Last Polling Predicts Obama Will Win

According to the latest and last numbers from polling analysts, the most likely scenario is that Obama will get 303 electoral votes and win the popular vote with a margin of around 2%. But Florida is back in play. If it goes for Obama, he will get 332 electoral votes.

The number crunchers –the math nerds who process mountains of polling data to make predictions– are singing the same song today. Obama is very likely to win. He has a statistically significant advantage in enough battleground states to get more than the 270 electoral votes he needs for reelection.

After Sandy, the momentum swung back to him. To the horror of Romney's team, the final days of the campaign saw all national and state polling trending towards Obama. Only North Carolina seems safe to Romney. And on the very day of the election, Florida is back in play.

The prediction of 303 electoral votes for Obama assumes Romney will carry North Carolina and Florida. But at least three analysts (FiveThirtyEight, Pollster and Princeton Election Consortium) put Florida as too close to call. The others give the advantage to Romney by a very small margin. If Obama ends up carrying Florida, he'll win with 332 electoral votes. But then, Rick Scott is working hard at keeping this from happening.

When national polling was favoring Romney, he could hope to pull an upset in states where Obama was leading. But with Obama ahead in the national average, his chances of flipping Obama-weak states are greatly reduced.

Ohio is pivotal for the electoral college result. Obama's numbers are strong there. By carrying Ohio, Obama can win with 271 electoral votes even if he loses Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia. But he's ahead in those states (solidly in Nevada and Ohio, less so in the other three). Romney's task of flipping any of those states is daunting. Nate Silver puts the chances of Obama carrying those states as follows:

• Nevada:                 93.4%
• Ohio:                     90.6%
• New Hampshire:   84.6%
• Colorado:              79.7%
• Virginia:                79.4%

Which means that Romney's chances range from 6.4% in Nevada to 20.6% in Virginia.

Romney's outlook is stark not only because of the latest polling. During the campaign, he never was ahead in enough battleground states to be ahead in the electoral college contest. Months of state polling data would have to be wrong for Romney to win this election.

Politics by The Numbers gives the lowest estimate of electoral votes to Obama, because it predicts that Romney will carry the 13 electoral votes from Virginia.

	538	Pollster	Poll Tracker	Electoral Vote (1)	Princeton Election Consortium	Election Projection	Politics by the numbers (2)	Real Clear Politics
Popular Vote / (Chance of winning)	50.8 – 48.3 (90.9%)	48.1 – 46.7 (90%)	48.8 – 48.2	+0.8	+2.46 (3) (99.2%)	49.5 - 49.0	51.4 - ---	48.8 - 48.1
Electoral College (270 to win)	313	332 / 303	303	303	312	303	290	303
Colorado	+2.5	+1.8	+3.1	+1.0	+2.0	+2.43	NA	+1.5
Florida	Tie	+0.5	+1.2	+2.0	Tie	+1.5	NA	+1.5
Iowa	+3.2	+2.6	+2.3	+3.0	+2.0	+2.4	NA	+2.4
Nevada	+4.5	+3.5	+4.7	+4.0	+5.0	+3.4	NA	+2.8
New Hampshire	+3.5	+2.4	+2.8	+3.0	+2.0	+2.7	NA	+2.0
North Carolina	+1.7	+1.5	+1.2	Tie	+2.0	+3.4	NA	+3.0
Ohio	+3.6	+3.4	+2.4	+3.0	+3.0	+1.6	NA	+2.9
Virginia	+2.0	+1.9	+1.8	+3.0	+2.0	+1.07	NA	+0.3

(1) Site does not include popular vote prediction
(2) Site does not include state estimates
(3) This is PEC Meta-margin

Some observers feared that conservative "poll watchers" may affect turnout or inhibit participation. From the news today, it looks unlikely. You can read here, here and here for some news about what's going on with them. It seems that after they were too aggressive during Wisconsin recall election, election authorities are watching the poll watchers closely.

This is my last post for this election. Go out and vote if you haven't done it yet.

Poll Aggregators Roundup – Saturday, 11/3/12

Poll aggregators agree: it's Obama's election to lose. To Romney supporters they say: beware of pundits' blabber about a toss-up. To Obama supporters they caution: don't begin to celebrate just yet.

The eight poll aggregators on the table below have different methodologies, from statistical models all of their own (like Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight) to simple poll averages (like RealClearPolitics). They all include hundreds or thousands of polls and do frequent updates, some of them so fast that when I finish this post their numbers might already have changed. Some are run by liberal statisticians; there's one libertarian who leans Democrat (Electoral Vote) and one self-professed Republican (Election Projection). They all try to crunch the numbers in an honest way, because their reputation depends on getting their predictions right and close to the results.

