most of the other swing states, down from 5.5 to 2.5.  Winning this state full of Mitt Romney's best demographic (white people) would give Romney 267 electoral votes, three away from winning.


















Nevada (O+2.5) - Nevada hasn't shown nearly the falloff in Obama margins that many other states have.  Right now Nevada is the tipping point state, but I think a more likely Romney path to victory goes through Wisconsin or Ohio.


















Wisconsin (O+3) - The reason I think this state more likely to go Romney's way than Nevada is because of the trend, though like Ohio, Wisconsin has consistently shown Obama on top.



















Ohio (O+3.5) - Like in 2004, Ohio will be the most watched state, even if it doesn't end up being the closest.  A Romney win in Ohio would mean he wouldn't have to win Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada or even Colorado (as long as he gets Virginia and New Hampshire).  But if his performance on election night isn't strong enough to take Ohio, it definitely won't be strong enough to take Michigan or Pennsylvania.

Michigan (O+4) - There hasn't been a serious poll that has shown Romney with the lead in the state his father used to govern. Still, the median spread is only 4 points.

 

Pennsylvania (O+5.5) - There also hasn't been a serious poll showing Romney with the lead in Pennsylvania, but there was a Susquehanna College poll that showed him on top, which says more about Susquehanna College than it does about Mitt Romney's chances in Pennsylvania.

The rest of the states will support Barack Obama easily.

________

The senate is different.  Since the night of the first debate, Obama's margin has waned an average of 2.7 points in each of the thirteen states listed above.  But the margin for Democratic senate candidates has mostly remained unchanged, averaging +0.3 in the direction towards Democrats during the same time.  Here are the 14 senate races that will determine the majority in 2013, again ranked according to Republican support in descending order.

North Dakota (R+9) - Before a new poll came out today showing Rick Berg with a 10 point lead over Heidi Heitkamp, Democrats could have been excused for thinking this was going to be a close race.

Nevada (R+5) - Nevada is basically Opposite State.  There will be a lot more cross-ticket voters voting for Romney / Democratic senator than there will be voting for Obama / Republican senator in most other swing states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Missouri, Indiana, Arizona maybe).  Nevada will feature more Obama / Heller voters than Romney / Berkley voters. 


















Montana (R+2) - Jon Tester was supposed to be the most easily beatable Democrat out of this year's crop of incumbents, and this is still the case two weeks before the election, but it certainly doesn't mean that this race will be an easy win for Denny Rehberg.


















Indiana (R+1.5) - There have basically been two non-partisan non-internet polls in this race, and they say opposite things. But assuming the latest Rasmussen poll showing Mourdock with a 5 point lead is true, this race will give Republicans their 47th seat in the U.S. Senate. 


















The median poll spread has Democrats winning the rest of the seats, though I don't especially trust it in the case of Arizona.

Arizona (D+1) - In a Senate race featuring the word "pretty", this is an ugly race featuring ugly candidates.  After Richard Carmona's gaffe coincided with Jeff Flake's personal attack ad so perfectly, I'd expect Carmona's numbers to plummet.  If you give this one to Republicans, that puts their total at 48.  But it will be hard for them to find 2 or 3 more seats.


















Virginia (D+2.5) - One of the few races to show a trend similar to Obama's October, Tim Kaine is still polling a couple points higher than Barack Obama, which should keep this seat Democratic.

















Missouri (D+3) - There has been just one poll taken since October 3rd in this close / insane senate race.  This makes no sense to me.  That one poll was performed by the usually Republican-leaning Rasmussen Reports, and it showed an 8-point Claire McCaskill lead. 


















Wisconsin (D+3) - The persistent lead by Tammy Baldwin continues (except for in one Marquette poll).


















Connecticut (D+3) - Chris Murphy continues to lead Linda McMahon, though polling methodology seems to be all over the place as evidenced by the scatter in the thin lines below.



















Massachusetts (D+3) - The trends are all positive for Elizabeth Warren right now.  If Romney pulls off an upset on November 6th, expect a lot of inconsolable Democrats to say "at least Elizabeth Warren won in Massachusetts!" as they cry into their soy lattes.   


















