A number of polls have come out this week and Senator Obama has opened up a 10 point lead in Iowa and an 8 point lead in Michigan. Both those polls came from Rasmussen, which also came out with a South Dakota poll that shows that race tightening — Senator McCain leads 44-40. These polls continue a trend of strengthening spreads for Obama in the upper midwest — the last Wisconsin and Minnesota polls (states that were very close in 2004) — has Obama ahead by double digits.
Putting all the recent polls together, Obama is ahead, outside the margin of error, in states with 259 electoral votes, compared with 151 for McCain. As always, we caution that the campaign has just begun…. running mates haven’t been picked and the candidates haven’t even formally been nominated…. so take the numbers for what they are… an indication of where things stand today, and nothing more.
4 responses so far ↓
1 quincyconscience // Jul 17, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Could you please adjust your map so that Montana, the Dakotas, and Indiana are toss ups, because they really are not close enough to count republican
270toWin: The polling map reflects the current tightness of the polls in those states. The interactive map reflects a combination of history and polling. None of the three states you mentioned have gone Democratic in the last 10 elections (except Montana in 1992). We’re too far out to consider those states in play.
You may notice we also have Florida as a swing state, despite McCain being significantly ahead in recent polls.
As the election draws near, the polling map and interactive map will align.
2 Jack // Jul 23, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Then again, Virginia hasn’t gone Democratic since 1964, either. I understand that there is more reason to think Virginia is trending towards the center than, say, North Dakota or Montana, but consider that Montana has a Democratic governor and two Democratic senators, and that both of North Dakota’s senators and its sole representative are Democrats. South Dakota also has a Democratic senator and congresswoman. Combined with the limited polling, this indicates that these two states are not as reliably Republican as they once were. I understand (and to a degree agree with) your reluctance to consider these true swing states, but if many more polls come out suggesting that these states are close, you may want to consider making that move.
3 tom // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:47 pm
It is Sept. 3, 2008 and I just ran a couple of sets of 20 simulations. The first 20 gave Obama 17 wins, McCain 2, and 1 tie. The second gave Obama 16, wins McCain 3, and 1 tie. That makes the number of ties about 5%, wow! The ties are not always made up of the same states either, although they do seem to occur when the states play their stereotypical rolls of Red or Blue. This means that the house of Representatives may have the historic opportunity to choose the next president and the senate the VP.
I was also wondering about the impoverished communications factor with regards to polling. In the 2000 election polling almost consistently showed Bush winning the popular vote by approximately 3%. In the end Gore won the popular vote by a small margin. This would indicate a potential built in polling bias for the Republican. A similar occurance happened in the 1948 election. The 1948 polling error I believe was blamed on the fact that many democrats did not have telephones. I am assuming of course that today’s polls are by telephone. Here is my question: “Are there any adjustments being made by pollsters to correct the problem of not being able to reach non-telephone voters?” “Can pollsters call any cellphone?” “Given Obama’s appeal to impoverished black voters, do you think that the poverty/telephone factor will affect the polling accuracy of the 2008 presidential election?”
270toWin: We’re not polling experts, so don’t take this as authoritative, but if there is a problem in 2008 it could very well be the opposite of the one you describe. The only people who don’t have a telephone in 2008 are those that have chosen to go wireless only. In addition, you have another group of people (like myself) who have gone mostly wireless and who won’t answer the home phone if the number isn’t recognizable. It is more challenging for pollsters to reach cellphone users in general and those who screen their calls and thus more difficult to put together a statistically valid sample population for the poll. Very broadly, an argument could be made that the groups previously listed skew younger and more affluent than the general population. The pollsters attempt to correct for these situations; we’ll see on 11/4 if polling as it is currently done still works in America 2008.
4 tom // Sep 4, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Thank you for responding, I have done a little search articles which confirm your theory of young cell phone only users, though these users tend to be less affluent rather than more so. This can probably be explained by the savings opportunites derived from pay per minute plans (trak phones). This group has been growing as well, up to about 15%. Basically, what I am saying is that the 3% Republican bias of polls in 2000, may very well be 4-6% now, given a younger candidate, who appeals to less affluent voters. As you say we will see on 11/4, but remember this post if you find a big surprise.
Also, I want to congratulate all responsible for this webiste, on a job well done.
Leave a Comment