The Zogby Electoral College Map

[babsbunny]

http://www.zogby.com/50state/

Pollster John Zogby's analysis: "As we saw in our August 14-16 Reuters/Zogby poll that has McCain ahead nationally, the dynamic of the race appears to be changing. Our August 15-19, 2008 battleground poll of 10 states reflects that change, and is the basis for moving Florida into the McCain column and Colorado and New Hampshire from Obama to undecided.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Three Points

1) This is going to be a close race

2) I wish it wasn't

3) John Zo(m)by is the Joe Isuzu of polling...

[WeDidIt]

24. Thre answers to your points, and one counterpoint

1) There is no doubt

2) There is no doubt

3) Irrelevent. His map pretty much coincides with every other map in the country and it all pretty much tells the tale. Out of a list of several battleground states, Barack Obama can win the race with just on or a combination of a couple of smaller states whereas John McCain must take ALL save one or two of those batleground states.

COUNTER POINT: John McCain has more of an uphill climb than Obama.

[creature of habit]

2. yep, Ohio

If you add all the Democrat votes in the primary and add all the Republican votes in the primary and then do the math it equals 1,162,631 more Democratic votes.


That's a lot of ground to cover. With a large turnout I think O will win Ohio not by a little , but by alot.

[creature of habit]

5. OH primary results

http://news.aol.com/elections/primary/state/oh

[saltpoint]

17. I agree, and it may be a margin bolstered in districts Democrats

ordinarily struggle to compete in.

I think a larger % of Democratic votes in those districts makes Ohio less and less "stealable," in the Kenneth Blackwell sense of the word.

This time there's a Democratic slate of folks running the show. I think the election will go more smoothly and I love your prediction.

[lonestarnot]

20. Did you read the caging post here yesterday?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3934932

[saltpoint]

23. Hi, lonestarnot.

I read about this, but overall I'm more inspired by the huge new Democratic registration rolls in Ohio and elsewhere.

A lot of people in counties like Ohio's SW Warren County are ready to avenge the "loss" in 2004. A lot of people thought that election was stolen and I think they're going to redouble their ferocity.

In 2004, if the totals are to be believed, Kerry-Edwards carried only Montgomery County in that SW corner of the state.

I think they did better than that in reality and I think Obama-Biden is going to put McCain-Palin to the fire this time.

Which means that Mean Jean Schmidt may also face an upset loss from Democrat Victoria Wulsin. O god how I would love that.

[lonestarnot]

26. Well you know,

I hope you are right! :hi: :hug:

[maui9002]

41. Are there any propositions on the ballot that could affect turnout?

I seem to recall that in 2004 there was a marriage amendment on the ballot that may have turned out the evangelical vote in big numbers. Are there any similar propositions on this year's ballot in Ohio?

[saltpoint]

47. Hi, maui9002. I don't know.

Let me poke around the web a while and see what I can come up with.

---

Edited to add:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ohio_2008_ballot_measures

[maui9002]

50. Thx for the follow up; it doesn't look like there is anything

that should significantly affect turnout, which is a good thing for us.

[saltpoint]

51. Yes. And if we can carry Ohio, it will be a great pleasure to

watch it light up blue on that tv screen in November.

If McCain can't carry Ohio I think it's curtains for him.

[terrya]

3. South Carolina is undecided???

I would have thought that was a McCain lock.

Ditto Missouri and Indiana.

[ps1074]

10. yeah, strange that no other pollster has it htat way

I mean he has Obama leading in NC and SC.

The other strange thing is Barr polling that well in a bunch of states: 5% in VA, 6% in SC, 7% in IN, 8% in OH, 8% in Co, 10% in NV. This surely can't be true...

[On the Road]

13. Maybe It's a Function of

not controlling properly for voters without a landline.

[maui9002]

42. That's what gives me hope

Obama's campaign hasn't made it a secret that they plan on being competitive in a number of states that we've conceded in the past. But due to the money the Obama campaign has been able to raise, he can make a run in a number of states that McCain will be forced to defend--not just the states you mentioned, but Virginia, Montana, Colorado, Nevada, and others that typically have gone Republican in the recent past.

[Coexist]

4. oy.. zogby

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. About As Useful As A Ouija Board...

~

[gabeana]

6. His polling does not make sense, here's why

the map puts Colorado in the too close to call eventhough Obama is up 6, okay but then Map puts florida in the McCain camp where he is only up 3 over Obama
What gives besides it being Zogby

[POAS]

8. Here is what they say about Colorado

With a lead by Obama of 44 to 38 percent with 8% undecided and the rest split among others they say:

"Obama may have the edge now, but McCain's current national momentum leads us to hedge our bets on Colorado and switch this state from blue to purple. Support for Bob Barr brings too much uncertainty to the call, but that support is uncertain, especially in a state where a conservative GOP running mate may mitigate Barr's appeal."

