By:
TJHalva |
Comments [0] | Category:
Daily Update | 10/31/2008 11:46:38 PM CT
Today's polls:
Alaska Senate | Research 2000, DailyKos (D) | 10/30/2008 | 58 | 36 | 6 |
Alaska (3) | Research 2000, DailyKos (D) | 10/30/2008 | 39 | 58 | 3 |
Arizona (10) | American Research Group | 10/30/2008 | 46 | 50 | 4 |
Arizona (10) | Research 2000, DailyKos (D) | 10/30/2008 | 47 | 48 | 5 |
Colorado Senate | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/30/2008 | 56 | 41 | 3 |
Colorado (9) | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/30/2008 | 54 | 44 | 2 |
Colorado (9) | American Research Group | 10/30/2008 | 52 | 45 | 3 |
Colorado Senate | Time, CNN | 10/28/2008 | 53 | 43 | 4 |
Georgia Senate | Rasmussen Reports | 10/30/2008 | 43 | 48 | 9 |
Georgia (15) | Rasmussen Reports | 10/30/2008 | 47 | 52 | 1 |
Georgia (15) | Research 2000, DailyKos (D) | 10/30/2008 | 44 | 47 | 9 |
Georgia Senate | Research 2000, DailyKos (D) | 10/30/2008 | 46 | 47 | 7 |
Georgia Senate | Time, CNN | 10/28/2008 | 44 | 53 | 3 |
Indiana (11) | SurveyUSA | 10/30/2008 | 47 | 47 | 6 |
Kentucky Senate | Courier-Journal Bluegrass Poll | 10/29/2008 | 42 | 49 | 9 |
Michigan Senate | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/30/2008 | 58 | 36 | 6 |
Michigan (17) | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/30/2008 | 55 | 42 | 3 |
Michigan Senate | Strategic Vision (R) | 10/29/2008 | 56 | 33 | 11 |
Michigan (17) | Strategic Vision (R) | 10/29/2008 | 54 | 41 | 5 |
Michigan (17) | EPIC-MRA | 10/28/2008 | 50 | 38 | 12 |
Minnesota (10) | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/30/2008 | 57 | 41 | 2 |
Minnesota Senate | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/30/2008 | 45 | 40 | 15 |
Minnesota Senate | MPR, Humphrey Institute (U of MN) | 10/28/2008 | 41 | 37 | 22 |
Missouri (11) | American Research Group | 10/30/2008 | 48 | 48 | 4 |
Missouri (11) | InsiderAdvantage, Politico | 10/29/2008 | 47 | 50 | 3 |
Montana (3) | American Research Group | 10/30/2008 | 46 | 49 | 5 |
Montana (3) | Research 2000, DailyKos (D) | 10/30/2008 | 44 | 48 | 8 |
National (538) | Marist College | 10/29/2008 | 50 | 43 | 7 |
New Hampshire (4) | Research 2000, Concord Monitor | 10/30/2008 | 51 | 44 | 5 |
New Hampshire Senate | Rasmussen Reports | 10/30/2008 | 52 | 44 | 4 |
New Hampshire (4) | SurveyUSA | 10/30/2008 | 53 | 42 | 5 |
New Hampshire Senate | SurveyUSA | 10/30/2008 | 53 | 40 | 7 |
New Hampshire (4) | American Research Group | 10/30/2008 | 56 | 41 | 3 |
New Hampshire Senate | American Research Group | 10/30/2008 | 53 | 41 | 6 |
New Hampshire (4) | Rasmussen Reports | 10/30/2008 | 51 | 44 | 5 |
New Hampshire Senate | Research 2000, Concord Monitor | 10/30/2008 | 52 | 42 | 6 |
New Hampshire (4) | Strategic Vision (R) | 10/29/2008 | 50 | 41 | 9 |
New Hampshire Senate | Strategic Vision (R) | 10/29/2008 | 48 | 41 | 11 |
New Jersey (15) | SurveyUSA | 10/30/2008 | 52 | 42 | 6 |
New Jersey (15) | Fairleigh Dickinson University | 10/29/2008 | 53 | 35 | 12 |
New Mexico Senate | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/30/2008 | 58 | 39 | 3 |
New Mexico (5) | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/30/2008 | 58 | 41 | 1 |
North Carolina (15) | InsiderAdvantage, Politico | 10/29/2008 | 48 | 48 | 4 |
North Carolina Senate | Time, CNN | 10/28/2008 | 53 | 44 | 3 |
North Dakota (3) | Research 2000, DailyKos (D) | 10/29/2008 | 46 | 47 | 7 |
Oregon Senate | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/30/2008 | 51 | 43 | 6 |
Oregon (7) | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/30/2008 | 57 | 42 | 1 |
Oregon Senate | Rasmussen Reports | 10/30/2008 | 49 | 46 | 5 |
Pennsylvania (21) | Strategic Vision (R) | 10/29/2008 | 49 | 44 | 7 |
West Virginia (5) | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/30/2008 | 42 | 55 | 3 |
West Virginia Senate | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/30/2008 | 58 | 40 | 2 |
Minnesota and Georgia remain the most closely contested Senates races. The Democrats appear to have North Carolina and Oregon under wraps, but that only leaves them at 58; two shy of the magical 60 needed to override a filibuster. Below is the Minnesota Senate graph:
As you can see Barkley remains a distant third, but don't count him out. The final debate for this race is November 2nd and could very well decide the outcome. I'll be doing a live analysis of this debate on Sunday.
