McCain vs. Obama: The Electoral Map

[David Wong]

Forget all those national polls; this isn't a popular vote election. If you want to know the state of the race, look at the map:

http://www.electoral-vote.com

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Those are state-by-state polls, to be updated as the campaign continues. Obama has the early advantage by the slimmest of margins.

What are the key states? Which ones are vulnerable? Can Obama's registration drives boost turnout of blacks and young people tip some of these close "purple" states?

[TriskettheKid]

Far too soon to tell.

I think, though, that you will see more blue and purple as time goes on, and much less red.

I just don't think that McCain is going to be able to go toe-to-toe with Obama. He can't draw the crowds Obama can. He can't make the speeches Obama can. He makes gaffes on an almost daily basis. He doesn't have the fundraising capacity Obama has. He doesn't have a coherent message. Hell, the man's been the presumptive Republican nominee for weeks and he's still stumbling out of the gate.

I think that if Obama can stay on point, and keep McCain scrambling for a message, he will take the White House come November.

[shuize]

I'd take the results of that first link with a grain of salt. I seem to remember following it pretty close four years ago when it showed Kerry blowing Bush out right up to the election.

[David Wong]

Does anybody have a more reliable one? Or maps with a better interface or whatever? I'll be happy to edit them into the first post if the thread continues.

[dirtywick]

Michigan should be vunerable. If I was McCain, given Obama's position, the early primary debacle is pretty easy to exploit if you play your cards right. I'd hammer on that.

McCain's got it rough though. I guess he could hope Obama's supporters that came out of the woodwork now get tired of this whole process by November. But he's not exactly oozing charisma himself.

I don't know, I think he's kind of doomed. Not a good time to run for president being boring, old, and Republican.

[TexasJack]

I think this could be a landslide for Obama, there are just too many issues against the Republicans, plus Obama has proven that he can run an excellent campaign, and demonstrates charisma and spirit. Unless there is a bombshell about Obama we don't know about, and he is smart enough to exclude Hillary as VP (just too much of a risk), he'll win.

[ronpaulisright]

Far too soon to tell.

I think, though, that you will see more blue and purple as time goes on, and much less red.

I just don't think that McCain is going to be able to go toe-to-toe with Obama. He can't draw the crowds Obama can. He can't make the speeches Obama can. He makes gaffes on an almost daily basis. He doesn't have the fundraising capacity Obama has. He doesn't have a coherent message. Hell, the man's been the presumptive Republican nominee for weeks and he's still stumbling out of the gate.

I think that if Obama can stay on point, and keep McCain scrambling for a message, he will take the White House come November.



I agree :)

Now, as you all know, I am writing in Ron Paul come november. I wish that the spineless people will take a stand and all write in Ron Paul, however, given how spineless americans are, That won't happen. If not massive political statements, I would like to see Ralph Nader in the white house over obama and mccain. I hate the 2 party system. It's bad for america. It's not a *********** game. It's about life and death. But the people don't know that. They sincerely believe that there is a difference between the 2 candidates. There is no difference and your vote does not matter when the system is rigged. So either vote none of the above, so to speak, or have Nader in the white house. I like nader more than mcbomb and obamanation.

Free the 3!

[ZenFountain]

http://i32.tinypic.com/vzab8h.jpg

I superimposed the 1992 election over that electoral map. Purple states are wins for Bill in 92', Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virgina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Georgia, Nevada, Montana and Michigan that Obama is currently "not" winning. Of course Bill might have been helped by Perot and his southern credentials...should be interesting to see what happens in the Republican's southern stronghold. At the very least I expect to see a big turnaround in Louisiana. Don't throw Montana, North Dakota and Nevada out the door either because Obama will likely have the resources to campaign there while McCain will not. But In all likelihood we'll probably see both candidates throwing the lion's share of their resources into the rust belt states, Missouri, New Mexico and possibly Colorado.

[Pookster]

Some of the polls for the States are several months old. Now that there is a presumptive nominee for each party, It'll be interesting to see what they look like over the coming months. However, I won't put much stock in them until September. It'll be fun to follow though.

The electronic markets are about the most valid thing to watch right now, although they are projections of the popular and not the electoral vote. But it's even a bit early for them as I suspect more people will play the market over the coming months.

[David Wong]

Some of the polls for the States are several months old.


Yeah I want to see how well they keep those up to date, I don't know if it's too expensive to do tracking polls state by state when there's no primary.

But I really do think that in close elections the Gallup daily tracking poll the national medial will be following really isn't going to tell the story. Obama up by 3 nationwide means nothing, if he's up by 20 in California and New York but down by 5 in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, etc.

So hopefully those numbers will be kept up to date.

[Pookster]

Yeah I want to see how well they keep those up to date, I don't know if it's too expensive to do tracking polls state by state when there's no primary.

But I really do think that in close elections the Gallup daily tracking poll the national medial will be following really isn't going to tell the story. Obama up by 3 nationwide means nothing, if he's up by 20 in California and New York but down by 5 in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, etc.

So hopefully those numbers will be kept up to date.

I agree. The national poll in what is likely going to be a very close election isn't going to tell us much. There will likely be about 12-18 States that will be the key to watch.

The latest map just doesn't feel right to me. For example, one has SC "barely" Republican. I don't buy that ... yet. However, there was a record number of Democrats voting in the primary this year ... and beat out the Republican primary easily. This was when the Republican primary was still contested somewhat too. It'll be interesting to see what any new polls show.

[Diagoras]

Does anybody have a more reliable one? Or maps with a better interface or whatever? I'll be happy to edit them into the first post if the thread continues.
http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president-nprOvM/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

[Diagoras]

http://i32.tinypic.com/vzab8h.jpg

I superimposed the 1992 election over that electoral map. Purple states are wins for Bill in 92', Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virgina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Georgia, Nevada, Montana and Michigan that Obama is currently "not" winning. Of course Bill might have been helped by Perot and his southern credentials...should be interesting to see what happens in the Republican's southern stronghold. At the very least I expect to see a big turnaround in Louisiana. Don't throw Montana, North Dakota and Nevada out the door either because Obama will likely have the resources to campaign there while McCain will not. But In all likelihood we'll probably see both candidates throwing the lion's share of their resources into the rust belt states, Missouri, New Mexico and possibly Colorado.
I think we will see a real fight in Virginia and North Carolina here, places where the Democrats haven't historically been successful but are now making inroads. Obama doesn't really have much of a chance of winning states like Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia. As always, Florida will be a hot battleground but looking at the polling numbers I'm not sure how successful Obama is going to be able to be there.

