This Race Is Not Even Close (Take A Look At This)!

[berni_mccoy]

A few weeks ago, I introduced a metric of how strong a candidate's electoral votes are, or in other words, the strength of their electoral votes (see http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/398 ).

The basic idea is to weight each candidates electoral votes (based on current polling results from http://www.electoral-vote.com ) based on the percent win margin for those votes. Tied electoral votes are not counted for either candidate.

Presently, from ev.com, Obama has 316 electoral votes to McCain's 209. This would be a landslide victory in any election year. However, if the majority of those 316 votes were from weak or barely, I don't think any of us would be comfortable with those numbers. That's the idea for the EV strength metric: how comfortable can we be with the current EV numbers?

To give you an idea, a EV Strength factor of 100% would mean that Obama has all of his 316 EV's by a margin of greater than 10%. On the contrary, a 50% EV Strength rating would mean he could only count on half of those 316 EVs or, he could be comfortable knowing he would very likely win about 158 of them.

Presently, Obama's EV Strength rating is at 88% (his low was 81% on Jun 11, his high was 92% on Jul 18).
Looking at McCain, his current EV Strength rating is 53% (low of 46% on Jun 29, high of 69% on Jun 11).

Based on EV Strength, we can project, very comfortably, that Obama will take at least 278 EVs while McCain will take at least 110. That still leaves 150 EVs up for grabs, but even if McCain wins every single one, he can't win.

To give you an idea on how these numbers are trending, we've settled into a very stable period of EV Strength. Below is a graph of EV Strength since Obama won the nomination.


To give you an idea on how far apart the race is, I've created a ratio based on each candidates EV Strength. The ratio represents Obama's EV Strength compared to McCain. Presently, the ratio is 1.68 (high of 1.87 on Jun 29 and low of 1.17 on Jun 11). That means Obama's EV count is 68% stronger than McCain's, or that the EV spread itself is strong. At 2.0, this would mean that Obama's EVs are twice as strong as McCain's.

Below is a graph that shows the trend of the relative EV Strength (Obama-to-McCain):


So, remember this, while the race may look close from a popular vote polls, it's anything but close from the Electoral Vote perspective.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Wow...he just can't seal the deal....

...he's too skinny.

pffffft.

Thanks, Berni!

:kick:

[librechik]

2. thx, berni, for the great visuals

EVs are sorta like Elliot Waves. Went to see where McCain's wave would meet up with Obama's-- Sheesh, McCain's on the down end of the roller coaster and speeding up!

Damn "Liberal" media with their stupid polls.

[berni_mccoy]

40. I wish the media would at least MENTION electoral votes...

[nolabels]

3. But i'm a glutton for punishment.........

I need those right wing bigots and their buddies at corporate owned media to slog me some more :spank:

[berni_mccoy]

41. I'd laugh if it weren't true...

[sui generis]

4. glaring error

If the news, which the other 95% of likely voters uses as its only source of candidate information, says it's a tie, whether it is or not, it's a tie.

All the fancy statistical backflips in the world won't change reality if that other 95% believes what they hear on the news, and we're just preaching to the choir here, same as we ever have.

It is dismaying - but the media has tremendous influence in fucking up elections. Remember these two facts:

1. movies are vehicles for advertising.
2. elections and wars and weather are vehicles for advertising.

Even if Obama had a brazillian point lead, the news would still report it as a neck and neck horse race, and unless that "lead" was validated in population rather than sampling measures, chances are the 90 out of a hundred polled won't make a difference on reality.

Facts are, Obama won against Hillary by relatively thin margins in predominantly red states.

The big blue states for the most part backed Hillary, but even flipping that support to Obama you have as many people who will get out to vote against Obama because he's black and (fill in the redneck blank: muslim, gun grabber, terrorist supporter, military disbander) as there were people who got off the couch for the first time in 20 years to go vote against the evil gay married terrorists in those same red states.

I don't want to rely on anything but reality on the ground. Everything else is just a dangerous soporific.

[berni_mccoy]

5. I don't agree. Popular vote can be close while EV has a big difference. That's the election system

we live with.

And I'm using the same polling data from the same polling organizations that provide the state-by-state data.

The fact that the media is only reporting the popular vote data is a problem for mind-share, morale and motivation. Honestly, I'd love it if the media kept reporting a close race; this would prevent anyone from assuming Obama is going to win.

[FogerRox]

52. LBJ had a 90% EV win, but only 60% pop vote, yes Bernie, you are right.

[geek tragedy]

6. Most state polling is out of date.

For instance, this week's state polling will show that Obama lost ground. I guarantee it.

