[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 48°F  
High: 68°F ~ Low: 36°F
Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2017

Final Polling Projections

Posted Thursday, November 1, 2012, at 4:32 PM

We are now under a week from the 2012 Presidential Election. This will serve as my final projection. As I have stated previously this projection is solely from the averages in the state pollings, mind you this is the average and not the latest polling. The averages over the last several elections have been correct almost every time, the one difference was in 2000.

I said in a previous blog that I did not believe that debates in the long run mattered. I was, obviously, proven wrong in that following the first debate when Romney stormed back into the race.

The one thing that I have noticed throughout the last month is that while Romney closed the national gap and has even lead it has not been the full case on the state level.

Anyways on with the projections:

First we have the numbers from the so-called safe states. With those in Obama currently leads Romney 217-191


New Hampshire (4 EV): Obama has lead in nearly every poll since October 1, save two, but those leads have been narrow. The average has him up 48.7 - 47.1, so Obama gets the 4 EVs.

Pennsylvania (20 EV): Pollster has this state as a lean Obama and honestly I am not really sure why, in the last month Romney has never been closer than 3 points and Obama leads the averages 49.5 - 44.5. Obama gets the 20.

After the Northeast, Obama now stands at a 241 - 191 lead

East Coast: the two states here have swung widely over the last few months going back and forth between the two candidates.

Virginia (13 EV): Virgina averages tend to Obama but anyone who looks at the numbers can plainly see that the race is extremely tight. With a 47.8 - 47.4 lead, Obama gets the 13 EVs.

North Carolina (15 EV): This state leans to Romney but since mid October polls have shown either candidate winning or tied. Romney is still staked to a 49.3 - 46.6 average lead so he gets the 15 EVs.

After the East Coast the EVs now stand at Obama leading 254 - 206.

South: One lone state, but one of the most pivotal over the last 20 years

Florida (29 EV): For all intents and purposes this state is tied. Both candidates have had leads over the last month but Romney's largest lead was 3, Obama's 2. Currently the averages have Romney up 48.4 - 47.7 which gives him the 29 EV.

After Florida Romney is now within striking distance trailing Obama now at 235 - 254.


Huge group of states.

Ohio (18 EV): Obama has trailed in only two polls in this state over the last month, but in the other polls his leads have been between 2 and 6. With the averages favoring Obama right now 48.6 - 46.0 the 18 EVs go to him.

Wisconsin (10 EV): Why this state is still a lean is beyond me. The only polls that have been decent for Romney are both Rasmussen that have the race tied. The newest poll out from Republican polling firm Wenzell Strategies has Obama staked to a two point lead. With the averages sitting at Obama in the lead 49.9 - 46.2 he gets the 10 EVs.

Iowa (6 EV): Iowa was once considered a possibility for Romney but that seems to have all but slipped away with Obama leading the averages 48.6 - 45.9 he gets the 6 EVs.

After the Midwest Obama statistically has the win (needing 271 EVs, 288 - 235.


Colorado (9 EV): Over the last weeks Romney has lead in two and been tied in one, the rest have all favored Obama. Obama leads the averages 48.3 - 46.9 and gets the 9 EV.

Nevada (6 EV): Another pipe-dream state for the Romney team seems to be sliding away from them in the final week of polling. Since July Romney has only been tied with Obama in two polls and has lead none of them, Obama gets the 6 EVs with an average lead of 50.0 - 46.4.

After all the states my final polling projection is 303 - 235.

Final thoughts:

There are several ways that Obama can get to 271 EVs but not all that many fro Romney.

Romney's best shot at winning the election is to take North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Nevada. I do not see this happening. If Romney does take Ohio he will not need to win Nevada. In any case, Romney getting above 300 EVs is not a reality from my perspective.

Obama, on the other hand could lose the East Coast, Florida, and Ohio and still win the election.

My personal prediction: I see Obama winning most of the swing states and somehow finding a way to win Florida which will put him at 332 EVs.

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

My poll differs from all of your info, Michael.

