Monday, September 15, 2008 at 11:15 pm by Darryl
Poll Analysis: McCain and Obama at 269 Electoral Votes Each
| Obama | McCain |
| 52.7% probability of winning | 47.3% probability of winning |
| Mean of 269 electoral votes | Mean of 269 electoral votes |
Yesterday’s analysis showed Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by 274 to 264 electoral votes. If an election had been held yesterday, Obama would have a 60.7 probability of beating McCain.
There were eleven new polls covering eight states released today. The polls take the Electoral College to a draw (on average), although Obama maintains the lead.
After 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 52,720 times (including the 2,364 ties), and McCain wins 47,280 times. Obama receives (on average) 269 to McCain’s 269 electoral votes. In an election held now, Obama would have a 52.7% probability of winning and McCain, a 47.3% probability of winning.
What does the electoral vote tie mean? It means the President would be picked by the House of Representatives. The VP would be selected by the Senate. And each body is permitted to select anyone they want who is eligible to hold the office. Therefore, I predict an electoral tie will give us a true celebrity dream team: President Barack Obama and VP Sarah Palin.
(That was a joke. Really.)
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Notice that the two most likely outcomes are Obama wins. An electoral vote tie is the fourth-most likely outcome.
The long term trends in this race can be seen from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 15 Jan 2008 to 15 Sep 2008, and including polls from the preceding 21 days (FAQ).
- 100000 simulations: Obama wins 50.4%, McCain wins 47.3%.
- Average ( SE) EC votes for Obama: 268.6 (23.5)
- Average (SE) EC votes for McCain: 269.4 (23.5)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 270 (219, 313)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for McCain: 268 (225, 319)
This table shows the electoral vote total for different criteria for the probability of winning a state (Safe=100%, Strong=90%+, Leans=60%+, Weak=50%+):
| Threshold | Safe | + Strong | + Leans | + Weak |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safe Obama | 21 | |||
| Strong Obama | 170 | 191 | ||
| Leans Obama | 82 | 82 | 273 | |
| Weak Obama | 0 | 0 | 0 | 273 |
| Weak McCain | 0 | 0 | 0 | 265 |
| Leans McCain | 57 | 57 | 265 | |
| Strong McCain | 142 | 208 | ||
| Safe McCain | 66 |
This table summarizes the results by state. Click on the poll number to see the individual polls included for a state.
| EC | # | Total | % | % | Obama | McCain | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | ‘04 | Votes | polls | Votes | Obama | McCain | % wins | % wins |
| Alabama | 9 | 1 | 544 | 39.0 | 61.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| Alaska | 3 | 3 | 1290 | 36.6 | 63.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| Arizona | 10 | 1* | 282 | 42.9 | 57.1 | 4.7 | 95.3 | |
| Arkansas | 6 | 1* | 455 | 42.9 | 57.1 | 1.6 | 98.4 | |
| California | 55 | 1* | 475 | 56.8 | 43.2 | 98.5 | 1.5 | |
| Colorado | 9 | 5 | 2994 | 50.4 | 49.6 | 62.6 | 37.4 | |
| Connecticut | 7 | 1* | 465 | 57.0 | 43.0 | 98.3 | 1.7 | |
| Delaware | 3 | 1 | 490 | 56.1 | 43.9 | 97.0 | 3.0 | |
| D.C. | 3 | 0 | (100) | (0) | ||||
| Florida | 27 | 6 | 3852 | 47.7 | 52.3 | 1.6 | 98.4 | |
| Georgia | 15 | 2 | 1203 | 41.9 | 58.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| Hawaii | 4 | 1* | 546 | 66.3 | 33.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |
| Idaho | 4 | 1 | 485 | 29.9 | 70.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| Illinois | 21 | 1* | 475 | 57.9 | 42.1 | 99.1 | 0.9 | |
| Indiana | 11 | 1 | 528 | 48.9 | 51.1 | 34.8 | 65.2 | |
| Iowa | 7 | 2 | 1352 | 57.3 | 42.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |
| Kansas | 6 | 1* | 596 | 37.6 | 62.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| Kentucky | 8 | 1* | 585 | 40.2 | 59.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| Louisiana | 9 | 1* | 475 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.1 | 99.9 | |
| Maine | 4 | 1 | 540 | 57.8 | 42.2 | 99.5 | 0.5 | |
| Maryland | 10 | 1 | 750 | 57.7 | 42.3 | 99.7 | 0.3 | |
| Massachusetts | 12 | 1* | 460 | 58.7 | 41.3 | 99.6 | 0.4 | |
| Michigan | 17 | 5 | 4081 | 50.9 | 49.1 | 80.4 | 19.6 | |
| Minnesota | 10 | 3 | 2398 | 52.2 | 47.8 | 93.7 | 6.3 | |
| Mississippi | 6 | 1 | 552 | 40.2 | 59.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| Missouri | 11 | 2 | 1544 | 47.7 | 52.3 | 9.8 | 90.2 | |
| Montana | 3 | 1 | 665 | 44.2 | 55.8 | 1.7 | 98.3 | |
| Nebraska | 5 | 1* | 455 | 39.6 | 60.4 | 0.1 | 99.9 | |
| Nevada | 5 | 3 | 1648 | 49.2 | 50.8 | 33.1 | 66.9 | |
| New Hampshire | 4 | 1 | 819 | 52.7 | 47.3 | 86.8 | 13.2 | |
| New Jersey | 15 | 3 | 1857 | 53.3 | 46.7 | 97.9 | 2.1 | |