[Motown_Johnny]

9. I have been posting that map for weeks. I like it but the info is starting to get old

most of it has not been updated lately

[underpants]

11. Clinton in '92- the coasts and down the Mississippi

with Georgia in there too.

Looking a lot like that. Maybe VA or NC ...hold it NC???? :rofl: wow talk about a bad Republican brand!!!

[Thirtieschild]

40. Georgia for Clinton in '92

I lived in Georgia then and, as I remember it, Georgia went for Clinton because Zell made Clinton's nominating speech. Without a popular Dem governor (which Zell was then), it's a strictly red state.

[creature of habit]

12. even in the red Obama's margin is close except for

Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee

[Hamlette]

14. A more reasoned analysis taking in all polls plus other information

From Nate Silver at 538. The percentage numbers by each state are not polls but his predictions on who will win. At his site, he has most polls by state and an analysis of what they mean. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

[POAS]

16. 538 has the Electoral College

at Obama 310 McCain 227.

That is probably too high for Obama, but I'll take it!

[terrya]

18. These are predictions? Looks damn good to me!

We sweep New England (including New Hamphire), the West Coast, pickup Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico and Colorado, and a big chunk of the Midwest.

Looks good to me. :-)

[demwing]

19. I'm Sorry, I don't buy it

Anyone who's claiming that ANY state will go 100% in either direction is either joking or choking.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I Suspect I Can Predict The Winner Of 40 to 45 States Right Now

In fact I would be willing to put money on my predictions...

That being said, there are states like FL, CO, VA, and OH that I wouldn't care to wager on the winner...

[PermanentRevolution]

22. It's probabilities, not vote percentages

100% chance that it'll go for the candidate in question, not that 100% of the state will vote for them.

[demwing]

27. I've searched the 538 page, cannot find that info

Can y'all please give me a heads up where that explanation can be found?

[PermanentRevolution]

34. It's in the "Poll Detail" part.

Along the right side, scroll down to the details per state. Each one lists the current polls, the polling average, results of the simulation runs, and boils it down into a projected outcome. The next line is "Win %" which takes that outcome and converts it to a percentage probability of a win for Obama or McCain, and those are the numbers listed on the left side in the state-by-state breakdown. They're "Win %" numbers, not the projected vote outcomes per state.

Hope that made sense.

[demwing]

45. Yes it did, and thank you for the info.

Paradox Resolved!

[No Elephants]

29. You seem to be confusing popular votes and electoral votes. You don't need 100% of a state's

popular vote to take all of its electoral vote, only a majority. It's winner take all.

[demwing]

31. AHA! Another interpretation of the 100%

Different from the two above, who saw it as 100% certainty that a state would go to candidate X.

Who has the right answer? Where on the page is the truth?

[RichardRay]

38. Look at his FAQ: Step 6. Simulations and Win Probablilities

He does a 10,000 run Monte Carlo simulation. The Win Percentage is the portion of those outcomes in which a candidate wins the election. So, a 100% Win Percentage for Candidate A means that Candidate A wins all of the simulations - not how much he/she wins by, just that he/she wins.

I really don't know why anyone pays any attention to any single poll or pollster's projection when sites like fivethirtyeight.com and realclearpolitics.com are available. 538 personally leans left, I believe RCP personally leans right, but they both have a methodology that's well thought out and that they follow regardless of which way the wind blows. Fivethirtyeight is especially interesting as the methodology is completely transparent and there is a lively discussion among people who actually know something about statistics and those who do the projections.

[RichardRay]

36. And as a resident of Wyoming, I can tell you...

that for all intents and purposes Wyoming will go 100% Republican. My little corner up here around the Tetons will go for Obama and the Democratic congressional candidates, but statewide you'd have to get several decimal places to right right to tell the difference between 100% and what's actually going to happen.

[KharmaTrain]

39. Not Voting Percentage...

These are computer models on the probability of who will win the state. 99% means a 99% probability that candidate will win the state, not 99% of the vote (while I could almost see Obama taking 99$ in DC).

These people do it using models and simulations typical to running sports stats and had a very handle during the primaries. They aren't too shabby on sports either.

[Hamlette]

43. He is NOT predicting ANY STATE will go 100% in either direction

As I noted, what I posted is how sure he is of his prediction. He believes that Utah, for instance, will go McCain in 99% out of 100% models. (I'm thinking that the 1% of the time Utah votes Obama is if hell freezes over).