One of the big problems with looking at the current polls though is that Clinton just lost the primaries and it's going to take a little while to settle in that this is going to be a fight between McCain and Obama. I suspect there are significant numbers of Clinton supporters who are disillusioned with Obama by this point and what happens to them is going to be really important, as well as whether McCain or Obama nabs more independent voters.

[David Wong]

Yes, the polls that come out in the next week will be the very first ones worth anything. Not that they'll predict the winner, but it'll be an early indication of how Hillary's support gets split up.

After all, even in the McCain vs. Obama polls they've been running, it's hard to say how many of the McCain votes were from disenfranchised Hillary supporters who, when left with no other choice, will fall in line. OR it may be that they'll just stay home, or maybe there were some independent women who only were with Hillary because she was a woman, and now will fall back behind McCain.

What I do reject is the notion of an Obama blowout, I just don't see that happening. There's a reason the Democrats haven't elected many presidents. The Republicans have a pretty strong base of people concerned with Christian values, immigration, abortion, a strong national defense and low taxes. If they get nothing but that core group, they've still won a lot of states.

The Obama supporters are going to find that frustrating as time goes on and the polls don't swing greatly in his direction. They have to understand how rooted people are on those issues, and will vote for even a bad candidate who stands up for them (not that McCain is a bad candidate, I'm just saying they make his job easy).

[David Wong]

http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president-nprOvM/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

I cannot in fact edit those into my original post, I guess there's a time limit for editing things. I wonder if a moderator would paste those in there if I asked nicely?

[Dragoonster]

Agree that it's far too soon to tell.

There's no precedent for a black candidate, and McCain is an unusual conservative candidate, predictions are quite difficult. The VP picks this year should be more important than most elections, and the debates might be as well.

What are the key states? Which ones are vulnerable? Can Obama's registration drives boost turnout of blacks and young people tip some of these close "purple" states?

Sooo hard to say right now. My gut says Colorado is the easiest to turn for the Dems, and oddly New Jersey for the GOP, but I have no real reason to think this.

I hear Virginia's in play, I lived there 29 years and would be shocked if it went to Obama. That is, unless he grabs Webb or someone from there as his running mate. If not it seems as likely to go red as Pennsylvania to go blue imo.

Florida I think will go McCain, and if I were the democrats I'd virtually ignore it (I do have bias against Florida for '00 and the recent primary debacle). It's gone Dem. twice in the last 40 years and doesn't seem worth a tremendous fight for. I think Obama can make it up in defending the northeast, consolidating the midwest, and either grabbing Missouri or Colorado or Arkansas, etc. If the election comes down to Florida, he loses.

http://www.270towin.com/ has already been linked to, it's my favorite EC site so far, at least for its interactivity, and state history. Easy to use and fun to play around with.

My very conservative estimate, without any VPs, has Obama 281-257 but that'll change every day, plus I'm biased in favoring Obama.

I think Obama has a lot more to gain with his VP choice than McCain as far as turning some battleground states. But I also really have no idea other than Romney (who wouldn't help the EC much) as to who would be a suitable choice for McCain. He'd be nuts to choose anyone from the current admin like Condi, and I ain't got a clue as to who else is on the short list.

[NotJesus]

What I do reject is the notion of an Obama blowout, I just don't see that happening. There's a reason the Democrats haven't elected many presidents. The Republicans have a pretty strong base of people concerned with Christian values, immigration, abortion, a strong national defense and low taxes. If they get nothing but that core group, they've still won a lot of states.

It depends what you mean by a blowout. Certainly a blowout on the scale of, say, Reagan over Mondale is impossible for either candidate in this election. Neither one is likely to fall below 200 or so electoral votes unless something drastic happens. But I think Obama could win fairly big if things go well for him. It's hard to see McCain winning anything but a relative squeaker unless Obama implodes.

[ZenFountain]

I think we will see a real fight in Virginia and North Carolina here, places where the Democrats haven't historically been successful but are now making inroads.

Yes I also expect that Virginia and the Carolinas will receive significant attention and be competitive for the Democrats. In fact, given Obama's ability to raise money, mobilize ground level campaign activities and willingness to campaign 100+ hours a week, I expect all but the most red states will be targeted. Obama's continued support of Dean as DNC chairman also means something since Dean was the architect of the 50 state strategy. I don't think this will be like 00-04' where 95% of the campaign resources get thrown into Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, although those states will obviously be hotly contested.

[dirtywick]

willingness to campaign 100+

You know, he's kind of impressed me in that regard. I mean, dude is out there grinding but he always looks pretty happy and energetic. That's a tough pace to keep up with an not show it's wearing on you. That's a good strength to have.

[Dragoonster]

You know, he's kind of impressed me in that regard. I mean, dude is out there grinding but he always looks pretty happy and energetic. That's a tough pace to keep up with an not show it's wearing on you. That's a good strength to have.

Indeed. Just superficially, he's tall and thin, looks kind of frail even. I can't help wondering how he'll "hold up" at 4-8 years of tremendous pressure, even though that's more mental than physical.

If he's elected it's sad that nice hair will turn grey (seems almost every president's hair turns grey in office).

Hillary also looks energetic, though she has seemed tired a couple times. McCain, well he's just a horse, I have no doubt he'd be able to handle the pressue of the presidency.

[TheJim]

Yes I also expect that Virginia and the Carolinas will receive significant attention and be competitive for the Democrats. In fact, given Obama's ability to raise money, mobilize ground level campaign activities and willingness to campaign 100+ hours a week, I expect all but the most red states will be targeted. Obama's continued support of Dean as DNC chairman also means something since Dean was the architect of the 50 state strategy. I don't think this will be like 00-04' where 95% of the campaign resources get thrown into Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, although those states will obviously be hotly contested.

I dont think people yet realize how different the money and organizational level is for Obama compared to McCain. McCain is running well behind in fundrasing compared not to just Obama but to where Kerry was at this point in 04. Obama will have money to waste in states that he knows he has little chance like Florida that will cost McCain money to defend allowing more Obama money to be spent in places from Montana and Alaska to Virginia and North Carolina. The money is there for him to hit up basically any state with even a fluky outside chance while McCain will be forced into a top 6 battle ground plan. And the states that McCain must fight for also happen to be expensive media buys Florida, Penn, Ohio, and Mich. McCain has to have Florida plus 1 to have a chance while Obama has a few (albeit they become longer shots) paths to victory winning only one of those four. Obama also has battle tested staff and volunteer orginations in every state along with polling data on his advantages and disadvantages from every state.