Why? Because this week's polling would have taken place during last week.

[berni_mccoy]

8. A week lag is not a big deal given the consistency of the trend.

[geek tragedy]

9. The trend changed last week.

Obama had his worst week of polling since clinching the nomination.

[berni_mccoy]

12. False statement and Apples and Oranges... you are comparing national poll to EV data

And BTW, a sweep of EV polls came in last week as well.

Furthermore, Obama did not have his worst week of polling since clinching the nomination.

[geek tragedy]

14. He's now behind in Rasmussen

and was tied in Gallup.

He's consistently been ahead by 3-7 points since clinching the nomination.

Something has changed, and for the worse.

[Moochy]

17. "Something has changed, and for the worse"

Yes, I took you off ignore.

[grantcart]

29. No that's not true this chart shows basically the same thing and is updated daily

It has about 5-6 new polls every day.

Also Phrigndumass weights the polls so that if they are in states that are done infrequently the older polls are given less weight, and finally just to make sure results are also checked every day against the figures at intrade. All sources confirm that what Berni is saying is 100% accurate.







The national tracking polls are completely bogus. If you want to check it out go state by state using the same polling companies and you will find that their state by state data does not corespond with their national data. Given that each state is using data samples about the same as each state it is easy to see which source would be more accurate.

If you want to save time you can just go to phrigndumass thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6583339 and he will do it for you.

Here is his popular vote total based on latest state by state polls note how similar it is to Berni's:




Why the difference? Its the weighting they give the parties. Gallup revealed last week for the national poll they include the same number of republicans as democrats even though every poll has shown that the number of people who now declare themselves Republican is about 10 points less than Democrats.

[Awsi Dooger]

45. A 10 point difference in party ID?

That's why I have little patience with the posters who are obsessed with state polls. The rookie mistakes are glaring. There is a foundational aspect to this stuff. You can't fall for the extremes. It's like '06 when some posters were believing the polls allowing Democrats a 10-15 point edge in the midterm.

Right now we're looking at a 4-6 point gap in party ID in November. And that's massive. Don't get me wrong. But using +10 is equivalent to asserting Obama leads by 24 in California. That's a specific example from one of those graphic obsessed threads. If you want to think so, fine. It must be a different California.

Besides, party ID is irrelevant compared to self-identified percentages. It's still basically a 21% liberal, 32% conservative nation. That's why our upside is so much less than the GOP. If a Democratic president had been stuck at sub 40% approval rating for 3+ years, the Republican candidate in an open race would be leading by 8+ points, probably double digits.

Obama is in excellent shape. He doesn't surrender our situational advantage, and McCain isn't special enough to overcome the GOP's predicament. I don't care about short term blips in polls, as much as knowledge of the '08 terrain.

[fasttense]

7. The the Gallup Poll Daily tracking scares folks her on DU.

Glad you posted reality for all to see.

Those folks who get all upset about the the Gallup Poll Daily tracking should note they had the bush way ahead in August 2004. Most other polls had Kerry ahead by 2 to 5 percent (which turned out to be true). We all know that bush lost the presidential election in 2004 but he rigged the counting and pretended to win. So you should be aware of how widely off base the Gallup Poll Daily tracking tends to be.

[geek tragedy]

10. Gallup + Rasmussen both showed him tanking.

If it were only one, I wouldn't care so much.

Both? Time to ring the alarm.

[Moochy]

11. "Time to Ring the alarm"

The Chicken Little Brand Alarm, Break in Case of daily tracking poll fluctuations. (on edit, why limit ourselves to one type of poll to freak out about??)

Also, it's good of you to so precisely state your intentions, geek.

[geek tragedy]

13. Losing a 9 point lead is not a fluctuation.

Falling behind for the first time in two months is not a fluctuation.

Better Chicken Little than an ostritch with its head in the sand.

[Moochy]

16. Indeed, how the sky falls!

Time to go and worry about it!

[tedoll78]

18. We get it.

If you have a quibble with how Obama runs his campaign, you're supposed to just shut up about it and continue to smile and sing-along with the happy talk here at DU.

Did I get that right?

[Moochy]

19. We?

Are you in a room with some freepers? You are free to post your worriesome concerns right here. Enjoy the banner ads! Curious why you use the royal we?

[tedoll78]

21. "We"..

as in, "those of us who have concerns about how the campaign is being run."

I take deep offense at the implication of your post. I've been a member here for years.

(edit: And I like how you avoided answering my post directly.)

[Moochy]

22. Thanks for your concern about the implications that you are a concern troll

[tedoll78]

23. Your refusal to answer my question speaks volumes.

Is dissent over campaign style allowed here or not?