If Republicans are to take control of the Senate, they will have to win at least two and probably three out of the five preceding races (Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Missouri).  Because they ain't winning any of the next four.

Ohio (D+8) - Sherrod Brown's got this thing on lock.  There has been no consistent movement in the polls since September and no single credible poll showing Josh Mandel with any sort of lead.

















Florida (D+8.5) - Same story in Florida.  Barring a massive October surprise, Bill Nelson's lead is insurmountable two weeks out.


















Pennsylvania (D+9) - Really weird polling in Pennsylvania.  In every other state, the polls are either in agreement with each other or scattered randomly over a large range.  In Pennsylvania there are two distinct groups of pollsters: those who show Tom Smith's support above 45% (maybe could win!) and those who show it below 39% (no chance).  There are no middle-ground pollsters.  Since there are just three pro-Smith pollsters (Rasmussen, Susquehanna, Quinnipiac) and five anti-Smith pollsters (PPP, Siena, Franklin & Marshall, Philadelphia Inquirer and Muhlenberg College sort of), the median poll lies in the anti-Smith camp. 


















Michigan (D+10.5) - The Michigan senate seat has ceased to be on even crazy people's radar.

2010 Election Senate Rundown (as in, the Republicans are Running Down the Democrats)

It's my favorite season of the year, when a chill forms in the air to compensate for all the heated rhetoric coming from campaign commercials. It's election season, and it's not going to be pretty for Democrats.

The conventional wisdom (as of September 28, 2010) is that the Republicans will probably take control of the House of Representatives but that Democrats will hold on to power in the Senate. But since all politics, even Republican-wave elections, are local, a closer inspection of the polls and the trends is warranted. And, shit, it's not like any other site on the internet is doing this.

Every seat in the House of Representatives is up for reelection, of course, and while the premise that the Republicans will easily take the chamber over may be overblown, I'm not going to question it for now. But the Senate is analyzable, so I shall analyze it.

There are 37 seats up for reelection (20 Democrat-held and 17 Republican-held). Subtracting these from the current configuration of the Senate gives us our baseline:

39 Dem
24 Rep

Now let's add in safe seats. For Republicans, there are an awful lot of safe seats.
RED STATE INCUMBENTS

Coburn-OK
Thune-SD
Crapo-ID
Grassley-IA
Isakson-GA
DeMint-SC
Burr-NC
Shelby-AL
McCain-AZ
Vitter-LA

All are incumbents who will breeze through to another term, even scandal-plagued David Vitter of Louisiana.

39 Dem
34 Rep

There are fewer safe Democrats
BLUE STATE INCUMBENTS

Wyden-OR
Inouye-HI
Schumer-NY
Leahy-VT
Mikulski-MD
Gillibrand-NY

45 Dem
34 Rep

Oh, but there are more safe seats for Republicans.
RED STATE NEWBIES.

Lee-UT
Hoeven-ND
Moran-KS
Coats-IN

In these four states, relatively unknown candidates face each other in the general election. In red states like Utah, North Dakota, Kansas and Indiana, this generally favors the Republican, and polls back this assumption up.

45 Dem
38 Rep

FAILED MONKEY WRENCHES

Miller-AK
Rubio-FL

In both of these states, the Tea Party overthrew the establishment Republican, and the establishment Republican decided to go it alone with an independent candidacy (Crist of Florida) or a write-in campaign (Murkowski of Alaska). The typical result of intra-party squabbling is that the other party comes in (Democrats in this case) and sweeps up the vote. That won't happen this time: both Rubio and Miller are leading handily in the polls despite the monkey-wrench candidacies of Murkowski and Crist.

45 Dem
40 Rep

DEMOCRATS FADING FAST

Ayotte-NH
Portman-OH

Both of these purple states had open seat races that were considered to be close at one point. The Republican in each case has now opened up a lead in the polls consistently greater than 10 percentage points.