[Puppycow]

Looks like another close election. Is it my imagination or is there some sort of law of large numbers at work that causes something like regression to the mean, ensuring a close election every time? Or is that just how it happened to work our in recent elections? I guess Reagan was the last real "landslide" winner.

ETA: The "No Toss Up States" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10) map at RCP currently has Obama winning 272 to 266. Can't get much closer.

[shuize]

I think Obama has a lot more to gain with his VP choice than McCain as far as turning some battleground states. But I also really have no idea other than Romney (who wouldn't help the EC much) as to who would be a suitable choice for McCain. He'd be nuts to choose anyone from the current admin like Condi, and I ain't got a clue as to who else is on the short list.


I just read that Governor Palin may be in the running as McCain's VP.

There is one potential running mate who has virtually no down side. Those conservatives who've heard of her were delighted to learn that McCain advance man Arthur Culvahouse was in Alaska recently, because they surmised he could only be there to discuss the vice presidential nomination with Gov. Sarah Palin.*


I have to say, I think he could do a whole lot worse:

A fairly conservative, young, attractive, very popular (approval reportedly above 80%) female Republican.

* link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_vp_case_for_gov_sarah_pali.html

I agree with the article that if she'd accept, McCain would do well to announce early.

[David Wong]

Looks like another close election. Is it my imagination or is there some sort of law of large numbers at work that causes something like regression to the mean, ensuring a close election every time? Or is that just how it happened to work our in recent elections? I guess Reagan was the last real "landslide" winner.

ETA: The "No Toss Up States" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10) map at RCP currently has Obama winning 272 to 266. Can't get much closer.

There's been quite a bit of discussion about that out there, about how we wound up with a 50/50 nation. I think a large part of it is economical, a rapid expansion of the upper income class (classic GOP voters) and the working poor (classic Dem).

And demographically, if you add up the usual core groups from each side (Christians, white males etc on the right, various minority groups on the left and so on) you just wind up with an almost even split, with a swing vote in the middle that seems to make up no more than 10% of the population. So to a degree it's just random chance that we wound up this way.

[BPSCG]

One of the best election projection sites I've seen is at www.electionprojection.com. Guy doesn't hide the fact that he's a conservative, or that he loves Jesus, but I followed him during the 2004 race and he was consistently accurate - didn't let his biases get in the way of analysis. He follows the congressional and gubernatorial races also.

[Random]

There's been quite a bit of discussion about that out there, about how we wound up with a 50/50 nation. I think a large part of it is economical, a rapid expansion of the upper income class (classic GOP voters) and the working poor (classic Dem).

And demographically, if you add up the usual core groups from each side (Christians, white males etc on the right, various minority groups on the left and so on) you just wind up with an almost even split, with a swing vote in the middle that seems to make up no more than 10% of the population. So to a degree it's just random chance that we wound up this way.

Not that unusual really. If all you need to win an election is fifty percent plus one, there isn’t really any need to get more people than that to go along with you, except as a cushion. The Rove strategy was pretty straightforward in this respect. Actively divide the population into two camps, and make sure the Republican camp was slightly larger. If you get a little more than half the country to go along with you, you can tell the rest to take a long walk off a short pier.

It makes a certain degree of sense in a winner-take-all political system, even though it leads to lousy government and divisive politics.

[pgwenthold]

Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but if I'm John McCain, I have to be very worried at this point. After sitting with the nomination for how many months while the democratic candidates have been going after each other in a very ugly fashion, with many cries about how the Democratic party is massively split and has been seriously harmed, and yet at best he is in a tie at this point? Moreover, despite a split in the democratic party, Obama is raising massively more funds?

The only consolation he could come up with is that, because there hasn't been an opponent, he hasn't had anyone to attack. Of course, given that Obama and Clinton are close enough in their policies, the only difference in how to attack them would be personal.

If I'm Barack Obama, I have to be feeling really good about the chances right now. Now that the primary bickering is over, he can feel he's only going to get stronger in terms of the general election.

[David Wong]

Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but if I'm John McCain, I have to be very worried at this point. After sitting with the nomination for how many months while the democratic candidates have been going after each other in a very ugly fashion, with many cries about how the Democratic party is massively split and has been seriously harmed, and yet at best he is in a tie at this point? Moreover, despite a split in the democratic party, Obama is raising massively more funds?

The only consolation he could come up with is that, because there hasn't been an opponent, he hasn't had anyone to attack. Of course, given that Obama and Clinton are close enough in their policies, the only difference in how to attack them would be personal.

If I'm Barack Obama, I have to be feeling really good about the chances right now. Now that the primary bickering is over, he can feel he's only going to get stronger in terms of the general election.

Well, they've also got identical favorability ratings:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/favorable.html

So all the talk that Obama was emerging "bruised and battered" from the primary doesn't seem to show there; you'd think the group refusing to give him a favorable rating contains a lot of bitter Hillary supporters, and he's still dead even.

Now, on the flip side, all this talk that McCain will get dragged down by an unpopular Bush seems also to be dispelled by that. Bush is at 28% or whatever, McCain doubles it. So apparently voters are NOT blaming McCain for whatever they see as Bush's failures.

[Snide]

I'd take the results of that first link with a grain of salt. I seem to remember following it pretty close four years ago when it showed Kerry blowing Bush out right up to the election.Your memory fails you here. While his map often showed Kerry in the lead, it also showed Bush in the lead at times, and up to the election, it always showed a very tight race, which it ended up being.

But the originator of the site has admitted he leans left, and is very open about it and fair in his reporting. He has even recommended, as do I, that if you prefer a more right-slanted similar site, go to Election Projection (http://www.electionprojection.com).

Compare the two, and it's pretty obvious which one tries hardest to be accurate, even if it was barely off (by one state, really) in the 2004 final tally. At least I found this to be true in 2004...we'll see in the months ahead about this year.

ETA: I see Beeps got the EP link ahead of me...

[David Wong]

The first new state polling since the Dem race ended is out.

The most significant ones are Obama up by 3 in Michigan (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_obama-553.html) (that's a minimal amount but is the first time I've seen a poll that didn't show McCain with a lead there) and Obama up by 2 in Wisconsin (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/wi/wisconsin_mccain_vs_obama-549.html), that's been pretty consistent over the months.

