| Obama |
McCain |
| 94.7% probability of winning |
4.6% probability of winning |
| Mean of 292 electoral votes |
Mean of 246 electoral votes |
Last Wednesday, Sen. Barack Obama had about a 95% probability of defeating Sen. John McCain in a general election. Since then there have been polls released in five states (here and here).
Now, after 10,000 simulated elections, the results are nearly identical. Obama wins 9,465 times (plus the 76 ties), and McCain wins 459 times. Obama has a 94.7% (plus 0.8% for ties) probability of winning and McCain has a 4.6% probability of winning. Obama’s position has improved just a smidgen.
This is the resulting distribution of electoral votes:
- 10000 simulations: Obama wins 94.7%, McCain wins 4.6%.
- Average ( SE) EC votes for Obama: 292.4 ( 14.6)
- Average (SE) EC votes for McCain: 245.6 ( 14.6)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 291 (263, 322)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for McCain: 247 (216, 275)
| State |
EC Votes |
# polls |
Total Votes |
% Obama |
% McCain |
Obama %wins |
McCain %wins |
| Alabama |
9 |
2 |
1088 |
41.0 |
59.0 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
| Alaska |
3 |
1 |
561 |
47.2 |
52.8 |
8.8 |
91.3 |
| Arizona |
10 |
2 |
1032 |
43.5 |
56.5 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
| Arkansas |
6 |
2 |
854 |
38.4 |
61.6 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
| California |
55 |
3 |
1480 |
59.4 |
40.6 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
| Colorado |
9 |
1 |
573 |
55.0 |
45.0 |
98.8 |
1.1 |
| Connecticut |
7 |
2 |
1010 |
59.6 |
40.4 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
| Delaware |
3 |
1 |
553 |
55.0 |
45.0 |
98.8 |
1.2 |
| D.C. |
3 |
0 |
|
|
|
(100) |
(0) |
| Florida |
27 |
3 |
1556 |
45.0 |
55.0 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
| Georgia |
15 |
1 |
563 |
43.2 |
56.8 |
0.1 |
99.9 |
| Hawaii |
4 |
1 |
546 |
66.3 |
33.7 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
| Idaho |
4 |
1 |
553 |
42.9 |
57.1 |
0.1 |
99.9 |
| Illinois |
21 |
1 |
546 |
65.9 |
34.1 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
| Indiana |
11 |
1 |
524 |
45.0 |
55.0 |
1.4 |
98.6 |
| Iowa |
7 |
4 |
2083 |
55.7 |
44.3 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
| Kansas |
6 |
2 |
1027 |
45.9 |
54.1 |
0.2 |
99.8 |
| Kentucky |
8 |
1 |
527 |
38.0 |
62.0 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
| Louisiana |
9 |
1 |
650 |
42.0 |
58.0 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
| Maine |
4 |
1 |
588 |
57.7 |
42.3 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
| Maryland |
10 |
2 |
1288 |
57.5 |
42.5 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
| Massachusetts |
12 |
2 |
1090 |
52.6 |
47.4 |
95.4 |
4.6 |
| Michigan |
17 |
3 |
1440 |
51.1 |
48.9 |
82.8 |
17.2 |
| Minnesota |
10 |
3 |
1522 |
56.6 |
43.4 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
| Mississippi |
6 |
1 |
591 |
43.1 |
56.9 |
0.1 |
99.9 |
| Missouri |
11 |
2 |
1069 |
49.8 |
50.2 |
42.0 |
58.0 |
| Montana |
3 |
1 |
551 |
45.4 |
54.6 |
1.7 |
98.3 |
| Nebraska |
5 |
1 |
542 |
48.3 |
51.7 |
20.5 |
79.5 |
| Nevada |
5 |
1 |
532 |
52.8 |
47.2 |
91.0 |
9.0 |
| New Hampshire |
4 |
1 |
573 |
51.1 |
48.9 |
71.9 |
28.1 |
| New Jersey |
15 |
4 |
3156 |
52.5 |
47.5 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
| New Mexico |
5 |
3 |
1478 |
54.0 |
46.0 |
99.9 |
0.1 |
| New York |
31 |
2 |
1016 |
59.4 |
40.6 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
| North Carolina |
15 |
3 |
1753 |
46.4 |
53.6 |
0.3 |
99.8 |
| North Dakota |
3 |
1 |
503 |
52.3 |
47.7 |
86.0 |
14.0 |
| Ohio |
20 |
5 |
2824 |
51.0 |
49.0 |
86.8 |
13.2 |
| Oklahoma |
7 |
1 |
569 |
40.1 |
59.9 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
| Oregon |
7 |
2 |
1068 |
52.6 |
47.4 |
95.5 |
4.5 |
| Pennsylvania |
21 |
5 |
4160 |
49.5 |
50.5 |
26.3 |
73.7 |
| Rhode Island |
4 |
1 |
572 |
58.2 |
41.8 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
| South Carolina |
8 |
1 |
554 |
48.4 |
51.6 |
20.5 |
79.6 |
| South Dakota |
3 |
2 |
999 |
46.2 |
53.8 |
0.8 |
99.2 |
| Tennessee |
11 |
3 |
1599 |
41.2 |
58.8 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
| Texas |
34 |
3 |
3313 |
46.3 |
53.7 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
| Utah |
5 |
1 |
541 |
43.8 |
56.2 |
0.5 |
99.5 |
| Vermont |
3 |
2 |
948 |
65.6 |
34.4 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
| Virginia |
13 |
3 |
1579 |
50.2 |
49.8 |
58.4 |
41.6 |
| Washington |
11 |
2 |
1016 |
54.1 |
45.9 |
99.9 |
0.2 |
| West Virginia |
5 |
1 |
540 |
39.8 |
60.2 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
| Wisconsin |
10 |
3 |
1483 |
54.1 |
45.9 |
99.9 |
0.0 |
| Wyoming |
3 |
1 |
508 |
39.4 |
60.6 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
Details of the methods are given in the FAQ.