Published on October 31st
at 11:46 PM CT
:: 0 Comments
By:
TJHalva |
Comments [6] | Category:
VFA Original | 10/30/2008 4:00:01 PM CT
I've already discussed various electoral scenarios associated with the Bradley Effect, but I have yet to look at voter suppression. Using foreclosure data from 2007, the only data set I could find, a suppression model was devised.
It's quite simple, but gives a good result; I take the number of foreclosures in 2007 and divide that by the 2004 popular vote total in a given state. The result represents the percentage of eligible voters [based on 2004] under foreclosure. The table below illustrates the ten states with the greatest percentage of foreclosures relative to the 2004 turnout:
Nevada (5) |
Weak Dem |
825,899 |
66,316 |
8.030 |
California (55) |
Safe Dem |
12,419,857 |
481,392 |
3.876 |
Florida (27) |
Core Dem |
7,609,810 |
279,325 |
3.671 |
Arizona (10) |
Weak Rep |
2,012,585 |
69,970 |
3.477 |
Colorado (9) |
Weak Dem |
2,130,330 |
71,149 |
3.340 |
Georgia (15) |
Toss Up |
3,298,790 |
99,578 |
3.019 |
Michigan (17) |
Safe Dem |
4,839,247 |
136,205 |
2.815 |
Ohio (20) |
Core Dem |
5,627,903 |
153,196 |
2.722 |
Indiana (11) |
Weak Rep |
2,468,002 |
52,930 |
2.145 |
Texas (34) |
Safe Rep |
7,410,749 |
149,703 |
2.020 |
Using this foreclosure percentage allows us to model a potential source of voter suppression. If we assume that all people currently under foreclosure are voting for Obama, we can simulate what would happen if these voters were suddenly prevented from voting in their home state. I've taken the current projection for Obama and subtracted from that the foreclosure percentage in the given state. The result of this calculation projects the following electoral outcome:

Notice that Ohio, Nevada, Colorado and Indiana all shifted towards McCain, which is to be expected given that we subtracted from Obama, but the model serves to verify the affect voter suppression could have on this election. I should also mention that this "foreclosure effect" will be larger in theory than in practice due to the likely increase in voter turnout over the 2004 result.
While I was messing with the model I went ahead and ran the current Bradley Effect and Independent Slide scenarios. We'll start with the Bradley Effect model:

This week Obama gained 14 Electoral votes over last week's Bradley Effect model. Moving on to the Independent Slide model; if all currently undecided voters suddenly moved to McCain en masse:

Obama still wins, just like last week but this time he's added 77 Electoral Votes to his total. Its starting to look more and more like voter suppression is the only avenue by which McCain can win.
Update: A reader asked what would happen if the Bradley Effect model were to be combined with the suppression model. Here's the result:

Any other suggestions?
Published on October 30th
at 4:00 PM CT
:: 6 Comments
By:
TJHalva |
Comments [0] | Category:
Daily Update | 10/30/2008 3:27:09 PM CT
I've added all the polls that are going to be added today and still the only change was in Montana; this is consistency. There was an number of new senate polls today, but the Democrats were unable to squeak closer to 60; our projection still stands at 58-42.
Today's polls:
Arizona (10) | NBC News, Mason Dixon | 10/28/2008 | 44 | 48 | 8 |
Arizona (10) | Time, CNN | 10/28/2008 | 46 | 53 | 1 |
California (55) | Field | 10/28/2008 | 55 | 33 | 12 |
Colorado Senate | Rasmussen Reports | 10/29/2008 | 56 | 41 | 3 |
Colorado (9) | Marist College | 10/28/2008 | 51 | 45 | 4 |
Colorado (9) | Allstate, National Journal | 10/27/2008 | 48 | 44 | 8 |
Delaware (3) | SurveyUSA | 10/28/2008 | 63 | 33 | 4 |
Delaware Senate | SurveyUSA | 10/28/2008 | 66 | 32 | 2 |
Florida (27) | Allstate, National Journal | 10/27/2008 | 45 | 44 | 11 |
Idaho (4) | Harstad Strategic Research (D) | 10/22/2008 | 32 | 55 | 13 |
Indiana (11) | Rasmussen Reports | 10/29/2008 | 46 | 49 | 5 |
Indiana (11) | Selzer, Indianapolis Star | 10/28/2008 | 46 | 45 | 9 |
Iowa (7) | SurveyUSA, KAAL-TV, WHO-TV | 10/29/2008 | 55 | 40 | 5 |
Iowa Senate | Sur, KAAL-TV, WHO-TV | 10/29/2008 | 61 | 35 | 4 |
Kansas Senate | SurveyUSA, KCTV-TV, KWCH-TV | 10/28/2008 | 32 | 65 | 3 |
Kansas (6) | SurveyUSA, KCTV-TV, KWCH-TV | 10/28/2008 | 37 | 58 | 5 |