There are lots of other state polls but no surprises, Obama way down in Texas, way up in New Jersey and Washington, etc.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

[Lurker]

I agree :)

Now, as you all know, I am writing in Ron Paul come november. I wish that the spineless people will take a stand and all write in Ron Paul, however, given how spineless americans are, That won't happen. If

Actually, it would be spineless of me to write in Ron Paul since I don't agree with his platform. Is that all right with you or must everyone agree with Ron Paul?

[David Wong]

Actually, it would be spineless of me to write in Ron Paul since I don't agree with his platform. Is that all right with you or must everyone agree with Ron Paul?


You and I both know he's not old enough to vote.

Either way he's off topic, this is the McCain vs. Obama thread. Since Paul isn't running as far as we know (on an independent ticket or whatever) then any talk about him is off topic.

[NotJesus]

You and I both know he's not old enough to vote.

Either way he's off topic, this is the McCain vs. Obama thread. Since Paul isn't running as far as we know (on an independent ticket or whatever) then any talk about him is off topic.

But we can talk about Nader, right? :duck:

[David Wong]

Couple of more articles:

The Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/2008/06/15/mapping-the-08-battlegrounds/?mod=googlenews_wsj) spells out the battleground, in an article that gets credit for being short and sweet.

This guy (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a7ya66W1QcOw&refer=politics) meanwhile points out that map watching is pointless if one candidate is up by 5, because statistically it's very unlikely that a candidate would win the popular vote that comfortably and still lose the electoral college.

I agree with him but I've yet to see a national poll that indicates it won't be that close, right now it's Obama up by 2 or 6 points depending on which poll you read over the weekend. And I believe those voters are entrenched, we've seen it for two straight elections.

We can talk all we want about a "third Bush term" or angry Hillary voters or competing tax and health care plans... but the truth is the majority of voters do NOT read the news, and the vast majority made up their minds a long time ago. In America we vote by demographics, not by ideas.

[David Wong]

Excerpt from the second link:

"Of the bigger prizes, Obama eyes two red states, Ohio and Florida, and McCain has his sights on two blue ones, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Pennsylvania, with its progressive suburbs, leans to Obama and Florida still looks better for McCain. The other two are tossups.

Obama has changed the dynamics in medium-size and smaller states from four years ago. There are more than half a dozen 2004 red states -- Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Nevada, Missouri, even Indiana and Montana -- where Obama is competitive. There are very few -- New Hampshire and Wisconsin -- that McCain can turn from Democrat to Republican."

[geni]

Hmm any turnout estimates?

[dudalb]

Now reports are that some on the Obama campaign think they win without Ohio or Florida by Taking Virginia or Georgia.
IMHO that is a very risky strategy. I really think that Georgia is particualry unlikely to go Democratic.

[Pookster]

Now reports are that some on the Obama campaign think they win without Ohio or Florida by Taking Virginia or Georgia.
IMHO that is a very risky strategy. I really think that Georgia is particualry unlikely to go Democratic.

I agree. It would take some huge mistake by McCain to lose Georgia. I just don't see it happening. Virginia would be his best chance between the two.

[Pookster]

Hmm any turnout estimates?

The primaries are about the only thing I know of to judge potential turnout at this point, and you won't get a good gauge regarding the Republicans since most were not contested. On the Democratic side, turnout was at record levels for most primaries. In SC where both primaries were still contested at the time, the Democrats outdrew Republicans in what has been considered by most to be a Republican State for some time.

[dudalb]

I agree. It would take some huge mistake by McCain to lose Georgia. I just don't see it happening. Virginia would be his best chance between the two.

And even Virginia would not make up for losing Ohio and Florida.
Look, considering the history of the Dems in Ohio and Florida, I don't blame then for not looking forward to another close battle in those states, but I don't really see any real alternatives. Those are the battleground states, It is almost impossible to win without one of them, and the Dems frankly have no choice but to fight there.

[Pookster]

And even Virginia would not make up for losing Ohio and Florida.
Look, considering the history of the Dems in Ohio and Florida, I don't blame then for not looking forward to another close battle in those states, but I don't really see any real alternatives. Those are the battleground states, It is almost impossible to win without one of them, and the Dems frankly have no choice but to fight there.

Obama can win without Florida, but he can't lose either Penn or Ohio if he does. He has to hold onto Michigan as well. There are a few States like Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa that could turn blue this time, but Obama can't count on that happening.

[David Wong]

Now reports are that some on the Obama campaign think they win without Ohio or Florida by Taking Virginia or Georgia.
IMHO that is a very risky strategy. I really think that Georgia is particualry unlikely to go Democratic.

Now wait, you're talking like they have to pick one scenario or the other. They don't, they'll have the money to hammer Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Georgia with ads.

They don't have to be selective in their targets, that's what a fundraising advantage does for you.

[Pookster]

Now wait, you're talking like they have to pick one scenario or the other. They don't, they'll have the money to hammer Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Georgia with ads.

They don't have to be selective in their targets, that's what a fundraising advantage does for you.

There's a number of scenarios that can give Obama 270 without Florida. He makes it a whole lot easier if he carries Ohio (polls show it a tossup) and Penn (Obama with a slight lead) though. While Virginia is in play for him this year, Georgia would take a heck of a lot of work. It would take registering a huge number of Black voters over the coming months. It's possible, but not very likely.

Obama is going to have to fight somewhat to keep New Hampshire and Michigan blue (at the moment anyways). Otherwise, there are a number of red States in play from 2004. The fund raising advantage is going to really stretch McCain out in defending those.

[Diagoras]

Obama is not going to win Florida. The two parties were about dead even in the last two elections, but circumstances are different now. Not only did Obama cause a stir among Floridians with the whole primary brouhaha, but Florida also has a large elderly population that's going to strongly favor McCain. None of the polls in recent months have bode well for Obama. I think we can safely consider Florida a red state this time around.

Pennsylvania, however, will probably be going Democrat. It might be a close one with the rural Appalachian population in the middle, but Pittsburgh and Philly should be blue enough to negate that. Things are looking significantly better for Obama than McCain here, and I feel pretty confident the Dems should be able to secure it.

Iowa and Wisconsin have been swing states in the past with very close results, but Obama has a decent lead in the polls, he won both their primaries, and his geographical proximity should give him an edge. I consider it rather unlikely that McCain will make a comeback in either state, especially considering he has bigger fish to fry elsewhere and a more limited budget to work with.

Here is how I think the scene looks right now.

McCain should win Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming for 201 electoral votes.

Obama should win California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, both Washingtons, and Wisconsin for 238 electoral votes.