My poll shows that Romney wins, with 100% of the vote. Of course I only polled one person, and I need to find a way for everyone else to stay home, so my one vote proves me a genius.

Since we differ in our results, I guess I'm just going to need wait until the actual votes are counted.

I have a feeling that this election will not be put to bed, for some time after November, if ever; there are already accusations being made, of fraud, in the 'Early vote.' I miss the days where a man's word was his bond (honest bond, that is)

-- Posted by Navyblue on Thu, Nov 1, 2012, at 4:55 PM

How's this for a prediction?

Romney miraculously carries: NH, VA, NC, FL, IA, CO, NM, and NV. Obama takes: WI, MI, OH, PA, and NM.

They end up tied at 269. The 12 amendment states that in the event of a tie, the House would pick the President and the Senate would pick the VP. The House, being controlled by the Reps would choose Romney, and the Senate, controlled by the Dems would select Biden.

Romney/Biden, 2012. Mark it down.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Nov 1, 2012, at 5:47 PM

Mike - based on your experience and your expertise in politics do you see any way in which President Obama does not win? He seems like a safe bet - Vegas has him the huge favorite.


-- Posted by wmarsh on Thu, Nov 1, 2012, at 9:30 PM

I wonder what affect Hurricane Sandy and Obama's "outstanding" and praiseworthy (to quote Chris Christie) leadership during the storm will have on the election.

Wallis, you were droning on about nuclear attacks being the only thing to save Obama. While this wasn't a nuclear attack, when a pro-Romney governor and GOP darling comes out in support of Obama and the Feds, you gotta think that this comes close to your last minute freak scenario, no?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Nov 2, 2012, at 12:22 AM

I said something big and suggested a Nuke attack but I was implying a black swan nonetheless. The Black Swan has happened.

Those of us in the Gulf Coast know that day 3 is when things get bad. People run out of food and riot. Drug addicts need a hit and riot. Frustration peaks and people riot. Now is when the bad things start to occur. The President and Gov. Christie gave their victory speeches but people are getting emotional now.

As an aside Mike has done a great job in his polling analysis. I would only warn him that the consensus is normally wrong.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Fri, Nov 2, 2012, at 5:39 AM

Clarity on my consensus comment - This race is a statistical dead head with most variances within the standard deviation therefore the victors in the States is based on a personal bias. Remember when people make decisions by feel or their instinct they are gambling. Therefore to project a winner based on polling within the margin of error is gambling. Those are the cases when the consensus is normally incorrect.


-- Posted by wmarsh on Fri, Nov 2, 2012, at 5:42 AM

Actually, Wallis, in polling, the consensus is rarely wrong, with 2000 being the rarely wrong part. The consensus has been correct in the 2004 and 2008 elections and they were also correct in the 2010 mid-terms.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 2, 2012, at 11:04 AM

Also, Wallis, I laid out a couple of ways that Obama could lose so I don't really understand your question of whether or not I see any way that Obama could lose.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 2, 2012, at 11:06 AM

Something also has to be at stake in order for it to be gambling Wallis. Projecting within the margin is simply that. Projecting a winner based on averages is just that, nothing more, nothing less.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 2, 2012, at 11:08 AM


"Therefore to project a winner based on polling within the margin of error is gambling."

I wonder what you were doing (if not "gambling") back when you were predicting a Romney landslide based on your ill-informed job approval theory. You do realize that the things you criticize Michael for also apply to you right?

I still give Romney a good chance to win this, and if I were to gamble, Romney would be enticing because he is the 'dog' in this election. But, Wallis, get real, you were predicting 330 Romney and 190 Obama (where the remaining 18 votes went is still a mystery). A Romney landslide is/was as long a longshot as the tie scenario I described above.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Nov 2, 2012, at 11:59 AM

I predict we will wake up Wednesday to a big surprise, that Al Bundy & Snoop Dogg won by a landslide. Mark your calendar folks

-- Posted by Keda46 on Sat, Nov 3, 2012, at 1:35 AM

We will know on Wednesday.