Kentucky Senate | Rasmussen Reports | 10/29/2008 | 44 | 51 | 5 |
Kentucky (8) | Rasmussen Reports | 10/29/2008 | 43 | 55 | 2 |
Louisiana (9) | Ed Renwick, WWL-TV | 10/26/2008 | 40 | 43 | 17 |
Massachusetts Senate | SurveyUSA, WBZ-TV Boston | 10/28/2008 | 58 | 34 | 8 |
Massachusetts (12) | SurveyUSA, WBZ-TV Boston | 10/28/2008 | 56 | 39 | 5 |
Minnesota (10) | NBC News, Mason Dixon | 10/28/2008 | 48 | 40 | 12 |
Minnesota (10) | MPR, Humphrey Institute (U of MN) | 10/28/2008 | 56 | 37 | 7 |
Minnesota Senate | NBC News, Mason Dixon | 10/28/2008 | 36 | 42 | 22 |
Montana (3) | Rasmussen Reports | 10/29/2008 | 46 | 50 | 4 |
National (538) | FOX News, Opinion Dynamics | 10/29/2008 | 47 | 44 | 9 |
National (538) | CBS News, New York Times | 10/29/2008 | 52 | 39 | 9 |
National (538) | YouGov, Economist (D) | 10/27/2008 | 49 | 42 | 9 |
Nevada (5) | Time, CNN | 10/28/2008 | 52 | 45 | 3 |
Nevada (5) | Research 2000, Reno Gazette-Journal | 10/28/2008 | 50 | 45 | 5 |
New Hampshire Senate | Suffolk University | 10/29/2008 | 48 | 39 | 13 |
New Hampshire (4) | Suffolk University | 10/29/2008 | 53 | 40 | 7 |
New Hampshire Senate | WMUR, UNH Tracking | 10/28/2008 | 48 | 40 | 12 |
New Hampshire (4) | WMUR, UNH Tracking | 10/28/2008 | 58 | 34 | 8 |
New Jersey Senate | Research 2000, Bergen Record | 10/28/2008 | 56 | 39 | 5 |
New Jersey (15) | Research 2000, Bergen Record | 10/28/2008 | 54 | 38 | 8 |
New York (31) | SurveyUSA | 10/28/2008 | 62 | 33 | 5 |
North Carolina (15) | Civitas Institute (R) | 10/29/2008 | 47 | 46 | 7 |
North Carolina Senate | Rasmussen Reports | 10/29/2008 | 52 | 46 | 2 |
North Carolina (15) | Rasmussen Reports | 10/29/2008 | 50 | 48 | 2 |
North Carolina Senate | Civitas Institute (R) | 10/29/2008 | 45 | 43 | 12 |
North Carolina (15) | Time, CNN | 10/28/2008 | 52 | 46 | 2 |
North Carolina (15) | Allstate, National Journal | 10/27/2008 | 47 | 43 | 10 |
Ohio (20) | Time, CNN | 10/28/2008 | 51 | 47 | 2 |
Ohio (20) | Allstate, National Journal | 10/27/2008 | 48 | 41 | 11 |
Pennsylvania (21) | Time, CNN | 10/28/2008 | 55 | 43 | 2 |
Pennsylvania (21) | NBC News, Mason Dixon | 10/28/2008 | 47 | 43 | 10 |
South Carolina (8) | SurveyUSA, WCSC-TV | 10/29/2008 | 39 | 58 | 3 |
South Carolina (8) | SurveyUSA, WCSC-TV | 10/29/2008 | 44 | 52 | 4 |
South Carolina (8) | NBC, PSRA | 10/28/2008 | 42 | 53 | 5 |
South Dakota (3) | Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (D) | 10/28/2008 | 40 | 45 | 15 |
Texas Senate | University of Texas Austin | 10/22/2008 | 36 | 45 | 19 |
Texas (34) | University of Texas Austin | 10/22/2008 | 40 | 51 | 9 |
Utah (5) | Mason-Dixon | 10/25/2008 | 32 | 55 | 13 |
Vermont (3) | Research 2000, WCAX-TV | 10/26/2008 | 57 | 36 | 7 |
Virginia (13) | Marist College | 10/27/2008 | 51 | 47 | 2 |
Virginia (13) | Allstate, National Journal | 10/27/2008 | 48 | 44 | 8 |
Wisconsin (10) | SurveyUSA, KSTP-TV, WDIO-TV, WGBA-TV | 10/29/2008 | 55 | 39 | 6 |
Wisconsin (10) | Research 2000, WISC-TV | 10/28/2008 | 53 | 42 | 5 |
The Minnesota poll conducted by the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota will likely release their Senate supplement later tonight or tomorrow. There are also a few other polls in the field today that may have yet to publish a Senate result. I'll update the polling database upon the public release of this information.
Published on October 30th
at 3:27 PM CT
:: 0 Comments
By:
TJHalva |
Comments [0] | Category:
VFA Original | 10/30/2008 5:40:21 AM CT
The defining characteristic of any democratic government should be the continual pursuit of citizen participation. I often question whether our government truly strives to meet this ideal. From a historical perspective there are few occasions in which our government has pursued democracy first and politics second.
Our nation was founded some 232 years ago on the principle that "all men are created equal," but still to this day not all men are treated to equal rights. The root of this problem lies deep within the fabric of American consciousness and the Constitution provides no further assistance. Each state is allowed to implement voting procedure however it deems necessary; as the Constitution makes no explicit reference to voting, the cornerstone of its very existence.
