Share your electoral map

[CyclopticXander]

Using this interactive map http://www.270towin.com/

Out of the grey swing states I give Romney Fl, OH, NC

I give Obama VA, PA, NH, WI, IA,CO, NV

Which gives Obama the win at 285-253

That is me, as a democrat, playing it a little pessismistic by giving Republicans the two biggest prizes in FL and OH. I'm least certain about VA,CO,and NV, but my projection still gives Obama enough cushion to lose any of one of those. Romney's path to 270 is looking pretty difficult from my perspective, what say you?

[dvd418]

Virginia seems like a lost cause for Romney for every new poll I have seen from there

[Oakminster]

I have it 274-264 for Romney, giving him OH, FL, NC, CO, NV, IA.

[emcee2k]

I went with I went WI, OH, PA and NH for Obama, not because it will happen that way, just for the novelty. Although that would be a win for Romney (in a round about way).

[foolsguinea]

nvm

[Ludovic]

It's all coming down to Florida again for me. The ones I'm not firm about are FL, VA, OH, and NV, and if Obama wins FL then the other three don't matter (of course if he wins FL he will also probably carry VA but that's not important.) He could also carry any two of the other three and win.

I also gave Obama NH, PA, and WI, because if he doesn't carry those then he won't have a chance in the rest of the swing states.

[BobLibDem]

This is about as conservative (from my perspective) as it could get.

Obama 284, Cayman Boy 254

[JKellyMap]

I gave Romney NC, NH, WI, OH, and FL.
I gave Obama NV, CO, IA, VA, and PA.

This gives Obama 271. I think the closest call in any of these will be Iowa. In my scenario, if Romney did get Iowa, that would put him over the top.

I could even imagine a recount scenario in little ol' Iowa this time around.

[Bob Ducca]

Basing all of my choices on Nate Silver's current odds (because that guy knows his shit), I give Obama NV, CO, IA, VA, WI, OH, PA, and NH. Romney gets FL and NC.

Obama wins 303-235.

[emcee2k]

An interactive election map makes a terrible drawing app. I couldn't make one recognizable picture.

[Peanut Gallery]

Originally Posted by emcee2k

An interactive election map makes a terrible drawing app. I couldn't make one recognizable picture.

try harder

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Bob Ducca

Basing all of my choices on Nate Silver's current odds (because that guy knows his shit), I give Obama NV, CO, IA, VA, WI, OH, PA, and NH. Romney gets FL and NC.

Obama wins 303-235.

Exactly what I think.

Basically, if Obama gets either VA or OH, he wins- because he'll already have gotten PA and WI in either case.

[Parthol]

Being a pessimist, I think folks might be underestimating the effects of voter-suppression tactics in Pennsylvania and Florida. Combine that with a less enthusiastic Democratic base this time around, and I think Romney takes those states. So:

Obama: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Virginia
(265)

Romney: Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina
(273)

I hope I'm wrong, though.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Parthol

Being a pessimist, I think folks might be underestimating the effects of voter-suppression tactics in Pennsylvania and Florida. Combine that with a less enthusiastic Democratic base this time around . . .

Not exactly. Less enthusiastic than in 2008, certainly, but more so than in 2010.

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by Parthol

Being a pessimist, I think folks might be underestimating the effects of voter-suppression tactics in Pennsylvania and Florida. Combine that with a less enthusiastic Democratic base this time around, and I think Romney takes those states.

Despicable as they are, I actually don't think that the voter suppression will make that much of a difference. I suspect that a large majority of the people without ID's wouldn't vote anyway. It might affect a really borderline state like Florida, but I don't think it will tip Pennsylvania over the edge.

[Drunky Smurf]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

This is about as conservative (from my perspective) as it could get.

Obama 284, Cayman Boy 254

This is about as liberal (from my perspective) as it could get.