That leaves just nine states which could, I think, go either way. McCain needs 69 and Obama needs 32 electoral votes from the following to win:
Ohio (20): Polls are showing Obama and McCain neck-and-neck here, with Obama retaining a small (read: statistically insignificant) lead. The predictions market is going more strongly in Obama's favor, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. If McCain is going to squeak out a victory, he needs this state. Obama has a few options without it, but McCain pretty much loses the election if he loses Ohio.
Michigan (17): A traditionally blue state, but the margins for Democratic victory have been getting narrower and narrower over the years. Michigan's big cities are shrinking and the more conservative regions like Grand Rapids have been growing in political importance. McCain may very well take this state for the Republicans for the first time since 1988.
North Carolina (15): A traditionally Republican state that McCain should win, but polls are showing Obama rapidly catching up. North Carolina's large black population just might tip the scales in Obama's favor, or at least put up a good long fight that will divert McCain dollars from other states.
Virginia (13): Another traditionally Republican state that has suddenly come into play thanks to Virginia's large black population and the growing suburbs of Washington, D.C. Polls show Obama and McCain tied. The Democrats could definitely take this one, especially if Jim Webb is the VP candidate.
Missouri (11): Considered a very reliable benchmark state, meaning it almost always votes for the winner of the election. Polls show no statistically significant lead for either candidate here, but Obama hailing from a neighboring state may give him an edge.
Colorado (9): Voted Republican in the last 3 elections, but polls are showing Obama has a good lead he might very well be able to hold onto till November.
Nevada (5): A traditionally red state, polls show McCain with a bit of a lead, and his geographical influence could spread into Las Vegas enough to significantly counteract the urban Democratic vote. I'm predicting a Republican victory here, but not by much, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Obama narrowly wins Nevada.
New Mexico (5): Again, there's the question of whether McCain's geographical influence can cross the state border. But polls show Obama with a modest lead, and he's very popular among Hispanics, which make up enough of New Mexico's population that it's the only state in the union where Spanish is an official language alongside English.
New Hampshire (4): Voted for Kerry in 2004 but for Bush in 2000. Really difficult to say which way it'll swing this time as it's a state with a peculiar political climate, but if it was blue enough to vote for Kerry I'm hoping it'll also vote for another Democrat who's a little more exciting than Kerry was.

[jnelso99]

Wow - all this sounds like one big computer game (http://www.politicalmachine.com/)...

[David Wong]

Now this is interesting. While Obama leads by just 4 points, he's up by 12 in the question of "Who do you THINK will win."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107995/Americans-Predict-Obama-Will-Next-US-President.aspx

Meaning people who support McCain (particularly independents) aren't positive about his chances. Does that affect anything at all? Like do people tend not to turn out if they think their guy will lose? Or do they turn out more?

Does anybody have similar polling from 2000 or 2004? I'd be interested to see how that affected the outcome if at all.

[Pookster]

Now this is interesting. While Obama leads by just 4 points, he's up by 12 in the question of "Who do you THINK will win."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107995/Americans-Predict-Obama-Will-Next-US-President.aspx

Meaning people who support McCain (particularly independents) aren't positive about his chances. Does that affect anything at all? Like do people tend not to turn out if they think their guy will lose? Or do they turn out more?

Does anybody have similar polling from 2000 or 2004? I'd be interested to see how that affected the outcome if at all.

What will be interesting to watch is for any State & local elections that may spur voter turnout for one party or another.

Also, controversial ballot initiatives can cause a big turnout as well. Right now, I'm not aware of anything that really favors one party over another. Some have speculated that the same-sex marriage amendments in some States hurt Kerry in 2004. I don't see that kind of thing coming into play this year ... so far.

[David Wong]

Wow.

McCain must be very, very confident he has Florida in his camp, because he just announced he wants off-shore drilling there, even though the Republican governor there opposes it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602731_pf.html). Crist is opposed, and Jeb Bush opposed it before him.

That's... very very interesting. They must have polling showing the Democrats ticked off Florida voters so badly that he can take a stance that isn't even supported by the Republicans there.

And yes, guys, it's not the tree-hugging environmentalists keeping us from drilling, it's the very Republican state governors who know how unpopular drilling in their own back yard will be. That's why with a Republican president, house and senate, they were never able to get these drilling bills passed.

Very interesting, and very risky. But again the polls I see have McCain up comfortably in Florida, he has to figure it just won't matter.

Still, it gives the Obama campaign a whole series of ads to run down there.

[Diagoras]

Now this is interesting. While Obama leads by just 4 points, he's up by 12 in the question of "Who do you THINK will win."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107995/Americans-Predict-Obama-Will-Next-US-President.aspx

Meaning people who support McCain (particularly independents) aren't positive about his chances. Does that affect anything at all? Like do people tend not to turn out if they think their guy will lose? Or do they turn out more?

Does anybody have similar polling from 2000 or 2004? I'd be interested to see how that affected the outcome if at all.
What I would be more concerned about as far as voter turnout goes, if I were a Republican, is the simple fact that McCain just isn't nearly as exciting or inspiring to his supporters as Obama is. You can call 1,000 people and roughly half of them might tell you they'd vote for McCain over Obama, but what percentage of those people is fired up enough about McCain to actually go to the polls come Election Day, relative to Obama's supporters?

[Pookster]

What I would be more concerned about as far as voter turnout goes, if I were a Republican, is the simple fact that McCain just isn't nearly as exciting or inspiring to his supporters as Obama is. You can call 1,000 people and roughly half of them might tell you they'd vote for McCain over Obama, but what percentage of those people is fired up enough about McCain to actually go to the polls come Election Day, relative to Obama's supporters?

I recall reading something back in 2005 that talked about the final 2004 polls and how turnout was the wildcard in the whole thing. I can't recall where I read this now, but the article looked at some of the final polls that had Kerry edging Bush in the popular vote. However, the polls assumed a certain level of turnout within certain groups for each candidate. Bush ended up with a bigger turnout among his supporters than was predicted, and Kerry didn't keep pace.

If I can find this old article again, I link to it.

[chipmunk stew]

Now reports are that some on the Obama campaign think they win without Ohio or Florida by Taking Virginia or Georgia.
IMHO that is a very risky strategy. I really think that Georgia is particualry unlikely to go Democratic.
I don't think this means they're not going to go after OH and FL aggressively. It's more likely an expectations-setting game, and a signal that they're going to force the McCain campaign to compete in states they'd rather not.

[WildCat]

And yes, guys, it's not the tree-hugging environmentalists keeping us from drilling, it's the very Republican state governors who know how unpopular drilling in their own back yard will be. That's why with a Republican president, house and senate, they were never able to get these drilling bills passed.