For most of America's childhood, states reserved the right to limit eligible voters to property owning, white males. On the first day of January, 1863 Abraham Lincoln stated within his Emancipation Proclamation "that all persons held as slaves [within the rebellious states] are, and henceforward shall be free." This famous declaration paved the way for the 14th Amendment in 1866. The 14th Amendment elevated previously indentured servants from 3/5 of a person into full blown citizens. This momentous event laid the foundation for the 15th Amendment in 1870: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
In order to further my dialogue, I must dispel a commonly held and misconstrued belief. Despite what the Republicans may want you to believe, their current platform does not derive their existence from Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln would almost certainly be a New England Lefty if he were around today; need proof: "In 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed a bill that imposed a 3% tax on incomes between $600 and $10,000 and a 5% tax on higher incomes." Lincoln was the father of the income tax, a policy the current Republican Party supposedly detests; yet they hypocritically continue to trumpet the man from Illinois.
While Lincoln definitely leaned to the left, he was not single highhandedly responsible for enacting the first major addition to America's democratic model; that task was left to the states.
The next major piece of legislation came in the form of the 19th Amendment which granted women the right to vote. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson played an integral role in securing the amendment's passage. The amendment failed on several occasions prompting Wilson to call a special congressional session in advance of the Presidential election of 1920. Although a member of the Democratic Party, by today's standards he would likely be considered socially conservative. Wilson played a more direct role in the resolution of Woman's Suffrage when compared to Lincoln's aforementioned accomplishments but he still does not deserve all the credit.
The third and final amendment arrived on July 7, 1971. The twenty-sixth amendment was certified by the Administrator of General Services granting anybody aged eighteen or older the right to vote. The amendment was proposed by Senator Jennings Randolph (D) of West Virginia in response to procedural matters within the Selective Service Draft of 1969. Anybody aged eighteen or older could be drafted and fight America's War, but they could not vote. The amendment was ratified by thirty-nine states (eventually forty-two) thus making Randolph's amendment law.
Throughout history, each ideology has helped expand our democracy; regardless of motivation, in these three instances, the people won. If the amendment trend continues, our democracy should expand in some fashion within the next generation despite the forever growing partisanship this country faces.
Published on October 30th
at 5:40 AM CT
:: 0 Comments
By:
TJHalva |
Comments [0] | Category:
Daily Update | 10/29/2008 7:27:53 PM CT
A new poll by Arizona State University now shows Obama within the margin of error in Arizona. Based on this result, the rest of today's polls suddenly seem comparatively irrelevant:
On other unrelated notes, Obama's 30 minute television ad was aired on seven different TV networks today at 7 PM CT. The ad was a mix of policy and story telling; of the personal stories that were highlighted, one came from Kentucky and another from Missouri. Obama is targeting two deeply red states six days before the election. Obama currently has a 33.66% chance of winning Missouri and a 2.63% chance in Kentucky. The Kentucky spot is likely an appeal to the Senate race while Missouri seems to be legitimately in play.
There was also a new Rasmussen Poll released from Alaska showing Sen. Stevens (R) in a significant amount of trouble; our model now gives Stevens a 99.03% chance of losing.
Published on October 29th
at 7:27 PM CT
:: 0 Comments
By:
TJHalva |
Comments [33] | Category:
VFA Original | 10/29/2008 12:21:12 AM CT
I'm going to keep this simple because the results speak for themselves. I've taken the Presidential vote totals from 2004 and calculated the number of additional votes needed, beyond what our projection dictates, for the trailing candidate to reach the 50% threshold. The result of this arithmetic can be seen in the Votes Needed column. The EVs Per Voter (10^-4) column takes the Votes Needed and divides by the voting population of the given state in 2004. The results of this calculation are very small, with four zeros directly after the decimal point, but their meaning is very large.