His prediction for the VOTE in Utah is 62 to 31% (on the right hand of his site.)

He runs models. His full time paying job is to do stats for baseball. Who the hell knows if he is any where close to right but if you follow his site, you can see he has done some analysis.

He did a thing a couple of months ago where he analyzed each state's voting history and demographics. He compared them to other states and found states that were like each other and some states (sticking with the Utah example) which were unlike any other state. He fed that info (as I understand it) into his model too.

[saltpoint]

15. With respect to the times he is right, I don't think Zogby's

numbers reflect the actual temperament of the presidential race, and thus I don't trust his conclusions.

Plus, right or wrong, it's a snapshot instead of a "sustained mosaic."

I think Obama's advantage is fiercer, deeper, and more widespread than Zogby suggests.

[demwing]

25. The Zogby Map Is arbitrary and subjective (read = Bullshit!)

What makes one state purple doesn't apply in another state. Also, Zogby often just refuses to see his own data. Zogby shows Obama leading McCain by 3 in Arizona, but still call AZ solid Red, because its McCain's "home state."

At this point in the game, if Obama is leading in McCain's home, I'd call that state (at least) purple. McCain should be kicking Obama's ass there. Imagine how Zogby would view it if Illinois were falling to McCain by 3?

[phrigndumass]

28. Everyone should become a Zogby member so they can take the polls

The freepers are obviously already doing this ... It's "members only" and conducted entirely on the internet.

http://interactive.zogby.com/pollregistration/registration/

[debbierlus]

30. Arkansas has Obama up by two but it is colored RED?

Texas is also in the too close to call category.

Why the hell doesn't Zogby use the DATA - instead of discounting the polls?

He says things like 'toss-up - but should go to McCain'....

How unprofessional and sorry.

[rainbow4321]

32. Ditto for down here in TX

Going by his map:

McCain - 42%
Obama - 39%
Barr - 6%
Nader - 2%
Someone else - 4%
Undecided - 7%


Pretty sure we would have heard it by now if TX was suddenly a swing state.

[demwing]

33. Apply Zogby's logic

on Arizona, to an unlikely similar theoretical result from Illinois. If IL were down by 3, it would be bad for Obama. AZ down by three is still red.

Nonsense.

[Drunken Irishman]

35. It's because he realizes his polls are extremely flawed.

I think most everyone admits Obama won't win Arkansas, so even though his poll shows him up there, he has to color it red for McCain. It's basically him saying, "Yeah my polls really are shit...so I'll just color it red because I know they're shit.".

[johnaries]

37. Electoral-Vote.com has Obama with 301

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Of course he counts the "leaning" states that Zogby calls "too close to call". Also, he does an average of all polls rather than his own polls. Of course, he missed the "official count" of the Election in 2004 - but we all know what happened there and I suspect he was right on the money.

Interesting, this day in 2004 Kerry only had 247 - Bush 275.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[Critters2]

44. I think people are underestimating the African American vote in the deep South. nt

[rainbow4321]

46. I think so, too. Just did some blockwalking in an AA neighborhood today

A group of us who are voter registrars (deputized by the county to register voters) went and did a voter registration blockwalk this weekend and most of the people were already registered and fired up for election day..making comments like "we need the CHANGE", another house had a huge Obama sign on their front door, others responded with "Oh, NO, don't worry, we are registered!!".
I registered 4 people, others in the group each got at least a couple of people each to register. Plans are to do "non-partisan blockwalks" every weekend thru Oct 6th (TX deadline for registering to vote) and then in Oct we can change over to actual partisan walks to remind voters to get out and vote.

There's block walks like this going on all over our county we were told today. They have actual addresses of Dem residents and people not registered, etc.. as well as repub resident addresses.
It was really encouraging..people inviting us into their homes while they filled out the needed paperwork, chatting, showing us their pets.

[baldguy]

48. Look at AZ

Obama 42%, McCain 39% but it's red?

And TX is solid red with McCain 42%, Obama 39% - a 3% margin. But NC with Obama 47%, McCain 39% is purple? So's SC at Obama 42%, McCain 41% & MO at Obama 42%, McCain 40% & NH at McCain 42%, Obama 38%.

If it's close in favor of Obama, it's too close to call. But if it's close in favor of McCain - and sometimes even if it isn't - it's a solid win for him.

[writes3000]

49. Zogby should be deeply, deeply ashamed. Just horribly inconsistent. nt

[samuraiguppy]

52. Zogby sucks n/t