| New Mexico | 5 | 2 | 1239 | 53.2 | 46.8 | 94.7 | 5.3 | |
| New York | 31 | 1 | 545 | 52.8 | 47.2 | 81.8 | 18.2 | |
| North Carolina | 15 | 5 | 2895 | 44.9 | 55.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| North Dakota | 3 | 2 | 812 | 46.4 | 53.6 | 7.6 | 92.4 | |
| Ohio | 20 | 9 | 6413 | 49.1 | 50.9 | 15.8 | 84.2 | |
| Oklahoma | 7 | 2 | 1103 | 33.5 | 66.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| Oregon | 7 | 1 | 510 | 54.1 | 45.9 | 90.8 | 9.2 | |
| Pennsylvania | 21 | 5 | 3532 | 51.8 | 48.2 | 92.5 | 7.5 | |
| Rhode Island | 4 | 1* | 443 | 63.0 | 37.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |
| South Carolina | 8 | 1* | 465 | 43.0 | 57.0 | 1.5 | 98.5 | |
| South Dakota | 3 | 1* | 420 | 47.6 | 52.4 | 24.4 | 75.6 | |
| Tennessee | 11 | 1* | 475 | 36.8 | 63.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| Texas | 34 | 1* | 490 | 44.9 | 55.1 | 5.2 | 94.8 | |
| Utah | 5 | 2 | 997 | 30.5 | 69.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | |
| Vermont | 3 | 1* | 576 | 68.4 | 31.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | |
| Virginia | 13 | 5 | 3198 | 49.2 | 50.8 | 27.0 | 73.0 | |
| Washington | 11 | 3 | 1286 | 52.0 | 48.0 | 85.4 | 14.6 | |
| West Virginia | 5 | 1 | 358 | 46.9 | 53.1 | 21.1 | 78.9 | |
| Wisconsin | 10 | 1 | 704 | 51.1 | 48.9 | 66.1 | 33.9 | |
| Wyoming | 3 | 1 | 485 | 40.2 | 59.8 | 0.2 | 99.8 |
* An older poll was used (i.e. no recent polls exist).
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.
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Important to bear in mind how the House would choose the president i.e. dividing into 50 separate state delegations, with each one voting separately on who their state should support. Also it would be the existing House that picks him, meaning that because the Democrats have 26 delegations it would be Obama unless there are defections to McCain.
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Don’t hate it when a poll in a solid, rarely-polled state throws a wrench in your analyses?
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 1:01 am
*Don’t you
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 7:42 am
While the analysis might suggest a 69/69 split it is highly unlikely that this will happen. There are several combinations but the most realistic one is for NH to go red. That could lead to a tie and the House would decide the issue. I’m not sure that it would be a clear cut Obama choice. There are a few southern and mid-western states with majority Dem. representatives who may not vote Obama for fear of backlash next election.
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
If they don’t vote for Obama then Pelosi will cut off support from the party, ensuring defeat regardless of voting for McCain or abstaining.
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I think they would rather go the Lieberman route than risk a backlash from thier constituants; and realistically, the Dem. party wouldn’t risk it’s majority in the house just to make Obaman President. Pelosi likes her speakership too much!
It would only take one southern or mid-west delegation to break ranks. This isn’t really that far fetched given the level of discipline the Dems. have compared to the Repubs.
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
There are way too many blue dog democrats still in the House to ensure that Obama would be elected.
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
There would never be a tie in the electoral vote because the compact always represents a bloc consisting of a majority of the electoral votes. Thus, an election for President would never be thrown into the House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote) and an election for Vice President would never be thrown into the Senate (with each Senator casting one vote).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008 at 8:43 am
What?
Does anyone read the Constitution anymore?
A bill cannot change election laws in this manner and would probably be determined to be unconstitutional because it attempts to bi-pass the electoral college system and set up a national election. This is the very thing the framers did not want in order to protect the less populas states from being completely shut out of the national election process by the more populas states.
This is a horrible idea and one that most likely would not stand a Supreme Court challenge if it ever made it out of the first Federal Court that heard it.
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Bill,
You might want to do a bit more research. The NPV pact does not change the electoral college in any way shape or form.
Rather, It is simply an agreement between participating states to allocate their electors in a particular way–as is permitted by the Constitution.
There are no issues of unconstitutionality whatsoever with the NPV pact.