Take a look at the data before I explain its significance; the results are ordered based on Obama's projection percentage in descending order.
DC (3) |
Safe Dem |
227,586 |
82 |
13 |
84,207 |
0.356 |
Hawaii (4) |
Safe Dem |
428,989 |
67.5 |
28 |
94,378 |
0.424 |
New York (31) |
Safe Dem |
7,448,266 |
63.39 |
29.36 |
1,537,322 |
0.202 |
Maryland (10) |
Safe Dem |
2,384,206 |
59.79 |
36.87 |
313,046 |
0.319 |
Illinois (21) |
Safe Dem |
5,274,727 |
59.3 |
34.56 |
814,418 |
0.258 |
New Jersey (15) |
Safe Dem |
3,609,691 |
57.88 |
37.99 |
433,524 |
0.346 |
California (55) |
Safe Dem |
12,419,857 |
57.08 |
33.05 |
2,105,166 |
0.261 |
Delaware (3) |
Safe Dem |
375,190 |
56.07 |
41.33 |
32,529 |
0.922 |
Connecticut (7) |
Safe Dem |
1,578,662 |
55.78 |
32.64 |
274,056 |
0.255 |
Massachusetts (12) |
Safe Dem |
2,905,360 |
55.35 |
34.34 |
454,979 |
0.264 |
Michigan (17) |
Safe Dem |
4,839,247 |
55.16 |
37.65 |
597,647 |
0.284 |
Washington (11) |
Safe Dem |
2,859,084 |
54.41 |
35.84 |
404,846 |
0.272 |
Oregon (7) |
Safe Dem |
1,827,826 |
53.84 |
36.22 |
251,874 |
0.278 |
Vermont (3) |
Safe Dem |
312,309 |
53.8 |
27.93 |
68,927 |
0.435 |
New Hampshire (4) |
Safe Dem |
676,227 |
53.34 |
38.75 |
76,076 |
0.526 |
Maine (4) |
Safe Dem |
740,748 |
53.25 |
32.41 |
130,298 |
0.307 |
Pennsylvania (21) |
Core Dem |
5,765,764 |
52.76 |
45.01 |
287,712 |
0.730 |
Iowa (7) |
Safe Dem |
1,505,814 |
51.68 |
41.94 |
121,369 |
0.577 |
Wisconsin (10) |
Core Dem |
2,997,007 |
51.42 |
44.68 |
159,441 |
0.627 |
Colorado (9) |
Weak Dem |
2,130,330 |
51.17 |
45.87 |
87,983 |
1.023 |
Virginia (13) |
Core Dem |
3,192,894 |
50.99 |
43.27 |
214,882 |
0.605 |
Minnesota (10) |
Safe Dem |
2,825,866 |
50.78 |
39.22 |
304,628 |
0.328 |
New Mexico (5) |
Core Dem |
756,304 |
50.24 |
42.16 |
59,294 |
0.843 |
Nevada (5) |
Weak Dem |
825,899 |
50.11 |
44.71 |
43,690 |
1.144 |
Florida (27) |
Core Dem |
7,609,810 |
49.94 |
42.95 |
536,492 |
0.503 |
Ohio (20) |
Core Dem |
5,627,903 |
49.81 |
43.36 |
373,693 |
0.535 |
North Carolina (15) |
Toss Up |
3,498,746 |
48.15 |
47.9 |
73,474 |
2.042 |
Missouri (11) |
Toss Up |
2,731,364 |
46.91 |
46.46 |
96,690 |
1.138 |
Rhode Island (4) |
Safe Dem |
437,134 |
46.56 |
25.11 |
108,803 |
0.368 |
Georgia (15) |
Toss Up |
3,298,790 |
45.9 |
48.19 |
135,250 |
1.109 |
Montana (3) |
Toss Up |
450,434 |
45.29 |
44.32 |
25,585 |
1.173 |
Indiana (11) |
Weak Rep |
2,468,002 |
45.16 |
49.11 |
119,451 |
0.921 |
North Dakota (3) |
Toss Up |
312,833 |
44.54 |
42.8 |
22,524 |
1.332 |
Arizona (10) |
Weak Rep |
2,012,585 |
43.62 |
48.15 |
128,403 |
0.779 |
Texas (34) |
Safe Rep |
7,410,749 |
42.56 |
55.27 |
551,360 |
0.617 |
Kansas (6) |
Core Rep |
1,187,709 |
42.22 |
51.19 |
92,404 |
0.649 |
Kentucky (8) |
Safe Rep |
1,795,882 |
42.19 |
52.05 |
140,258 |
0.667 |
Mississippi (6) |
Core Rep |
1,152,145 |
42.19 |
49.92 |
89,983 |
0.570 |
Alaska (3) |
Safe Rep |
311,808 |
41.91 |
53.06 |
25,225 |
1.189 |
Arkansas (6) |
Safe Rep |
1,053,694 |
41.67 |
53.06 |
87,773 |
0.684 |
Tennessee (11) |
Safe Rep |
2,437,319 |
41.23 |
54.83 |
213,753 |
0.515 |
South Carolina (8) |
Safe Rep |
1,615,606 |
40.84 |
53.98 |
147,990 |
0.541 |
West Virginia (5) |
Safe Rep |
755,887 |
40.35 |
50.83 |
72,943 |
0.685 |
South Dakota (3) |
Core Rep |
388,215 |
40.29 |
48.95 |
37,696 |
0.796 |
Louisiana (9) |
Safe Rep |
1,943,106 |
38.63 |
51.65 |
220,931 |
0.407 |
Nebraska (5) |
Safe Rep |
777,255 |
36.84 |
57.15 |
102,287 |
0.489 |
Wyoming (3) |
Safe Rep |
242,948 |
36.36 |
57.58 |
33,138 |
0.905 |
Alabama (9) |
Safe Rep |
1,883,415 |
35.8 |
56.29 |
267,445 |
0.337 |
Oklahoma (7) |
Safe Rep |
1,463,758 |
34.56 |
61.84 |
226,004 |
0.310 |
Utah (5) |
Safe Rep |
912,728 |
27.75 |
64.93 |
203,082 |
0.246 |
Idaho (4) |
Safe Rep |
597,261 |
24.9 |
69.6 |
149,913 |
0.267 |
If you order the results by EVs per Voter the twelve most contested states fall within the top fifteen. This would be great news for McCain if eleven of these twelve states weren't states previously carried by Bush in 2004; Pennsylvania is the exception and ranks fifteenth. Within the eleven he must win, McCain is currently trailing in seven; North Carolina, North Dakota, Montana, Nevada, Missouri, Colorado and New Mexico. If we total the Votes Needed column for these seven states the result is 409,239; this is the absolute minimum number of additional votes (beyond our projection) McCain needs to win the Election.
McCain needs 409,239 votes in seven states to win the election, whereas John Kerry needed 118,599 votes in Ohio.