-- Posted by wmarsh on Sat, Nov 3, 2012, at 10:54 AM

As an aside Mike has done a great job in his polling analysis. I would only warn him that the consensus is normally wrong.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Fri, Nov 2, 2012, at 5:39 AM

Speaking of your consensus is normally wrong statement, you predicted a few months ago that Romney would win in a landslide based on Obama's approval numbers in Gallup polling. You stated at the time that in the years of Gallup polling job approval a president has never won re-election when his job approval was below 50 per cent. This would suggest that the consensus is that Presidents below 50 per cent approval do not get re-elected.

Now you are saying that the consensus is normally wrong. Which is it?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 3, 2012, at 1:13 PM

I stand by my projections. I am just making a comment that if I am right why the polling could be wrong.

Your analysis of the polling is correct - I just think that the standard deviation or "margin of error" could come into play.

I am pretty sure that Romney wins by a large margin. This Hurricane is not good for Obama as New York is doing terrible.

Did anyone else besides my brother see Jim Cantore argue with Bloomberg that the wind wasn't the issue but the storm surge was? I missed it but Bloomberg really should have ordered evacuations days before he did. Queens and Staten Island are doing terrible. FEMA is out of water.

The European model and the ensemble models predicted that New York could see these storm surges 1 week before the Hurricane hit. Weather people were on this as Cantore arrived in New York 4 days in advance.


-- Posted by wmarsh on Sat, Nov 3, 2012, at 3:57 PM

What does all this have to do with Obama Wallis? It seems the major issue was with Bloomberg not with Obama.

But let me get this straight. If you are right, the consensus is usually wrong but if I am right the consensus would of course be correct which would negate your idea that the consensus is usually wrong. Maybe you should have been Romney's running mate instead of Ryan. Who needs a side of an issue when you take all sides of the issue.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 5, 2012, at 2:22 PM

Remember, vote for Romney on Tuesday and obama on Wednesday.


-- Posted by Jim Foster on Mon, Nov 5, 2012, at 5:54 PM

I missed my first Presidential election in 1984 by a few days (election Nov. 6 my bday Nov. 11).

I have never early voted and always gone to polls on election day. My thoughts are why not be a part of the process and excitement.

Hopefully, this day will also ignite a market rally. S&P setting up for a rally. Gold dropping like a rock. Glad I exited a large part of Gold trade. Watching a set up to go higher.

Should have clarity later in the week.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Tue, Nov 6, 2012, at 5:16 AM

Early voting is part of the process and excitement, plus (usually) no lines. I'm going to vote, not check out at Wal-Mart.


-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 6, 2012, at 2:57 PM

Glad you had a good time. I did as well.


-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Nov 6, 2012, at 3:34 PM


332. Nice pick. It is late and Florida is delayed so I am going to bed. It looks like the Sunshine State is Obama's though. If so, your 332 prediction comes in on the money.

I doubt anyone around this blog (including myself) put much stock in your lopsided Obama win, but you were right.

Please don't make Doodle say she's from another universe though...Wallis on the other hand...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 2:11 AM

I was incorrect by a lot. This is a concern for this 45 year old business owner.

Good luck to all you young overachievers. The deck is stacked against you.

I guess the 51% that is receiving Government money is more powerful than I thought. Now that we are supporting over half of all americans they will fight to keep that "free money".

The next concern is that the "free" money will run out and then what are you going to do?


-- Posted by wmarsh on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 5:46 AM

Chill out Wallis. For four years all I have heard from people like you is how terrible the world is going to be under Obama. I have listened (and read) to your continuous lies and purposeful misleading characterizations and doomsday predictions.

Despite the absolute attempt of your party to block everything the president has done, we now have universal healthcare (not perfect but we have it), unemployment is down, jobs are up, and despite the biggest lie (by your side) the deficit is down.

The people voted for the person they felt was best suited for the job, it wasn't your gut so your response is to attack those people. How truly pathetic of a grown 45 year old man.