45 Dem
42 Rep

DEMOCRATS FADING SLOW

Blumenthal-CT

Richard Blumenthal, who once enjoyed a 30 point lead over all Republicans, is now just 5 points ahead of his Republican challenger for Chris Dodd's seat. Will the lead last? I kinda sorta think so in this blue state, but it's not like Blumenthal is the perfect candidate. All I know about him is that he claimed he served in active combat duty in the military when he didn't really. And that's not the kind of thing you want to be known for.

46 Dem
42 Rep

THE LEFT COAST

Boxer-CA
Murray-WA

Both of these blue state incumbents have challenging reelections ahead of them, and both have been surprisingly free of Tea Party turmoil. Both Democrats are leading in the polls, but not by all that much.

48 Dem
42 Rep

OZARK TH'OWDOWN

Blunt-MO
Boozeman-AR

Blanche Lincoln, Democrat Senator of Arkansas, will be the first Democratic incumbent to fall on election night. She has been consistently down in the polls despite her attempts to sever herself from the Democratic establishment. It's a little different in Missouri, where a well-known popular Republican will simply beat a less well-known less popular Democrat.

48 Dem
44 Rep

The rest of the races are tossups really.

THE SURPRISINGLY STRONG

Johnson-WI
Toomey-PA

Millionaire Ron Johnson is just an average guy from Wisconsin, he'll tell you in his campaign ads, but he's polling extremely well against "mavericky" Democratic senator Russ Feingold. Republican Pat Toomey hasn't trailed in a poll against Arlen Spector-beating Democrat Joe Sestak since May.

48 Dem
46 Rep

THE TEA PARTY EFFECT

Buck-CO
Angle-NV
Paul-KY

All three candidates have said crazy things. All three candidates are Tea Party insurgents. All three candidates were expected to be the easier opponent for Democrats than the Republican establisment candidates. And all three candidates are leading (just barely) in the polls. If all three get elected, it will be a bad night for Democrats. I'm predicting a bad night for Democrats.

48 Dem
49 Rep

THE WHY ISN'T THIS GUY LEADING BY MORE STATE

Manchin-WV

Extremely-popular Democratic governor Joe Manchin threw his hat into the ring for the seat of the deceased extremely-popular Democratic senator Robert C. Byrd, and it was expected to be a landslide for him. But he hasn't polled as well as expected against a perennial candidate named John Raese; Manchin is only up by about 5 points, and it's possible he may lose. I sort of doubt it though.

49 Dem
49 Rep

HOLD YOUR NOSE AND PULL THE LEVER

Kirk-IL

Two scandal plagued candidates go up against each other. The democrat is a sleazy banker named Alexi Giannoulias, and the Republican is a confirmed liar named Mark Kirk. They have been tied in the polls for months, but Kirk is slightly ahead in almost every poll.

49 Dem
50 Rep

The last senate seat left to be discussed is Delaware.

THE SARAH PALIN EFFECT

Christine O'Donnell looks like Sarah Palin, says ridiculous things like Sarah Palin, and is backed by Sarah Palin. She is skilled at playing the "look how the mainstream media persecutes me, the outsider" card. This is an excellent way of not having to explain yourself or the charges against you. It was thought that it would be a landslide for balding low-profile candidate Chris Coons, but since the primary, O'Donnell is closing in the polls, down by 9 points from 16 a couple of weeks ago. People love celebrity. So therefore my guess is:

Coons-DE

I mean, come on, she's ridiculous.

50 Dem
50 Rep

VP Biden will break all ties and keep the Senate in Democratic hands, at least until Joe Lieberman switches parties for good.

The Geography of the 2008 Election

I've been thinking about the election a lot (of course) and which states can now be considered blue states, red states or purple states. It's a little bit more difficult than just looking at the 2008 election and seeing which states went for Barack Obama and which states went for John McCain. A lot of the reason why Barack Obama won was because he was the superior candidate, and that his opponent's party was suffering from a wave of unpopularity.

The map below shows the winner of each county in America and also the size of their victories, with a 15% or greater margin of victory shown in the fullest colors.