Romney 454, Honolulu Boy 84

[emcee2k]

Originally Posted by Peanut Gallery

try harder

I meant more like "Guy playing baseball."

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by emcee2k

I meant more like "Guy playing baseball."

Or Guy who is not Florida.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf

This is about as liberal (from my perspective) as it could get.

Romney 454, Honolulu Boy 84

Hardy har har! Romney wins DC and MA? I'll have some of what you're drinking.

[BrainGlutton]

This OP from a Democratic Underground thread has collected a whole list of links to such.

[2ManyTacos]

Originally Posted by Parthol

Being a pessimist, I think folks might be underestimating the effects of voter-suppression tactics in Pennsylvania and Florida. Combine that with a less enthusiastic Democratic base this time around, and I think Romney takes those states. So:

Obama: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Virginia
(265)

Romney: Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina
(273)

I hope I'm wrong, though.

I've been saying this for a while. These voter suppression tactics make up the huge elephant in the room that not nearly enough people are talking about; as I see it now, Obama will win reelection unless voter suppression successfully leads to a dramatic decrease in Democratic votes.

FWIW, Huffington Post has Obama winning 281-191

[jtgain]

But the tides raise and lower all boats. I can't see Romney winning FL and OH without also winning VA and NC. Likewise if Obama wins NC, he's steamrolling Romney in all of the other battleground states.

I think that it's narrowed to FL, OH, PA, and VA. Romney must at least win two of those to have a chance, and may have to win 3. What about the campaign's ups and downs wouldn't apply equally in all 4 states? If gas hits $6 gallon, voters in all of those states will take it out on Obama. If unemployment drops to 7%, voters in all of those states will reward Obama.

I think that because of the 2000 and 2004 elections we pay a little more attention that needed to the state by state results instead of the national polls.

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by Peanut Gallery

try harder

At least they omitted the skid mark on the underwear for OH

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Bob Ducca

Basing all of my choices on Nate Silver's current odds (because that guy knows his shit), I give Obama NV, CO, IA, VA, WI, OH, PA, and NH. Romney gets FL and NC.

Obama wins 303-235.

Same here. It is possible Obama wins about 330 EV by also winning florida, but florida is a tossup. One week it is 55% Obama, the next it is 52% Romney. The most consistently most probable scenario at 538 is about 332 EV for Obama if he wins the Kerry states plus the southwest, OH, VA & FL. That usually is about 13%.

I don't think NC or PA are in play this year. It'll be OH, VA & FL this year.

But even if Obama loses all 3 of those swing states, as long as he wins the southwest (CO, NV & NM) as well as the Kerry states, he wins the election with 272 EV.

Obama has multiple paths to victory, so long as he maintains the Kerry states. Which he should.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

I don't think NC or PA are in play this year. It'll be OH, VA & FL this year.

But even if Obama loses all 3 of those swing states, as long as he wins the southwest (CO, NV & NM) as well as the Kerry states, he wins the election with 272 EV.

That's why I take little stock in all of these scenarios. They are fun to play with, but will likely not happen. Of those six states: OH, VA, FL, CO, NV, and NM the winner will likely take at least 5 of 6. If they split 3-3, then the election is absurdly close on the order of the 2000 election.

I've seen prediction where people say, "Well Romney could lose OH and FL, but if he can pick up PA, then....." but those scenarios are silly. If Romney wins PA, he rolls to victory in OH, FL, VA, CO, NV, and NM. A PA victory for Romney would indicate a national trend.

The same way with an Obama victory in NC. Or the idea that SC might even be a toss up. Its absurd. If Obama is competitive in SC, it's lights out everywhere else for Romney.

[Wesley Clark]

On the subject of 538 the most probable outcome is Obama wins the Kerry states plus the southwest states of CO/NM/NV, FL, OH, IA & VA giving him 332.

But the second most probable (for the nov. 6 forecast, not the nowcast) shows Obama with about 345 EV. Silver gives that about a 6% probability.