And they all have the same prediction: Obama is going to win the electoral college and is also ahead on the popular vote. Their estimate of electoral votes varies; the highest is 323 (Princeton Election Consortium) and the lowest is 281 (some of them –like Pollster– do not include tossup states in their estimate). And except for the Republican leaning Election Projection, they predict that Obama will also win the national popular vote.

Blue indicates Obama is ahead; red, that Romney is ahead. I included only the states where, according to FiveThirtyEight, either candidate's chance of winning is less than 90%. The consensus is that the states on the list are closest ones. 

Take a look at the numbers. You will see why pundits are wrong when they say the election is a toss-up. But Obama hasn't locked the election yet. For a comment on that, read after the table.

	538	Pollster	Poll Tracker	Electoral Vote (1)	Princeton Election Consortium	Election Projection	Politics by the numbers (2)	Real Clear Politics
Popular Vote	50.6 – 48.4	47.4 – 47.2	47.9 – 47.5	NA	+2.98	49 - 49.4	51.44 - 48.56	47.4 - 47.3
Electoral College (270 to win)	305.3	281	303	281	323	290	281	290
Colorado	+1.5	+1.5	+2.1	Tie	+1.0	+0.91	NA	+1.0
Florida	+0.4	+0.3	+1.2	Tie	+1.0	+0.9	NA	+1.4
Iowa	+3.1	+3.4	+3.1	+3.0	+3.0	+2.1	NA	+2.0
Nevada	+3.9	+3.7	+4.8	+3.0	+4.0	+3.0	NA	+2.7
New Hampshire	+3.3	+2.7	+4.3	+3.0	+2.0	+1.4	NA	+1.8
North Carolina	+2.5	+2.3	+1.5	+2.0	+0.5	+4.0	NA	+3.8
Ohio	+2.9	+3.0	+3.0	+3.0	+3.0	+0.4	NA	+2.9
Virginia	+1.2	+0.9	+2.1	Tie	+2.0	Tie	NA	+0.3

(1) Site does not include popular vote prediction
(2) Site does not include state estimates

Democrats hope for a non rainy day

Some sites calculate Obama's chance of winning.  FiveThirtyEight gives him 83.7%. Princeton Election Consortium gives him 98%. Politics by the numbers, 86.64. What does this mean? That Obama can still lose –but he has less ways to lose than Romney.

Let's assume that his odds are 80% (in 4 out of 5 cases, he wins the election). Sites like 538 run millions of simulations of voting scenarios on election day and make their prediction. 80% chance of Obama winning mean that 20% of the simulations indicate voting scenarios in which Romney wins.

For those who object, "But an election is a one-off event," think of the weather prediction. I live in Los Angeles. Two weeks ago, the weather forecast predicted a 20% chance of rain. The prediction implied an 80% chance of no rain, but it rained that night. How good is the prediction? If it rains 1 out of 5 times when the forecast predicts 20% chance of rain, then the prediction is quite good.

Romney can still win, but the voting scenarios for him to do so are greatly diminished. What Democrats can hope for is that it doesn't rain on their parade.

Mitt's Blahmentum

Romney Has the Negative Momentum He Fought So Hard to Avoid

Fridays's (November 2nd) polls tell a story Romney's campaign may dread. He's not only behind in battleground states, the popular vote seemed to be trending Obama too. Nate Silver prepared a graphic that shows Obama ahead in the national polls by +1.1, continuing a trend that started roughly after Sandy (I'm not saying there's causation there). 

Source: FiveThirtyEight

I encourage you to go to Silver's post, in which he argues that Romney is toast unless state polls are wrong. And to prove his point, Silver prepared another table that Romney won't like, not even a little bit. It shows the latest battleground state polling:

Source: FiveThirtyEight

Yes, it's very blue. It doesn't include North Carolina, the only battleground state Romney seems to be holding onto with some degree of certainty. What the polling shows is that Obama is peeling away. Is there momentum? I have no idea. I'll try to guess that Silver would tell you –in his statistically cautious style– that there's not enough data to say that Obama has momentum, but the polls are certainly trending his way. Or something like that. Read him and you'll understand what I mean.

Huckabee, Eternal Damnation and The Election of 1800

Huckabee's new ad calls to vote for Christian values, implies that not doing so is anti-Christian, and mentions religion liberty as a reason to do so. Does he know that in 1800 Rev. Linn made the same argument against Thomas Jefferson, because the forefather had crafted the first bill guaranteeing freedom of (and from) religion in 1777?

Mike Huckabee has released a new ad entitled "The Test of Fire." It urges voters to cast their ballot according to Christian values. Against a fiery background that resembles more Vulcan's smithy than a Christian hell, Huckabee narrates the ad with a deep, solemn voice:

“Christians across the nation will have an opportunity to shape the future for our generation and generations to come. Many issues are at stake, but some issues are not negotiable: The right to life from conception to natural death. Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined. It is an egregious violation of our cherished principle of religious liberty for the government to force the church to buy the kind of insurance that leads to the taking of innocent human life.