The most recent analysis in this and other match-ups can be found from this page.
Sunday, March 16th, 2008 at 1:38 am
I wonder though if these polls are late enough to take account of Pastorgate?
Sunday, March 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Pastorgate?
Would that be about Pastor John Hagee or the Rev. Jeremiah Wright?
Sunday, March 16th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Thanks for your recent simulations. They seem to systematically confirm that Obama is a stronger, more electable candidate. I was wondering if there was some way that you can enter into the discussions with the media about Obama’s strengths. The media has not explored state-by-state simulations at this level of detail yet they seem to be craving for answers about which Democratic candidate is more electable. It is clear from these polls that the actual primary results in California, New York, Ohio, Texas is of little relevance: Obama does better than Clinton (overall) in the larger states that she has won in the primary. Furthermore, Obama has strengths in swing states that Clinton does not, such as Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington, and Oregon. I am surprised that the Clinton campaign consistently refer to the Michigan win when it is Obama who wins Michigan in the polls, and not her. Similarly, in Florida, Clinton does not fare better than Obama in the overall result. And despite winning New Hampshire in the primary, she decisely loses New Hampshire to John McCain. Obama on the other hand wins New Hampshire in the fall. Overall, Obama puts more states into play and pushes John McCain to play defense in more red states, which is a strong argument considering any day spent on defense is a day outside of the strongholds of leaning Democratic states.
Is anyone making these arguments in the media? Is there a way for you to write articles about this, since popular vote counts are not as important as the electoral vote…
I think a thorough discussion is necessary in light of the factually inaccurate statement by Mark Penn (pollster in the Clinton campaign) that Obama is “unelectable.”
I wish there was more discussion about this, so that the voting public is aware. Any thoughts would be welcome.
Thanks again for all your work.
Hassan
by Hassan
Monday, March 17th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Hi Darryl. In response to your question I’m referring to Pastor Jeremiah Wright who married the Obamas and baptised their children, and who Obama claims led him “to Christ”. On realclearpolitics.com they have an article advising that one should look at betting on Hillary now, especially as Puerto Rico has now decided to have a primary instead of a caucus.
Monday, March 17th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Here is the link to the article I mentioned.
Monday, March 17th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Pastorgate ranks with Willie Hortoin and the rest fo the racist crap we have seen.
Rev. Wright is no more (or less) radical thahn Seattle’s own Sam McKinney. Supporting Black achievement in the face of bigotry is no different than supporting Zionism.
Most of his comments are actually rather temperate ,… many of us felt the same way even w/o the reminder of black skin. When Dr. King died my own Temple managed to have service without mentioning what happened. If I do not rtemember nwhat I said, I suspect ti was a lto more colorful than Rev. Wright’s words.
How about the time the pope shut down on “our” Rev Hunthaisen? I suspect more than a few good ctaholics wanted to toast his hilness over sulfur laden coal!
Rather than tjhis sort of cra, howsa about some of the “liberals” here doing the work of seeing what sort of work is Rev. Wright’s Congregation has done under his leadership.
BTW, how many of the bigots against him realize that his Church is part of a white denomination and the honkeys in charge have come to his strong support as being a good Christian?
So, with Rev. Wright, I sing not God Bless America when that is asked, but God dam America when it behaves this way!
As fro Darryl’s analysis .. it is wonderful. I have made some comments on it over at Seattljew, esp about aqn Obama strategy to take a number of states still maked as RE# here.