Path to 270: Obama's standing in every swing state (March edition)
It's been about a month since I published my first look at Obama's position in the swing states. You can view that post here and compare it to this month's numbers.
We're roughly eight months away from the 2012 election and Pres. Obama has solidified his lead in some states, while overtaking, or tying, Romney in others. The map today is a bit more positive than it looked a month ago, when Obama led Romney 299-224 with 15 electoral votes up for grabs. Even in that map, though, Obama led in enough swing states to comfortably cross the 270 needed to claim reelection.
Each poll is as recent as possible. Because we've moved on to a new month, though, I've dropped polls prior to December. This changed the results somewhat, but not enough to override an Obama lead (you'll mostly notice this in Ohio, which I'll get to later).
So, here's the results from each swing state (I have still yet to add Georgia, Texas and South Carolina - though I may add them if Obama can consistently poll within five points in each of those three states):
The big differences from last month's map comes in Missouri, Florida and New Hampshire. Romney led in all three, now, Obama leads in two (Florida, though minimal, and New Hampshire), while tying Romney in Missouri.
Obama has also consolidated his support in some key Democratic-leaning states, improving on his totals in Wisconsin (by 5.34), Pennsylvania (by 1.97), Minnesota (by 2.75) and Michigan (by 12.05).
Clearly Michigan has swung the most of these states. Obama led by a mere 1.5% last month and now his average lead is 14. This is important because it shows that Obama's margins are realigning with what he saw in 2008. If Obama is going to win Michigan by 14, it only reasons he'll perform at a level needed to carry other swing states - like Ohio, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.
Of those four, Obama has improved his standing in North Carolina (last month, he and Romney were exactly tied, now Obama holds a .67 lead, which is small, but almost identical to the margin he won the state in '08), and only marginally improved in Virginia (leads it by 2.34). Ohio is one state where his lead has declined a bit. BUT, before you look at this as a negative, realize that I took out two older polls that had Obama up 8 and 3. I'm skeptical of that FOX News poll (and not because it comes from FOX News) because the internals are weird and, as you can see, it doesn't jive with the other polls. Obama being at 38% in the state is the lowest I've seen him in any recent poll, even going back to 2011. But I'm including it because I don't want to be biased and I'm hoping the other polls will average that one out.
In this case, Obama's lead went from 4 points last month to 1.34 this month. But that's with the FOX News poll. Take that out of the equation and Obama's lead bumps up to 2.8. Not great, obviously, but, to put this into perspective, the average polling of the polls leading up to the '08 election (final days), had Obama winning Ohio by only 2.5 - so, again, he's performing at about the level the polls had him in 2008. For what it's worth, he won the state by 4 points.
Don't be surprised if some other polls released in the coming days/week have Romney polling better there. He'll be campaigning heavily in the state right now because of the primaries and I expect, though he didn't see it in Michigan, a potential bump. Just keep that in mind.
With all those averages in mind, here's how the electoral map would look if the election were held today. Remember, I don't do toss-up states - this is a prediction based on the polls on who will win what state. This is how it will be throughout the election period. I don't guess or speculate on who will win in this regard, the electoral map is essentially who's leading in the polls at that given time (even if by a very, very, very narrow margin).
As I said last month, this is surprisingly accurate. I know that sounds unlikely when you're dealing with margins of errors, many states that, in '08, certainly fell within the polling MOE, but, in my polling last go around, I only missed one state. I had Indiana going to McCain. Every other state, the polls were very similar to the final result and Obama did not lose a state in '08 that he had a lead in on election day (again, no matter how small...even if it was .1 percent).
Here is the map:
[img]
[/img]
Obama: 347
Romney: 181
Undecided: 10
*270 to win
Obama now wins every state he won in 2008 sans Indiana and Missouri, as it was in '08, now becomes a coin flip.
The biggest change, as I've hinted at, was Florida. Romney led Florida by .10 percent last month and now Obama holds a .78 lead. Not quite a dramatic improvement, but that's only 1.02 percent off where the average poll put his lead over McCain on election day.
So, again, Obama is polling roughly around the same place he was at the end of the '08 election. That's good news. It means, if the economy continues to improve, he can significantly improve on his leads in some of these states. But these states are considered swing states for a reason. There is the possibility, like four years ago, these major states go to Obama by a narrow margin.
Ultimately, what we can take away from this map is that, once again, Romney still doesn't come close to the 270 needed to win. He's almost 100 electoral votes short and his path to gain those 100 electoral votes aren't just tied to Ohio & Florida, as was the case for Bush in '00 & '04. He can't afford to lose Missouri...or Virginia...or North Carolina...or a grouping of Colorado/Nevada/New Mexico.
The latter is important because those three states are either strong Obama (New Mexico), likely Obama (Colorado) or lean Obama (Nevada). That doesn't account for Arizona, where Romney's average lead is now just 3.67 percent. Obama could theoretically lose Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Virginia and North Carolina, but with wins in those three states, still win the election.
That's important more than anything. As much as we fixate on Ohio/Florida, those states aren't must-wins anymore. They were eight and twelve years ago, but today, they're only states that will positively end any chance of a Republican victory. I think Obama will win both, but he doesn't need to and that's always a good feeling. He also doesn't need to win Virginia or North Carolina.
Of course, there are also states Obama can't lose. Pennsylvania is just as important to an Obama victory as California. But it's good to see his lead there, in probably the most right-leaning Democratic state, at now five points (as opposed to just three) and it's growing.
So, heading deeper into the month of March, Obama is in a good position to win reelection comfortably. A lot can change and we've still got eight months until votes are cast. But for the time being, Romney's losing ground and Obama is recapturing the same voters who went to him four years ago.
= new reply since forum marked as read
rat post ! :>
After watching some of Obama's recent speeches, I have no doubt he will pull this off, none.
So much so, that I have already pre-paid for an apt in DC for his inauguration
Now, I am thinking about buying Intrade shares. He's at 59.9% there. Shares are only
$5.99 and with a 40.1% return by November.
Thanks for pulling all this together.
He is in a great position now, before people see the two men side by side. I think everyone is underestimating
the huge effect that will have of seeing a calm, intelligent, caring leader next to that jittery, shallow, too-rich
guy.
I've passed this on to a couple of friends & supporters. Hope you don't mind. 
270-268 (NH puts them over the top)
Disclaimer: I dont think this will happen, just saying this is the "most plausible", even if unlikely.
btw, welcome!
I appreciate the welcome. 
I think the historical advantage (the voting) is so much in President Obama's favor that the Republican Party - behind closed doors - figure it to be that way as well.
I wonder if any talk was generated here, just after the outcome of the 2008 U.S. presidential election, of us being in a realigning period favorable with the presidency for the Democratic Party. That is a topic that was written about, in some articles, after that election. (I suspect it's the reason for the Republican Jihad calling themselves Republican Governors from the Midwest.)
I recall some GOP hack from Wall Street Journal bloviated and could have saved us all time by writing "no"; but I saw examples pointing to "yes."