So how could Obama possibly get 345EV? Is that NC or IN or something else?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Most probable one: http://www.270towin.com/2012_electio....php?mapid=pMJ

Obama beats Romney 290 to 248. Florida is a bit iffy, but I was optimistic.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Most probable one: http://www.270towin.com/2012_electio....php?mapid=pMJ

Obama beats Romney 290 to 248. Florida is a bit iffy, but I was optimistic.

You meant pessimistic. This is my honest prediction. Good guys 320, Darkness 218.

[2ManyTacos]

Do you guys think that a Rob Portman VP pick will make Ohio a closer race? That's what I've heard a few pundits say.

[ElvisL1ves]

Pundits maybe, but not Ohioans.

OH, PA, and MI are not available to Romney, and VA is doubtful (the modernization of the Confederacy is finally becoming a reality). There just is no realistic scenario where Romney can put 270 together, short of some drastic disaster in the next few months that would disqualify the incumbent in many minds.

[JKellyMap]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Pundits maybe, but not Ohioans.

OH, PA, and MI are not available to Romney, and VA is doubtful (the modernization of the Confederacy is finally becoming a reality). There just is no realistic scenario where Romney can put 270 together, short of some drastic disaster in the next few months that would disqualify the incumbent in many minds.

Wow, why are you so confident? Any specific trend or something that you've noticed? I'm genuinely curious, because so many strands of data seem to be pointing to a very tight finish.

[ElvisL1ves]

The polls of national popular-vote totals are tight, but also meaningless. The sum of individual-state polls in the swing states matter, and there's a pretty significant Obama lead in most of them. Significant in the sense that Romney won't be able to change them on his own.

I'm also looking at upsides and downsides. Obama's pos/neg numbers are pretty well locked in. Romney doesn't have an upside, but he could collapse at any moment.

[BobLibDem]

I'm confident, too, just looking at the map.

Absolutely guaranteed for Obama:
WA, OR, CA, HI, IL, DC, MD, DE, NJ, NY, VT, RI, CT, MA, ME, MN: 196 votes

Absolutely guaranteed for Romney:
AK, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, UT, AZ, AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, TN, KY, IN, WV, SC:
181 votes

Very likely Obama:
CO, NM, WI, MI, PA, OH: 78 votes

That doesn't even consider:
NH, IA, NV, FL, VA: 58 votes

Even giving Romney MO and NC he only gets to 206.

Suppose he carries VA, FL and OH. Not likely by any means to get them all, that only gives him 266. Then he needs either IA or NV to flip. Maybe it could happen, but I doubt it. Not to mention that losing either FL or OH is positively fatal for Romney.

[JKellyMap]

Okay, thanks, guys! Still need to start makin' phone calls and knockin' on doors, though...(but we should hold off on deciding exactly who to call or see, and what to tell people/talk to them about, until the various voter suppression ahem voter ID shenanigans are sorted out)...)

In any case, if we've learned anything these past four years, it's that Senate and (especially) Congressional races are crucial. I guess that's where a lot of our efforts should be directed. But that's a subject for another thread.

[2ManyTacos]

So do any of you guys feel that, as of now, Obama has the election already in the bag?

I'm not quite at that point yet; I think that PA is safely in the bag for Obama - voter suppression be damned - and that state has always been the key in my personal electoral outlook. Still, the other big question mark is Ohio, and if and when the polls start swinging definitively towards the POTUS in that state then I don't think there's any way that he could lose the election, and that scenario concedes Virginia and Florida to Romney. Still, I will say that if Romney loses Florida early on during election night then he's done.

[Jas09]

In the bag? No. 2-to-1 favorite is about where I'd put the odds right now.

I'm seeing a very stable, somewhat boring, narrow incumbent re-election much like 2004.

[Chronos]

So do any of you guys feel that, as of now, Obama has the election already in the bag?