Published on October 29th
at 12:21 AM CT
:: 33 Comments
By:
TJHalva |
Comments [0] | Category:
Daily Update | 10/28/2008 10:07:06 PM CT
In our national non-tracking polling projection, Barack Obama has surpassed the 50% threshold for the first time:
Anyways, there was a plethora of state polling today:
The most notable result today probably comes from Mississippi-B's Senate race. The new Rasmussen poll shows a once competitive race, essentially beyond reach for Musgrove (D), the Democratic challenger who trails the incumbent by 11%. Granted this is a single result, but its not something you hope for if you're in the Musgrove campaign. But there still may be hope for his candidacy. Yesterday saw the expansion of our Senate Coattails Calculation and from that result reads: "Our little conclusion may give hope yet to Musgrove (D), the Democratic challenger in Mississippi-B. Musgrove's coefficient is below both 1 and his competitors coefficient, but recent polling has shown Wicker (R) with a significantly large lead." Musgrove has nothing going for him right now with the exception of this historically accurate trend.
Published on October 28th
at 10:07 PM CT
:: 0 Comments
By:
TJHalva |
Comments [0] | Category:
Senate | 10/28/2008 1:43:34 AM CT
Let me start by saying this was a gauntlet. I started by collecting election data for the Presidential Election of 2004 and the Senate Elections of 2004 and 2006. I then parsed the results and created a massive table while incorporating our projections into a 2008 metaset. From here I just did the simple division necessary to compute the Coattail Coefficient.
The table below illustrates the outcome of our study. The "XXX Pres Coefficient" column represents the calculation previously prescribed in our previous article on coattails; if the result of the simple division is greater than 1, the Senate candidate is over performing relative to that party's Presidential nominee. A number below 1 implies the opposite. For Senate races that occurred in 2006 I used the 2004 Presidential result from that state as the comparator. The 2008 data is drawn from our projections, and the 2004 data is provided by the Federal Election Committee.
The furthest column to the right, Winner's Coattail, corresponds to the Coattail Coefficient of the party that won the given Senate Election. The "<" and ">" illustrate whether the eventual winner of the given Senate seat had a larger coefficient than the competition. The "<" is used when the victor did in fact have a larger coefficient, while the ">" implies the opposite. I have bolded all races in which the actual or projected margin ranged between zero and six percent. I encourage you to take a detailed look at the table below, but when you're done don't forget to continue reading.
State Year Dem Pres Rep Pres Winner's
Coefficient Coefficient Coattail
Nebraska 2006 1.95 0.55 < 1.95 (D)
North Dakota 2004 1.92 0.50 < 1.92 (D)
Maine 2006 0.38 1.66 < 1.66 (R)
North Carolina 2006 1.58 0.53 < 1.58 (D)
Indiana 2004 1.57 0.62 < 1.57 (D)
Rhode Island 2008 1.55 0.80 < 1.55 (D)
Maine 2008 0.77 1.53 < 1.53 (R)
West Virginia 2008 1.51 0.65 < 1.51 (D)
Arkansas 2008 1.49 0.93 < 1.49 (D)
West Virginia 2006 1.49 0.60 < 1.49 (D)
South Dakota 2008 1.49 0.72 < 1.49 (D)
Indiana 2006 0.00 1.46 < 1.46 (R)
Idaho 2004 0.00 1.45 < 1.45 (R)
New Mexico 2006 1.44 0.59 < 1.44 (D)
Montana 2006 1.41 0.74 < 1.41 (D)
Iowa 2004 0.57 1.41 < 1.41 (R)
Arizona 2004 0.46 1.40 < 1.40 (R)
Hawaii 2004 1.40 0.46 < 1.40 (D)
Wisconsin 2006 1.35 0.60 < 1.35 (D)
New Hampshire 2004 0.67 1.35 < 1.35 (R)
Mississippi-A 2008 0.92 1.29 < 1.29 (R)
Louisiana 2008 1.28 0.77 < 1.28 (D)
West Virginia 2004 1.28 0.79 < 1.28 (D)
Florida 2006 1.28 0.73 < 1.28 (D)
Illinois 2004 1.28 0.61 < 1.28 (D)
Nevada 2004 1.28 0.70 < 1.28 (D)
Montana 2006 1.27 0.82 < 1.27 (D)
Wyoming-A 2008 0.75 1.27 < 1.27 (R)
Delaware 2006 1.26 0.60 < 1.26 (D)
Ohio 2004 0.74 1.26 < 1.26 (R)
Arkansas 2004 1.25 0.81 < 1.25 (D)
Oregon 2004 1.23 0.67 < 1.23 (D)
Connecticut 2004 1.22 0.73 < 1.22 (D)
Wyoming-B 2008 0.82 1.22 < 1.22 (R)
Virginia 2004 1.21 0.80 < 1.21 (D)
Vermont 2004 1.20 0.63 < 1.20 (D)
Virginia 2008 1.19 0.72 < 1.19 (D)
Maryland 2004 1.16 0.79 < 1.16 (D)
Ohio 2006 1.15 0.86 < 1.15 (D)
Pennsylvania 2006 1.15 0.85 < 1.15 (D)
Vermont 2006 1.15 0.83 < 1.15 (D)
Tennessee 2008 0.84 1.14 < 1.14 (R)
Delaware 2008 1.14 0.74 < 1.14 (D)
Minnesota 2006 1.14 0.80 < 1.14 (D)