[Moochy]

26. Get off the cross, martyr

[tedoll78]

27. I'll let your answer speak for itself.

Apparently name-calling is the best you can come-up with.

[geek tragedy]

24. I have been a strong Obama supporter throughout.

But, when I see things going badly, my instinct is to encourage the campaign to correct its mistakes instead of rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.

[Whisp]

37. how do you explain that the state polls do not add up to what the nat'l ones

are telling us on the teeeeveees?

I think That is the make crux of what these graphs are about - the fucking media and pollsters are lieing their asses off - again.

[berni_mccoy]

15. Thanks for your concern. Not. Actually, he's back down from a bounce. He's not tanking.

[geek tragedy]

25. He was ahead before his bounce.

Now he's either tied or behind.

That's what we call a BAD week.

[berni_mccoy]

28. Do you even bother to look before you say something false? Quit avoiding the topic of the OP

Take a look at this Gallup Graph:



It's clear the race was close before *and* after the bounce. Obama's lead was not always statistically significant.

Again, you are comparing Apples to Oranges. I'm not talking about Popular Vote polling. I'm talking about EV data.

[geek tragedy]

32. He was ahead in EVERY SINGLE DAY

before the foreign trip.

Over the weekend, he fell into a tie.

Today is the first time he's been behind in the Rasmussen poll.

[berni_mccoy]

33. Not by a statistically significant margin. And he has been tied before.

And again, you fail to acknowledge that this race is won by Electoral Votes.

[geek tragedy]

35. Check in with me on Friday.

Let's see how those state results are then.

[paparush]

20. Neocon Election Stealing Machine(tm) is tuned up and ready to make it "close"

M$M is ready to ignore glaring inconsistencies and avoid asking pertinent questions.
States are ready to stymie recounts.
Voters are ready to drool and nod and accept and embrace denial.

[grantcart]

30. Very nicely done.

As shown in the thread above your methodology confirms phrigndumass work very closely. Too bad some folks don't get it.

[berni_mccoy]

38. Thanks Grant.

[Coexist]

31. wow - this thread is attracting some interesting posts!

I appreciate it bernie_mccoy

[berni_mccoy]

34. You said it. I've not seen so much concern before... even during Kerry's campaign.

[bleever]

36. This is a very interesting way to look at the numbers.

Please keep us updated.

:thumbsup:

[berni_mccoy]

39. Not only is it interesting, but it's also more accurate than National Polls

Since National Polls are measuring popular vote, not the actual Electoral Vote, which is how Presidents are elected.

I'll keep posting this on a weekly basis. :-)

[gepetto41]

42. Yes. We are getting a bit paranoid here

it's all about the individual states, and Obama has a huge electoral college lead when we examine it that way. Let's relax a bit here.

[RNdaSilva]

51. Boost...

[iconicgnom]

43. Thanks!

[JCMach1]

44. National polls have tightened, it will take several weeks

for the state polls to catch-up as they occur less often.

Take nothing for granted...

[RNdaSilva]

46. Agree, and thanks for your effort.

Pessimism runs rampant here.

Obama will win in a landslide...electorally.

[mtnester]

47. As long as the Republicans exist as an organized party

this race will remain too close to call...I say that as a boots on the ground volunteer on election day in 2000, 2003, 2004, and 2006.

As long as Republicans can purge voter lists, send false info through the mail, mail out "required response" cards or "address verification response" cards or are allowed in the building as poll captains, AND, even if states that are FINALLY controlled by Dems in the SOS office, we STILL do not have true verified voting, this election WILL be too close to call...as Dems, we MUST remain vigilant, and absolutely prepare for cheating on a massive scale.

Do you REALLY think the Republican guard is going to simply run a nasty campaign and risk losing the White House AND a veto proof majority on the Senate? No, they will fight, cheat, and WORSE (frighteningly) if they felt it warranted it. These hard core individuals will do ANYTHING to keep that from happeening...we really have to stay ahead of them on this.

[davidpdx]

48. Berni, here is something to back up exactly the point you are making

I'm not sure if you saw this or not:

THE MYTH OF A TOSS-UP ELECTION


By Alan Abramowitz, Thomas E. Mann, and Larry J. Sabato



"Too close to call." "Within the margin of error." "A statistical dead heat." If you've been following news coverage of the 2008 presidential election, you're probably familiar with these phrases. Media commentary on the presidential horserace, reflecting the results of a series of new national polls, has strained to make a case for a hotly contested election that is essentially up for grabs.