As of now, yes, but that does not necessarily imply that he'll have it in the bag as of November. If you look at Nate Silver's site, a lot of the difference between the "now-cast" and the forecast is that the model considers the possibility of some big but unanticipated event throwing everything off. If there is no October Surprise (or if there is one, but it favors Obama), then Obama wins. But historically, October Surprises aren't all that rare. We can't say what the game changer will be, but we can consider that there might well be one.

This also shows up in the number-of-EVs histogram. All of the major peaks in the graph correspond to the conventional wisdom plus or minus a state or three, and those all lead to an Obama win. The Romney wins all depend on a major shake-up, and that could be anything, so all of the Romney-win scenarios involve different numbers of EVs, and all are about equally (im)probable.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

The polls of national popular-vote totals are tight, but also meaningless. The sum of individual-state polls in the swing states matter, and there's a pretty significant Obama lead in most of them.

But if Romney picks up say 3 points in the national polls (3 legitimate points, not a statistical blip one week) then that won't translate into 5 or 6 points in swing states?

You might ask why, and it's because the swing states don't have as many votes as compared to the rest of the country. Romney's support won't get much higher in Texas and Obama's won't get much lower in California. Minds are made up. Any play in the national poll is reflected more so in swing states.

I can't see an election where Romney loses the popular vote by 2 points, but loses the EC 330-220. If that happens, we can remake all of the statistical models and Nate Silver is out of a job. The national polls are very important. Look at the one time they weren't indicative of the winner. Gore won by a minute percentage of a point, only lost the EC by 4 votes, and was 500 some odd Florida votes away from winning. No way is the national popular versus state results THAT distorted.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Chronos

As of now, yes, but that does not necessarily imply that he'll have it in the bag as of November. If you look at Nate Silver's site, a lot of the difference between the "now-cast" and the forecast is that the model considers the possibility of some big but unanticipated event throwing everything off. If there is no October Surprise (or if there is one, but it favors Obama), then Obama wins. But historically, October Surprises aren't all that rare. We can't say what the game changer will be, but we can consider that there might well be one.

This also shows up in the number-of-EVs histogram. All of the major peaks in the graph correspond to the conventional wisdom plus or minus a state or three, and those all lead to an Obama win. The Romney wins all depend on a major shake-up, and that could be anything, so all of the Romney-win scenarios involve different numbers of EVs, and all are about equally (im)probable.

It could be a $200 million anti-Obama ad blitz in October full of lies and misinformation. By the time the public figure out they've been fed a bunch of lies they will have already voted.

[drewtwo99]

Originally Posted by jtgain

But if Romney picks up say 3 points in the national polls (3 legitimate points, not a statistical blip one week) then that won't translate into 5 or 6 points in swing states?

You might ask why, and it's because the swing states don't have as many votes as compared to the rest of the country. Romney's support won't get much higher in Texas and Obama's won't get much lower in California. Minds are made up. Any play in the national poll is reflected more so in swing states.

I can't see an election where Romney loses the popular vote by 2 points, but loses the EC 330-220. If that happens, we can remake all of the statistical models and Nate Silver is out of a job. The national polls are very important. Look at the one time they weren't indicative of the winner. Gore won by a minute percentage of a point, only lost the EC by 4 votes, and was 500 some odd Florida votes away from winning. No way is the national popular versus state results THAT distorted.

The national votes percentage and the electoral college votes percentage are usually vastly different. 2000 was an outlier in this regard, not the rule.

2008: Obama got 67.84% of the electoral votes, but 52.87% of the popular vote
2004: Bush got 53.16% of the electoral votes, but 50.73% of the popular vote
1992 & 1996: Clinton got nearly 70% of electoral votes, but less than 50% of the popular vote in both elections.
1980 & 1984: Reagan got over 90% of electoral votes in these elections, but barely over 50% of the popular vote in 1980, and just under 59% in 1984.