“Your vote will affect the future and be recorded in eternity. Will you vote the values that will stand the test of fire? This is Mike Huckabee asking you to join me November the 6th and vote based on values that will stand the test of fire.”

Neither Obama nor Romney are mentioned by name, but it's quite clear what the ad suggests: voting for Obama will make Christian values crumble for generations to come. Which is exactly what Rev. William Linn argued against Jefferson in 1800 on a now famous pamphlet:

"The election of any man avowing the principles of Mr. Jefferson would destroy religion, introduce immorality and loosen all the bonds of society. To vote for Jefferson is no less than a rebellion against God." (Thomas Jefferson: A Life, by Willard Sterne Randall, p.543)

Jefferson was then considered an atheist (he was a deist) for having written the first legislation that guarantee freedom of religion and established the separation between church and state. He crafted it in 1777, proposed it to the Virginia legislature in 1779, and saw it passed in 1786. It’s the precursor to the religious aspects of the First Amendment.

Of course, back then, like now, some people said America was a Christian nation and it should elect presidents that protect Christian values through legislation. Jefferson believed in God, but he thought every person’s relationship with God was a private matter, not something upon which the government should base any legislation. I agree. Allowing non-Christians to have insurance Christians don’t approve of won’t make a Christian less of a Christian: nobody is forcing that person to perform acts that go against her values, much in the same way having dental insurance doesn’t force you to go to the dentist. But forcing a non-Christian to have shabby insurance because legislation has to follow religious principles is a violation of that person’s freedom of religion.

But let Thomas Jefferson himself respond to Mr. Huckabee, the way he did when Baptists asked him to establish a religious holiday in 1802:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

So, Mr. Huckabee, abide the wall and keep your Christian paws off my insurance. I intend to live my life as a non-Christian. You are free to live yours however you want.

"THE RAPE THING" AND THE GOP

Number of days a Republican candidate hasn't mentioned rape and abortion reverts back to zero.

Here's what John Koster, a GOP House candidate, said about "the rape thing:" "[I]t's like, how does putting more violence onto a woman's body and taking the life of an innocent child that's a consequence of this crime – how does that make it better? You know what I mean?"

What Koster seems to mean is that he doesn't mind the violence you perpetrate against a woman's body and mind when you force her to have a baby engendered by a violent and traumatic act. How does using the state might to take away her choices make it better? He's an old-school guy. That question doesn't cross his mind.

Koster added his name to a now infamous roster of rape-obsessed GOP politicians during this election season: Todd Akin and his "legitimate rape" comment; Richard Mourdock and his assertion that a pregnancy from rape "is something that God intended;" Joe Walsh (who finally settled his "deadbeat dad" problem) went further: he opposes abortion for rape, incest or danger for the life or health of the mother.

These cases got so much press that you'd think they don't represent the Republican mainstream. But they do. The Daily Kos prepared a list that 22 Minnesota Republicans who agree with Mourdock, and Slate has a comprehensive article about the "No Exception consensus" among extremist Republicans.

And let us not forget about Paul Ryan. The VP candidate was one of 145 cosponsors of the Protect Life Act, passed by the House in October 2011. The measure would allow hospitals to refuse to "participate in" or "provide referrals" for abortion. That is, if you were to have an abortion related emergency, you'd be left to die on your own.

Back in August, way before all the supposed GOP "gaffes," Mother Jones prepared a rundown of extreme anti-abortion legislation cosponsored by Ryan since 2005. One included a rare provision that equated in vitro fertilization with legal murder.

In other words, Republicans propose an alternate universe in which they would force you to keep a child if you get raped, and prosecute you if you use in vitro fertilization.

Neocon's New Doctrine: Ignore Evidence and Data When You Don't Like Them

In 2010, conservatives didn't complain when Silver predicted big Republican wins. Now, they say he's too liberal and too gay to crunch the numbers.

Nate Silver, and the book anyone should read
before questioning his methods.

Neocons seem to have developed a gag reflex all of their own. When evidence and data contradicts them, they ignore the evidence and attack the person presenting it.

If they really want to have a fit, they should follow the four most trafficked poll aggregator sites: Silver's 538, PollTracker from Talking Points Memo, Pollster on THP and RealClearPolitics (RCP). All show that Obama is likely to win the election, because he's leading in battleground states and has more ways to get the 270 electoral votes needed to win. (Even RCP –which uses simple average and gives the most favorable numbers to Romney– says so).

Were they attacking Silver when, in 2010, he predicted big Republican wins in the House (and when the wins fell within his model's margin of error)? No, they were not. Silver was neither less gay nor less liberal when he predicted a Republican win. Now he predicts a likely victory for Obama, and Republicans vilify him for being too liberal and too gay.

But then, current conservatives never fear sinking too low. It has become his favorite political sport.