Hawaii 2006 1.14 0.81 < 1.14 (D)
Alabama 2008 0.90 1.12 < 1.12 (R)
New York 2004 1.12 0.60 < 1.12 (D)
Massachusetts 2006 1.12 0.83 < 1.12 (D)
New Mexico 2008 1.12 0.86 < 1.12 (D)
Kansas 2004 0.75 1.12 < 1.12 (R)
Alaska 2008 1.11 0.86 < 1.11 (D)
Michigan 2006 1.11 0.86 < 1.11 (D)
Iowa 2006 1.11 0.92 < 1.11 (D)
Kansas 2008 0.83 1.10 < 1.10 (R)
Nevada 2006 0.86 1.10 < 1.10 (R)
California 2006 1.09 0.79 < 1.09 (D)
Colorado 2004 1.09 0.90 < 1.09 (D)
Virginia 2006 1.09 0.92 < 1.09 (D)
Pennsylvania 2004 0.82 1.09 < 1.09 (R)
Alabama 2004 0.88 1.08 < 1.08 (R)
Washington 2006 1.08 0.87 < 1.08 (D)
Michigan 2008 1.08 0.84 < 1.08 (D)
Missouri 2006 1.08 0.89 < 1.08 (D)
Mississippi-B 2006 0.88 1.07 < 1.07 (R)
California 2004 1.06 0.85 < 1.06 (D)
New Hampshire 2006 1.06 0.91 < 1.06 (D)
Missouri 2004 0.93 1.05 < 1.05 (R)
South Carolina 2008 0.98 1.04 < 1.04 (R)
New York 2006 1.03 0.67 < 1.03 (D)
Wyoming-A 2006 1.03 1.02 > 1.02 (R)
Massachusetts 2008 1.01 0.58 < 1.01 (D)
Texas 2006 0.94 1.01 < 1.01 (R)
Georgia 2004 0.96 1.00 < 1.00 (R)
New Hampshire 2008 1.00 0.85 < 1.00 (D)
Illinois 2008 0.99 0.98 < 0.99 (D)
Colorado 2008 0.99 0.87 < 0.99 (D)
Mississippi-B 2008 0.97 0.99 < 0.99 (R)
Texas 2008 0.96 0.98 < 0.98 (R)
Minnesota 2008 0.72 0.98 < 0.98 (R)
Arizona 2006 0.98 0.97 > 0.97 (R)
Maryland 2006 0.97 1.03 > 0.97 (D)
Nebraska 2008 0.96 0.97 < 0.97 (R)
Florida 2004 1.03 0.95 > 0.95 (R)
Kentucky 2008 1.06 0.93 > 0.93 (R)
South Carolina 2004 1.08 0.93 > 0.93 (R)
North Carolina 2004 1.08 0.92 > 0.92 (R)
Georgia 2008 0.99 0.92 > 0.92 (R)
Rhode Island 2006 0.90 1.20 > 0.90 (D)
Louisiana 2004 1.12 0.90 > 0.90 (R)
North Carolina 2008 0.90 0.88 < 0.90 (D)
Tennessee 2006 1.13 0.89 > 0.89 (R)
Utah 2006 1.20 0.87 > 0.87 (R)
New Jersey 2008 0.86 1.02 > 0.86 (D)
Kentucky 2004 1.24 0.85 > 0.85 (R)
Oregon 2008 0.84 1.08 > 0.84 (D)
Oklahoma 2008 1.17 0.84 > 0.84 (R)
Idaho 2008 1.20 0.83 > 0.83 (R)
Oklahoma 2004 1.20 0.80 > 0.80 (R)
Alaska 2004 1.28 0.80 > 0.80 (R)
Connecticut 2006 0.73/0.93 0.22 < 0.73/0.93 (D)
What does this massive compilation of data mean? The result is surprisingly straightforward and allows for a nice generalization. Focusing our attention towards the bottom of the table reveals that the winner, in a competitive race, rarely garnered a coefficient greater than 1. This result appears to be counterintuitive but just wait, it gets stranger; notice the large quantity of ">" signs towards the bottom of the table. Under this interpretation the candidate who can win more votes from the opposite party is the likely victory; its actually better to abandon your own party and run across the aisle. Using this result, a succinct postulate can be formed: if candidate A has a coefficient less than 1 and their opponent, candidate B, has a coefficient greater than 1, candidate A has the historic advantage.
Using the above postulate, what can then be said about the 2008 Senate races?
We'll start from the bottom and work our way up through the bolded races happening this year. Our first stop is Oregon. Oregon seems to be safely in Democratic hands, Smith (R) has a coefficient greater than 1 at 1.08, while his challenger Markley (D), is repping a 0.84. Merkley has also opened up a healthy four to five point lead in recent polling.
Moving on up; North Carolina is our next stop. Hagan (D) is currently leading our projection, but the coefficients in this race favor the incumbent Dole (R).
Georgia's like North Carolina, but the opposite. Martin (D) is trailing in the polls, but he's got the better coefficients.
Kentucky exemplifies our rule and seems to be safely in McConnell's (R) court.
Minnesota features a competitive three way race so I'm not exactly sure how our generalization applies, but here it goes. Franken's (D) coefficient is significantly below 1, in fact its the lowest coefficient in the field, but Coleman (R) is still maintaining a slight lead; in large part due to a very suspect St. Cloud State poll that showed 21% of the Minnesota electorate as undecided. Barkley could still make a run too, its impossible to tell.
Our little conclusion may give hope yet to Musgrove (D), the Democratic challenger in Mississippi-B. Musgrove's coefficient is below both 1 and his competitors coefficient, but recent polling has shown Wicker (R) with a significantly large lead.
The last on the list is Alaska, but after today's news of the Stevens' conviction, Begich (D) seems destined to the Senate.