ELECTION 2008

The 2008 county-by-county map shows all of our entrenched American voting patterns: the west coast and the northeast all predominantly Democratic, the south and the central plains all predominantly Republican, red rural counties (except in the upper midwest), blue urban counties, a Democratic black belt in the south, etc. The map does seem to show more blue places than one would think, in particular in Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. But this bluification goes deeper than just the counties that voted for Barack Obama.

2008-2004

When compared to the margins in 2004, almost every county delivered more votes for the Democratic candidate in 2008, even though most of those counties were still won by the Republican. This blue shift was obviously a very important reason why Barack Obama won. All he had to do was decrease the Republican margin of victory in rural areas and hold onto the usual overwhelming number of votes from urban areas. But the 2004-2008 blue shift doesn't necessarily tell a larger story of a shifting electorate. It just shows Barack Obama was a much better candidate than John Kerry. A better but still imperfect comparison would be to compare this election where a charismatic Democrat beat a war-crippled Republican senator to the last one in which a charismatic Democrat beat a war-crippled Republican senator: 1996, when Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole

2008-1996

This map is more balanced than the one for 2004, as it should be since Democrats won both elections. But one of the more amazing things about this map is that it looks remarkably similar to the 2008 county-by-county election map shown at the top. If there were no demographic or idealogical shift since the last time a Democrat won the presidency, then one would expect that most of the map would be in pale colors with some bright colors distributed in a random geographic pattern. This is not the case. The already-red South has gotten redder, the already-blue West Coast has gotten bluer, Democratic northern New Mexico and Colorado's Front Range are bluer, Republican Appalachia is redder. Democrats have increased their strangleholds on urban counties, Republicans have increased their strangleholds on rural counties.

If there is a demographic shift, it is not towards a more diverse and open society. It is towards entrenchment into communities with like-minded individuals. I mean, think about it. How many people you know voted for John McCain? No matter where you live, it probably wasn't 46%, which was his national popular vote share. It was probably somewhere between 0% and 10% (I'm assuming the fact that you're reading this indicates you are probably a Democrat).

This is the viewpoint of Bill Bishop on Slate.com, who is author of a book called The Big Sort about how we tend to migrate to communities full of people who look like us and think like us. I would agree with him. Is this better for our society? Probably not. But I'm not about to move away from my house in my neighborhood full of tall trees, older houses and Obama yard signs. I feel comfortable here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other interesting shifts from 1996 to 2008:

- Election-specific trends for this map would indicate that logically Arkansas and Arizona should be redder while Kansas and Illinois should be bluer since the specific candidates from Arkansas and Kansas (Clinton and Dole) are not present in 2008, while the candidates from Arizona and Illinois (McCain and Obama) are. Arkansas and Arizona are certainly redder, but Illinois and Kansas are not definitively bluer except in the Chicago region and the more urban areas of Kansas, as well as in Russell, KS, where the highway sign proudly displays "Home of Bob Dole". Russell county in 1996 went for Dole by a margin of 62%. That softened to a margin for McCain in 2008 of merely 54%.

- All but one county in Oklahoma has gotten any more Democratic since 1996. The one county is Oklahoma City's county, which moved from a Republican margin of 18% to a Republican margin of 17%. Only three other counties have increased the Republican margin by any less than 15%: Lawton, Norman and Tulsa. Everywhere else is a red explosion.

- Rio Arriba County has been passed by Taos County as the most Democratic county in New Mexico. This has long been expected due to Taos's liberal trinity: hispanics, indians and hippies.

- New York City and San Francisco have gotten even more Democratic than they were 12 years ago.

- The Southern Michigan vs Northern Michigan divide is more apparent than it was 12 years ago.

- The blue border counties of Texas have not gotten bluer over the last 12 years. But Austin, Dallas and Houston sure have.

- If you want to see how a blue area becomes red, shift the slider on nytimes.com from the 1992 election to the 2008 election and keep your eye on Louisiana, Arkansas, east Texas, east Oklahoma and southeast Missouri. It looks like water draining out of the Mississippi Valley.

(All fantastic maps from nytimes.com)