Get over it, you lost.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 9:19 AM

As it turns out the poll averages were right again, missing only one state, Florida, which I correctly called. It looks like once again the consensus, far from being usually wrong was correct.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 9:20 AM

Folks--take a look at these graphics that show why President Obama won yesterday in spite of the country going more red during the vote. His strong base of women voters, Hispanic support, as well as a strong young voter turnout, especially in swing states such as Ohio, put him ahead of Romney.


Personally, I liked his call to be the United States of America rather than red or blue states. He faces a tough congress, so working with rather than against the President is probably better for the country.

Res Just

-- Posted by Resilient Justice on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 10:51 AM

Hi Res Just,

Interesting link. Thanks for posting. Women, Latinos, and the young (in swing states) carried the day for Obama. According to your link, Obama won 74% of the Latino vote in Colorado and 60% in Florida.

You are absolutely right about working with each other, rather than against. But it may be a moot point moving forward unless the GOP overhauls a good portion of its political positions.

One out of five voters this year was aged 19-29 and Obama carried this group by 24 points (60 to 36). One out of ten voters was Latino and Obama carried 70% of this group.

Take a look at a place like Virginia. From 1972 to 2004 Virginia voted Red. And now, two cycles in a row, Virgina has voted Blue. According to the Census there has been a 91.7% increase in Latinos in Virginia from 2000-2010. The Latino, youth, and women vote was enough for the Dems to win VA two elections in a row.

Moving forward, any political party that ignores the youth vote, the women vote, OR the Latino vote, does so at its own peril.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 12:21 PM


Thanks for drawing attention to the demographic changes in Virginia and its impact on voting. I noticed in the data that I posted earlier from the NY Times that there was a decrease in the numbers of people (categorized as white) who voted for President Obama. Why do you think that is? Res Just

-- Posted by Resilient Justice on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 3:57 PM

I'm just glad Obama won so that Michael doesn't have to write a blog about the Democratic being the Party of no.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 6:51 PM

Resilient Justice,

I don't know for sure, but I think it must be that more people are racist than before.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 6:53 PM

Res Just,

Don't listen to SW, he rarely is right ABOUT ANYTHING!!!

And Gma...

Hehe...I gotta love the far right zealot response to the end of their meaningfulness in American politics. It's quite a beautiful death rattle!!

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 11:31 PM


I'm glad I'm going up in your estimation, I thought you said I was always wrong, but I'm apparently only almost always wrong.

Your kind words have just sent a thrill up my leg.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 1:38 PM

I got nothin' but love for ya, SW.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 3:55 PM

I'm just glad Obama won so that Michael doesn't have to write a blog about the Democratic being the Party of no.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 6:51 PM

That would have never happened SW because the Democratic Party isn't made up of childish buffoons who object to any bill the other party supports even it involves objecting to their own positions as we have seen from the Republican party for the last four years. Who knows, now that the Republicans no longer have to worry about forsaking the American people and economy simply in order to keep a Democratic president from winning a second term they will actually act like grown-ups and do what's right for Americans instead of what's right for themselves. I'm not optimistic but I can hope.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 4:11 PM


Are you saying then that you think Harry Reid, the second highest ranking elected Democrat in the country is a liar?

You've excoriated Republicans but apparently when the shoe is on the other foot it's ok. Partisan hacks like you amuse me.


-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 7:24 PM

How can I call him a liar for talking about something that isn't even going to happen? I was referring to the last four years of unprecedented obstructionism by Republicans, you know, something that actually happened. You answer with something that could have happened but isn't going to happen.


-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 6:24 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Hot topics
Collective Amnesia
(15 ~ 1:32 PM, Jan 24)

Of Safe Spaces
(5 ~ 2:00 PM, Jan 15)

You Have a Problem
(7 ~ 5:25 PM, Jan 9)

Draining The Swamp Indeed!
(8 ~ 5:22 PM, Jan 9)

The Resistance Movement
(9 ~ 6:05 AM, Dec 28)