As you can see, Obama actually got a much higher percentage of the national vote compared to Reagan in 1980, or Clinton in 1992/1996, but won less electoral votes than these candidates.

So you are right that in absolute terms, the winner of one generally predicts the winner of the other... but in actual percentage terms, there is not much correlation there at all.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I can't see an election where Romney loses the popular vote by 2 points, but loses the EC 330-220. If that happens, we can remake all of the statistical models and Nate Silver is out of a job.

You're the second person to use this hypothetical (unless you were the first one too...). But it's really not that far off at all. In fact, right now Nate has it as 50.7 to 48.2 (not quite the 2-point margin you cite, but pretty damn close). And he has the most likely EV total for Barack Obama to be.... 330.

A 2-point win the the popular vote is a pretty large margin, and will almost certainly translate into a significant EV margin, particularly if it is Obama with the margin (because he currently has more "safe" EVs). GWB won by 2.4% in 2004, for example.

Your other example is right on, of course. If Romney gets a 3-point gain in the national vote he will go from a 2-to-1 underdog to a legitimate favorite.

There's even currently (according to Silver again) a non-insignificant chance that Obama loses the popular vote but wins the EV - 5.5% or so right now. That's how solid the state polling has been for Obama vs. the national polling.

[drewtwo99]

Originally Posted by Jas09

You're the second person to use this hypothetical (unless you were the first one too...). But it's really not that far off at all.

Again, look at 1980 for an example of this.

Reagan won the electoral vote by a whopping 489 to 49 (over 90% of the electoral votes available to win), but he only won 50.75% of the popular vote.

So it's quite easily possible to win a bare majority of the popular vote, but absolutely run away with the electoral college.

[AHunter3]

Romney: NC
Obama: CO, NV, IA, WI, OH, PA, VA, NH, FL

EVS: 332 / 206

[jsgoddess]

I'm another Nate Silver borg, it seems. I did it myself and ended up with the same 303/235 as others mentioned.

[2ManyTacos]

Another question: How much do you guys think the GOP convention will be able to influence the election and/or the polls?

I was listening to a few pundits yesterday and they said that Romney could start to turn things in his favor if he delivers a rousing speech at the convention. Still, I don't know how true that is or if there's historical precedent for that sort of thing actually happening.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos

Another question: How much do you guys think the GOP convention will be able to influence the election and/or the polls?

I was listening to a few pundits yesterday and they said that Romney could start to turn things in his favor if he delivers a rousing speech at the convention. Still, I don't know how true that is or if there's historical precedent for that sort of thing actually happening.

Conventions usually cause a bounce, but the bounce tends to fade back away. Lots of people got swept up in the convention bounce last year, but it was still just a bounce. It was probably fueled by the buzz around Palin. I'm not sure that Romney can (or should) find a buzz-worthy running mate right now.

[Jas09]

To be more precise, since 1964 the average convention bounce is around 6 percentage points. Nate Silver had a nice article about this in 2008. I'm sure he will do an updated one for this cycle as well.

He commented during the GOP primary cycle this time that he wishes he had left his "compensation" for the convention bounce in the forecast in 2008, as it actually proved rather accurate - Obama got a quick bounce which was immediately wiped out by Palin + the GOP convention. Then that bounce went away and we went right back to the status quo ante.

[2ManyTacos]

It's fascinating IMO that RCP now has it more likely that Obama will win in Virginia than in Colorado.

Granted, the latest Colorado poll is a bit of an outlier, and at this point I'm still conceding Virginia to Romney and CO to Obama. It could obviously go either way, though, and the whole thing is very interesting to watch.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by drewtwo99

As you can see, Obama actually got a much higher percentage of the national vote compared to Reagan in 1980, or Clinton in 1992/1996, but won less electoral votes than these candidates.

There was a 3rd party candidate in each of those races. Obviously that skews the results.

[Richard Parker]

You heard it here first: http://www.270towin.com/2012_electio....php?mapid=qmz