Very interesting, and very risky. But again the polls I see have McCain up comfortably in Florida, he has to figure it just won't matter.

Still, it gives the Obama campaign a whole series of ads to run down there.
It's not the environmentalists that matter in Florida, it's old whites who wouldn't vote for a black man at gunpoint. Not enough younger voters in Florida to turn that one around.

[chipmunk stew]

What I would be more concerned about as far as voter turnout goes, if I were a Republican, is the simple fact that McCain just isn't nearly as exciting or inspiring to his supporters as Obama is. You can call 1,000 people and roughly half of them might tell you they'd vote for McCain over Obama, but what percentage of those people is fired up enough about McCain to actually go to the polls come Election Day, relative to Obama's supporters?
And more importantly, to bring other people to the polls. Obama's GOTV effort will be massively superior to McCain's.

[Dragoonster]

I recall reading something back in 2005 that talked about the final 2004 polls and how turnout was the wildcard in the whole thing. I can't recall where I read this now, but the article looked at some of the final polls that had Kerry edging Bush in the popular vote. However, the polls assumed a certain level of turnout within certain groups for each candidate. Bush ended up with a bigger turnout among his supporters than was predicted, and Kerry didn't keep pace.

If I can find this old article again, I link to it.

One of the larger turnout swings in '04 was the many anti-gay marriage propositions on GE ballots that brought out arch-conservatives in large numbers. Rove was that mastermind and it may have had a large impact, but he's gone, and that strategy may have been a one-shot. I think the biggest change in four years is his quitting and who...Ken Mehlman replacing him? No matter who it's a big letdown compared to Rove. And Mehlman is an idiot (imo).

I don't see the GOP pulling another rabbit out of the hat leading up to the election. Obama has shown that he'll be more proactive in dealing with silly issues like Rev. Wright than Kerry was for swift boats. And Howard Dean seems a lot more up on what it takes to actually win 270 EC votes than Terry McAuliffe (also an idiot, imo).

All else equal = Obama will win based on current polls
Party chairman = Dems have the edge
State issues = GOP has a slight edge (there are no touchstone liberal props that would get dems out)
X-factor = Obama's already weathered Rev. Wright, McCain's weathered 20 years, not much room to change the outcome.

Oh and 402's or whatever they're called--moveon.org is more powerful than the GOP's.

I just don't see any major thing happening 'til November that would make current/future polls as incorrect as in '04.

[Diagoras]

Obama is not going to win Florida. The two parties were about dead even in the last two elections, but circumstances are different now. Not only did Obama cause a stir among Floridians with the whole primary brouhaha, but Florida also has a large elderly population that's going to strongly favor McCain. None of the polls in recent months have bode well for Obama. I think we can safely consider Florida a red state this time around.

I take that back. (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1187)

[Spock Jenkins]

Biggest impact will be if the gas prices stay up, McCain will have to start providing real numbers on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. How much will it cost you if the tax cuts expire? Can you afford it?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/02/news/economy/bush_taxcuts_anniversary/index.htm?section=money_latest

According to the above linked article:

Allowing the cuts to expire would add $1,900 to the tax bill of a family of four with an annual income of $60,000, Bush said. All told, he added, 43 million families with kids would have to pay an average tax increase of $2,323.

Now, people that don't like the President will say, "consider the source".

An extra $2,000 a year is a lot of money to shell out for anyone given the increasing cost of energy and such. After Bush the elder and Clinton, it will be hard to convince middle America that their taxes won't go up even if Obama says otherwise. "Oh, but it's only the rich." Surprise! You're rich! I bet you didn't know that.

Obama will have to tough sell job to convince America that higher energy prices aren't here to say. No matter what policies he puts in place, we will not be seeing $2.00 gas any time soon. He will also have a hard time convincing many Americans that our out of pocket expenses won't go up for healthcare, regardless of who is covering us. It's one thing to make it available, it's another thing to bring the rising cost under control. Two separate issues.

Personally, I'd like to hear one of the candidates discuss how and where they are going to cut spending. Unfortunately everyone is too concerned about upsetting special interests to do that.

[Pookster]

I take that back. (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1187)

Wow. It'll be interesting to see if these leads hold up over the coming months. But coming after Clinton conceded, it's quite interesting.

[Pookster]

Wow.

McCain must be very, very confident he has Florida in his camp, because he just announced he wants off-shore drilling there, even though the Republican governor there opposes it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602731_pf.html). Crist is opposed, and Jeb Bush opposed it before him.

That's... very very interesting. They must have polling showing the Democrats ticked off Florida voters so badly that he can take a stance that isn't even supported by the Republicans there.

And yes, guys, it's not the tree-hugging environmentalists keeping us from drilling, it's the very Republican state governors who know how unpopular drilling in their own back yard will be. That's why with a Republican president, house and senate, they were never able to get these drilling bills passed.

Very interesting, and very risky. But again the polls I see have McCain up comfortably in Florida, he has to figure it just won't matter.

Still, it gives the Obama campaign a whole series of ads to run down there.


It'll be interesting to see if he backpedals now in the face of the new poll showing Obama leading him in Florida now 47%-43%.

[Kestrel]

Personally, I'd like to hear one of the candidates discuss how and where they are going to cut spending. Unfortunately everyone is too concerned about upsetting special interests to do that.

Obama has said he will bring the troops home from Iraq. That alone will cut a huge amount of spending.

There are certainly other spending items to consider. For example, are massive subsidies for cotton farmers really that important considering we already sent our textile industry overseas?

ETA: Cotton subsides are not a good example, it seems we dropped them a year or two ago after complaints from the WTO.

[Spock Jenkins]

Obama has said he will bring the troops home from Iraq. That alone will cut a huge amount of spending.

There are certainly other spending items to consider. For example, are massive subsidies for cotton farmers really that important considering we already sent our textile industry overseas?

I agree regarding the subsidies for certain industries, but try running a winning campaign on killing the family farm.

As far as the troops go, I agree to an extent. The next president will have to make a big choice, and I'd like them to be upfront about it in the election (not holding my breath). Either we cut our losses and run and allow the region to return to the same infighting that has always been there conceding that we can't change a culture of violence and fanaticism, or we commit to being there for a very long time.

If Obama says we cut our losses and run, he will have to defend the notion that the region means very little in terms of defending the United States from terrorism at home. If McCain says we stay, he will have to defend the notion that our preseence in Iraq is a major factor in preventing another 9/11.

But regardless of troops, Obama is leading the way in proposing new government spending (not that McCain is innocent of this by any stretch). Iraq alone is not going to pay for either candidates promises. The tax increases have been promised by Obama, and just like Bush and Clinton - they will hit lower incomes than they are currently promising.

Convince me that my grocery bill will go down if farm subsidies are cut. Convince me that my utility bills and my expense at the pump will decrease significantly through some magical new policy initiative. Convince me that my annual spending on healthcare will be cut in half and my service level will stay the same or get better once the government is in charge. Then ask me to pay $2,000 more in taxes for these great benefits. Otherwise, let me keep my $2,000 because I'm sure I can make better choices for me and my family than either candidate.

[Pookster]

Interesting numbers from the new Florida poll ...

Florida women likely voters back Obama 50 - 40 percent, while men go 47 percent for McCain and 44 percent for Obama.

White voters back McCain 50 - 40 percent while black voters back Obama 95 - 4 percent. Obama leads 57 -35 percent with voters 18 to 34 years old; he splits 48 - 46 percent with McCain among voters 35 to 54, and 44 - 46 percent with voters over 55.


The bolded part is extremely surprising to me. I would've thought McCain would be leading by a significant margin with those over 55.


edited to add:

So much for Clinton supporters not supporting Obama as predicted ... so far ...

And 19 percent of those who backed Clinton in the primaries now support McCain.

[David Wong]

Yeah Realclearpolitics says the same round of polling that has Obama up by 4 in Florida has him up by 6 in Ohio and by 12 in Pennsylvania.

I can't figure out where that Florida lead came from but maybe it's just the Hillary exit bounce.

EDIT: Also a new poll in Virginia, Obama up by 2.

[Puppycow]

One poll could be a fluke, although it does have a decent sample size.
Still a political eternity before November, but these recent polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5) did move the needle in Obama's favor.

[Pookster]

One poll could be a fluke, although it does have a decent sample size.
Still a political eternity before November, but these recent polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5) did move the needle in Obama's favor.

The way RCP averages polls is rather flawed, IMO. Plus, I put little stock in polls before Obama clinched the nomination. I don't put much more in them before the conventions, but the newest ones will be much more relevant than polls done months ago ... and especially more informative than averaging all these polls that have different methodologies.

All that said, it could easily be a fluke. One poll doesn't make a trend. Time will tell if this poll result holds up.

[chipmunk stew]

Yeah Realclearpolitics says the same round of polling that has Obama up by 4 in Florida has him up by 6 in Ohio and by 12 in Pennsylvania.

I can't figure out where that Florida lead came from but maybe it's just the Hillary exit bounce.
Obama also has finally had a chance to campaign in FL, and he's brought his numbers up everywhere he's campaigned, so I'm not all that surprised that FL is no different in that regard.

[Brainster]

I recall reading something back in 2005 that talked about the final 2004 polls and how turnout was the wildcard in the whole thing. I can't recall where I read this now, but the article looked at some of the final polls that had Kerry edging Bush in the popular vote. However, the polls assumed a certain level of turnout within certain groups for each candidate. Bush ended up with a bigger turnout among his supporters than was predicted, and Kerry didn't keep pace.

I remember running the numbers on election night and realizing that Bush was probably going to win the popular vote when I saw that turnout was up much more in "red" states than in "blue" states. In states that Bush won in 2000, the turnout was up 16%, while in states that Gore won in 2000, turnout was only up 5.2% (Note: these numbers are off from the final numbers as I didn't finish compiling them after the election, but the conclusion remains the same). Oddly, this was why the electoral college vote was still close despite Bush doing quite a bit better in the popular vote.

[Pookster]

I remember running the numbers on election night and realizing that Bush was probably going to win the popular vote when I saw that turnout was up much more in "red" states than in "blue" states. In states that Bush won in 2000, the turnout was up 16%, while in states that Gore won in 2000, turnout was only up 5.2% (Note: these numbers are off from the final numbers as I didn't finish compiling them after the election, but the conclusion remains the same). Oddly, this was why the electoral college vote was still close despite Bush doing quite a bit better in the popular vote.


This doesn't surprise me. I recall reading some of the same kind of thing after the election as well.

[Diagoras]

It seems Obama's bounce is sticking, at least for the time being. He's given 2-to-1 odds of winning the election at intrade.com. I made a map from the market data at that website. The bluer a state is, the greater the difference between the market's confidence that that state will go Democrat versus Republican, and vice versa for the red states.

If all the blue states on the map were to go blue and all the red states red, the result would be 306-232 in favor of Obama.

EDIT: In case you can't tell, Nevada and Missouri are slightly red, Virginia and New Hampshire are slightly blue. Also note that the ocean is leaning Democrat. :p

[David Wong]

Rasmusen has McCain back up by 8 in Florida (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/election_2008_florida_presidential_election). I am inclined to believe that poll and that the previous one showing Obama up there was an aberration. The demographic deck is really stacked against him.

More disturbing for the Republicans has to be the second poll in a row showing Obama up in Michigan:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_Michigan_624.pdf

That has him up by 9, again I'm not completely sure I believe it but that's significant (if any poll taken in late June can be called such) because I don't know that it's possible for McCain to win if he loses Michigan. It gets him in the position of having to flip some other state that, at the moment, appears to be safe for Obama.

[David Wong]

What I would be more concerned about as far as voter turnout goes, if I were a Republican, is the simple fact that McCain just isn't nearly as exciting or inspiring to his supporters as Obama is. You can call 1,000 people and roughly half of them might tell you they'd vote for McCain over Obama, but what percentage of those people is fired up enough about McCain to actually go to the polls come Election Day, relative to Obama's supporters?

Only 45% of McCain supporters say they're enthusiastic about their candidate... while a whopping 81% of Obama supporters say they're enthusiastic about theirs (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll25-2008jun25,0,5763707.story).

Wow. If that's true, that crushing for the McCain side. It basically means you can take every single poll and add percentage points to the Obama side, because of the anticipated turnout advantage.

[boloboffin]

Also note that the ocean is leaning Democrat. :p

You're just not looking at the right map.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/nozone.jpg

[aerosolben]

For an different approach on the electoral map:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Similar setup as real clear politics, but adds weighting to polls based on time and historical accuracy, as well as regressions.

I'm not entirely sold on his regression factors (they seem a little arbitrary, and appear to lean towards the site owner's preferred candidate), but I like his approach to using polling data.

Anyway, he currently predicts 344-194, a more substantial margin.

He also has Obama leading Florida slightly, based on the polling trend (Quinnipiac poll weighted heavier than more recent Rasmussen for size, presumably) and regression weights.

[Pookster]

How will Barr and Nader affect the race? Here's an early indication ...


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/25/poll-shows-obama-with-a-double-digit-lead/


According to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, Obama holds a 12 point lead over McCain in a head-to-head match up, 49 percent to 37 percent. But when third party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added to the list, Obama's lead over McCain extends to 15 points, 48 percent to 33 percent.


It'll be interesting to see some tossup/swing State polling numbers that include Barr and Nader.

[David Wong]

Those third-party guys always poll better than they perform on election day, most voters lose their nerve and go ahead and pull the lever for the mainstream candidate.

It's a lot easier to tell a pollster you'll never vote for that closet liberal McCain, but when you're in the voting booth the prospect of President Obama will change many of their minds.

Nader's last two runs show this, he consistently comes in lower than he polls.

[Puppycow]

Another poll has come out showing a two-digit lead for Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html), this time 12. The average lead is 7.3, which is encouraging. But what makes me worry is that people say that Dukakis had a similar lead at this point. It's really much to early to count those chickens. Fun to imagine, but there's still too much time until the election and too much that can go wrong.

[Pookster]

Those third-party guys always poll better than they perform on election day, most voters lose their nerve and go ahead and pull the lever for the mainstream candidate.

It's a lot easier to tell a pollster you'll never vote for that close liberal McCain, but when you're in the voting booth the prospect of President Obama will change many of their minds.

Nader's last two runs show this, he consistently comes in lower than he polls.


True, but they can have effect if a State election is very close. I guess my question is, who is getting/going to get hurt more by them?

[David Wong]

The Obama campaign says it will spend most of its money and resources on 14 states Bush won in 2004:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11320.html

They are:

Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Georgia and Alaska.

How likely is he to flip any of those? According to the most recent polling...

NM - Obama up by 8
IA - Obama by 4
CO - Obama by 2
VA - Obama by 2
MO - Obama by 1
IN - Obama by 1

OH - McCain by 1
NV - McCain by 3
NC - McCain by 4
AL - McCain by 4
FL - McCain by 8
MT - McCain by 8
GA - McCain by 10

(No polling for ND)

Those are small margins on all of the ones Obama is leading (all within the margin of error) but that gives you another idea of what the fundraising advantage does for Obama, he can really target the shakiest Bush states and start really leaning on them with voter registration and such, hoping the turnout boost tips them over to his side.

[aerosolben]

NM - Obama up by 8
IA - Obama by 4
CO - Obama by 2
VA - Obama by 2
MO - Obama by 1
IN - Obama by 1

OH - McCain by 1
NV - McCain by 3
NC - McCain by 4
AL - McCain by 4
FL - McCain by 8
MT - McCain by 8
GA - McCain by 10
I assume you meant AK - AL is McCain +24.

Also, Insider Advantage has a more recent poll (6/18) with McCain at only +1 in GA. Probably an aberration, though.

Note also that Quinnipiac and Public Policy Polling have Obama with 6 and 11 point leads in recent OH polls.

[MaGZ]

I agree. It would take some huge mistake by McCain to lose Georgia. I just don't see it happening. Virginia would be his best chance between the two.

McCain could lose Georgia with votes going to Bob Barr.

[gdnp]

Are you so sure that Obama has a massive fundraising advantage?

While you were out (hopefully) enjoying the first weekend of summer, the campaigns released their latest fundraising reports.

And it turns out that May might be considered a bad fundraising month for Barack Obama – that is, if $23.3 million raised counts as "bad." Compare the May total to Obama's past performance: The presumptive Democratic nominee, whose fundraising success has been unprecedented, raised nearly $32 million in April and more than $40 million in March.

Including May, Obama, who has opted out of public financing for the general election, has now raised $295.5 million. He has $43.1 million on hand as of the end of the month, including $33.3 million for the primary.

John McCain, meanwhile, raised $21.5 million in May, his best fundraising month yet. His total, which nearly matches Obama for the month, marks an improvement on the $18.5 million he raised in April and roughly $15 million he took in in March. McCain has now raised $121.9 million for the campaign and has $31.6 million on hand.

There was more good news in the May reports for McCain: The Republican National Committee, which will be spending aggressively on McCain's behalf in the coming months, took in $24.4 million for the month. The Democratic National Committee, by contrast, took in just $4.8 million. The RNC now has $53.5 million in the bank to the DNCs $3.9 million, and is poised to help at least partially make up McCain's fundraising gap.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/23/politics/horserace/entry4202380.shtml

Now the RNC obviously has a lot of house and senate seats to defend in addition to the presidential campaign, but based on the total (candidate + national committee) cash on hand, the Republicans are comfortably in the lead at this point.

Besides, money is not everything. Obama outspent Clinton by significant amounts and then still lost states by double digits. I would expect any spending gap to have even less effect in the final election, now that both candidates are reasonably well known.

[David Wong]

Obama opens up a 10 point lead in Iowa. (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080717/OPINION01/807170346/1036/Opinion)

The lead was 2 points in May, 4 in June, now 10 in July. So I supposed that's a trend.

It's only 7 electoral votes so I'm not sure why it's such a big deal. Maybe because it's a "white" state?

[Puppycow]

Obama opens up a 10 point lead in Iowa. (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080717/OPINION01/807170346/1036/Opinion)

The lead was 2 points in May, 4 in June, now 10 in July. So I supposed that's a trend.

It's only 7 electoral votes so I'm not sure why it's such a big deal. Maybe because it's a "white" state?

I think there might be a cynical political explanation. One involving pork.

1) Iowa is corn country
2) Obama voted for the recent Farm Bill including ethanol mandates
3) McCain (IIRC) voted against the recent Farm Bill

Iowa farmers know which side their bread is buttered on.

[Pookster]

I was just looking at RCP polls for Florida and compared them over the past few months, specifically Rasmussen's ...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obama-418.html

Rasmussen 07/22 - 07/22 500 LV 47 49 Obama +2.0
Rasmussen 06/26 - 06/26 500 LV 48 41 McCain +7.0
Rasmussen 06/18 - 06/18 500 LV 47 39 McCain +8.0

McCain's numbers have remained stable, but Obama has been picking up a lot of apparently previously undecided likely voters. Without details for the Rasmussen polls, it's hard to figure out the demographics of these new supporters. Anyone have a feel for this?