Using just the conclusion of this report as a predictor, the Democratic Party stands to pickup Oregon, Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi-B and Alaska. By my count that would put the Democratic caucus at the magical 60 Senator, filibuster proof majority.
Published on October 28th
at 1:43 AM CT
:: 0 Comments
By:
TJHalva |
Comments [1] | Category:
Daily Update | 10/27/2008 6:29:49 PM CT
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was convicted on seven felony counts relating to his corruption trial. After the verdict was read Steven continued to profess his innocence and went on to say that "this verdict is the result of the unconscionable manner in which the Justice Department lawyers conducted this trial. I ask that Alaskans and my Senate colleagues stand with me as I pursue my rights. I remain a candidate for the United States Senate." If you truly believe that a federal trial was carried out in an "unconscionable manner," you have defied your obligation as a US Senator to uphold the Constitution of the United States' fifth and fourteenth amendment, and thus, you are unfit to hold the office which you seek. The mere absurdity of your reasoning justifies your conviction. Now onto the polls.
Obama now has an outside shot at hitting 400 Electoral Votes. A new poll by Rasmussen places Arizona in the Lean Rep category. If in the next eight days Obama takes the lead in Arizona the election is over. Here were the rest of today's polls:
Arizona (10) | Northern Arizona University, U of WA | 10/27/2008 | 41 | 49 | 10 |
Arizona (10) | Rasmussen Reports | 10/26/2008 | 46 | 51 | 3 |
Arizona (10) | Zimmeran & Associates | 10/19/2008 | 41.5 | 43.5 | 14 |
Colorado (9) | FOX News, Rasmussen Reports | 10/26/2008 | 50 | 46 | 4 |
Colorado Senate | Public Opinion Strategies (R) | 10/23/2008 | 51 | 38 | 11 |
Connecticut (7) | University of Connecticut | 10/22/2008 | 56 | 31 | 13 |
Florida (27) | Suffolk University, 7News | 10/26/2008 | 47 | 43 | 10 |
Florida (27) | Datamar Inc | 10/26/2008 | 49.2 | 44.4 | 7 |
Florida (27) | Reuters, Zogby | 10/26/2008 | 47 | 47 | 6 |
Florida (27) | FOX News, Rasmussen Reports | 10/26/2008 | 51 | 47 | 2 |
Illinois Senate | Research 2000, Post-Dispatch | 10/23/2008 | 59 | 34 | 7 |
Indiana (11) | Reuters, Zogby | 10/26/2008 | 44 | 50 | 6 |
Iowa (7) | Marist College | 10/24/2008 | 52 | 42 | 6 |
Mississippi (6) | Press Register, U of Alabama | 10/23/2008 | 33 | 46 | 21 |
Mississippi-B Senate | Press Register, U of Alabama | 10/23/2008 | 32 | 45 | 23 |
Missouri (11) | SurveyUSA | 10/26/2008 | 48 | 48 | 4 |
Missouri (11) | FOX News, Rasmussen Reports | 10/26/2008 | 48 | 47 | 5 |
Missouri (11) | Reuters, Zogby | 10/26/2008 | 48 | 46 | 6 |
Nevada (5) | Reuters, Zogby | 10/26/2008 | 48 | 44 | 8 |
New Hampshire (4) | Marist College | 10/23/2008 | 50 | 45 | 5 |
New York (31) | Siena | 10/21/2008 | 62 | 31 | 7 |
North Carolina (15) | FOX News, Rasmussen Reports | 10/26/2008 | 48 | 49 | 3 |
North Carolina Senate | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/26/2008 | 48 | 45 | 7 |
North Carolina (15) | Public Policy Polling (D) | 10/26/2008 | 49 | 48 | 3 |
North Carolina (15) | Reuters, Zogby | 10/26/2008 | 50 | 46 | 4 |
Ohio (20) | FOX News, Rasmussen Reports | 10/26/2008 | 49 | 45 | 6 |
Ohio (20) | Reuters, Zogby | 10/26/2008 | 50 | 45 | 5 |
Ohio (20) | University of Akron | 10/15/2008 | 44.6 | 40.9 | 14 |
Oklahoma Senate | TVPoll.com | 10/26/2008 | 41 | 51 | 8 |
Oklahoma (7) | TVPoll.com | 10/26/2008 | 34.8 | 61.6 | 3 |
Oregon Senate | SurveyUSA | 10/26/2008 | 49 | 42 | 9 |
Oregon (7) | SurveyUSA | 10/26/2008 | 57 | 38 | 5 |
Pennsylvania (21) | Temple University | 10/26/2008 | 50 | 41 | 9 |
Pennsylvania (21) | Morning Call Tracking | 10/25/2008 | 53 | 41 | 6 |
Virginia (13) | SurveyUSA | 10/26/2008 | 52 | 43 | 5 |
Virginia (13) | FOX News, Rasmussen Reports | 10/26/2008 | 51 | 47 | 2 |
Virginia (13) | Reuters, Zogby | 10/26/2008 | 52 | 45 | 3 |
Virginia Senate | SurveyUSA | 10/26/2008 | 63 | 32 | 5 |
Virginia Senate | Washington Post | 10/25/2008 | 61 | 31 | 8 |
Virginia (13) | Washington Post | 10/25/2008 | 52 | 44 | 4 |
Virginia (13) | VA Commonwealth Poll | 10/22/2008 | 51 | 40 | 9 |
|