Signs of Barack Obama's weaknesses allegedly abound. The huge generic Democratic Party advantage is not reflected in the McCain-Obama pairings in national polls. Why, according to the constant refrain, hasn't Obama put this election away? A large number of Clinton supporters in the primaries refuse to commit to Obama. White working class and senior voters tilt decidedly to McCain. Racial resentment limits Obama's support among these two critical voting blocs. Enthusiasm among young voters and African-Americans, two groups strongly attracted to Obama, is waning. Blah, blah, blah.


While no election outcome is guaranteed and McCain's prospects could improve over the next three and a half months, virtually all of the evidence that we have reviewed--historical patterns, structural features of this election cycle, and national and state polls conducted over the last several months--point to a comfortable Obama/Democratic party victory in November. Trumpeting this race as a toss-up, almost certain to produce another nail-biter finish, distorts the evidence and does a disservice to readers and viewers who rely upon such punditry. Again, maybe conditions will change in McCain's favor, and if they do, they should also be accurately described by the media. But current data do not justify calling this election a toss-up.

Consider the following.

Except for a few days when the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls showed a tie, Barack Obama has led John McCain in every national poll in the past two months. Obama's average margin has consistently been in the 4-6 point range during this time. By contrast, the polls in 2000 and 2004 showed much more variation over time. State polling results have also consistently given Obama the advantage. According to realclearpolitics.com, Obama is currently leading in 26 states and the District of Columbia with a total of 322 electoral votes; McCain is currently leading in 24 states with a total of 216 electoral votes. Obama is leading in every state carried by John Kerry in 2004 along with six states carried by George Bush: Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Indiana, Nevada and Colorado. A seventh Bush state, Virginia, is tied.

Obama is leading in 11 of the 12 swing states that were decided by a margin of five points or less in 2004 including five of the six that were carried by George Bush. And while Obama has a comfortable lead in every state that John Kerry won by a margin of more than five points in 2004, McCain is in a difficult battle in a number of states that Bush carried by a margin of more than five points including such solidly red states as Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, and North Carolina.

And remember these June and July polls may well understate Obama's eventual margin. Ronald Reagan did not capitalize on the huge structural advantage Republicans enjoyed in 1980 until after the party conventions and presidential debate. It took a while and a sufficient level of comfort with the challenger for anti-Carter votes to translate into support for Reagan. If Obama's performance over the last eighteen months is any guide, a similar pattern could unfold in 2008.

Aside from the horserace results, there is evidence of a growing Democratic party advantage in the electorate. A recent analysis by Rhodes Cook of voter registration data in 29 states and the District of Columbia that permit registration by party shows that since November of 2004, Democratic registration has increased by almost 700,000 while Republican registration has declined by almost one million.

Democrats now enjoy a substantial lead over Republicans in voter identification. According to the Gallup Poll, the two parties have gone from near parity four years ago to a 12 point Democratic advantage in the first half of 2008. And polling data continue to show that Democrats are more satisfied with their party's nominee than Republicans voters and more highly motivated to vote. While Republicans normally benefit from higher turnout among their supporters, that may not be the case this year.

In order to defeat Barack Obama, John McCain will have to convince a lot of currently disgruntled Republicans to turn out and vote for him. Yet mobilizing the Republican base, a strategy employed successfully by Karl Rove in 2002 and 2004, won't be enough for McCain to win in 2008. He'll also have to convince a majority of independents and a substantial number of Democrats to vote for him. That's a task that proved too difficult even for Rove in the 2006 midterm election and it may be still more difficult in 2008. That's because since 2006 the political environment has gone from bad to worse for Republicans.

It is no exaggeration to say that the political environment this year is one of the worst for a party in the White House in the past sixty years. You have to go all the way back to 1952 to find an election involving the combination of an unpopular president, an unpopular war, and an economy teetering on the brink of recession. 1952 was also the last time the party in power wasn't represented by either the incumbent president or the incumbent vice-president. But the fact that Democrat Harry Truman wasn't on the ballot didn't stop Republican Dwight Eisenhower from inflicting a crushing defeat on Truman's would-be successor, Adlai Stevenson.

Barack Obama is not a national hero like Dwight Eisenhower, and George Bush is no Harry Truman. But if history is any guide, and absent a dramatic change in election fundamentals or an utter collapse of the Obama candidacy, John McCain is likely to suffer the same fate as Adlai Stevenson.


http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=AIA2008072401

[RNdaSilva]

49. Boost...

[SidneyCarton]

50. Thanks Berni,

Perspective helps.

[barack the house]

53. It's the vote that counts just like the pledged.

[Scurrilous]

54. Kick

:kick: