Lowell,

Would it be possible to sort the list by margin of victory and point out where you get to 270?

so I can't sort it easily.  See here for an excellent map.

if the election were held today with each state's results reflecting these latest polls (plus pollster.com for the additional states):

Some are iffy.  Though it's nice to see Indiana blue, 48 to 47 is essentially a statistical tie.  The same for Missouri at 43-42.  Pennsylvania is also close at 45-43.

Virginia is considerably more decisive:  49 Obama vs. McSame 42.  Congrats!

And, per Rasmussen, North Carolina looks ripe for the picking -- though other polls show a wider spread.  Some of them show Barr siphoning off McSame votes.

n/t

If the dynamics of the race stay on this trajectory, if the great patriot Jim Webb adds his brain and heart to the ticket, if McSame continues to fumble along, if the Clintons campaign hard for Obama, if the numbers of thinking folk in North Carolina, Montana, Florida, Kansas, Nevada, West Virginia and Alaska were to continue to grow ... well, if November 5 looked like this, it would be a very, very beautiful day.  (Cue U2.)

electoral map sites, but this was the one used here.

http://www.270towin.com/

n/t

Mixed it up with this site.

Except for Indiana, which I'll give to McCain, this map shows what will be the final result.  Obama-317, McCain-221.  

The most enjoyable moment of this election season will be at approximately 1:32 AM on November 5, 2008 when both CNN and MSNBC call Virginia for Obama by a margin of less than one-half of one percent of the votes cast.

I keep having this dream/fantasy that Obama narrowly wins Texas in November.  I was hoping to see polling with McCain with a narrowing lead (single digits) by now, in the lone star state... but I guess it is just a dream.  14% is a pretty wide margin for McCain.  Must focus elsewhere.

Still, a bloody good map for Obama fans and Democrats/progressives.

You get some interesting states where it makes sense to spend a lot of time making sure you win both the senate seat and the state:

Texas 34 (tough senate race)
North Carolina 15 (hot senate race)
Virginia 13 (strong senate race)
Colorado 9 (hot senate race)
Mississippi 6 (hot senate race)
New Mexico 5 (strong senate race)
New Hampshire 4 (hot senate race)

I realize Obama cannot ignore:
Florida 27
Pennsylvania 21
Ohio 20
Michigan 17
because they are polling close, and huge pools of electoral votes, but having a strong Senate to back him up is important and it seems like the pay of is multiplied for any time spent in TX, NC, VA, CO, MS, NM, and NH.

Would love to correlate with house races too.

Go VA Democratic Congressional candidates!

Assume Barack & co. will be flush with cash -- a pretty good assumption, in my mind.

While Saxby Chambliss and John Cornyn are probably the two most reprehensible assclowns in the US Senate behind Mitch McConnell, the fact is that Georgia and Texas are big, expensive states. Replacing Cornyn, especially, with a patriot like Rick Noriega would be a change on par with replacing the detestable George Allen with Jim Webb. But it's just so uphill, that -- at this point -- it's not a good gamble.

However, there are a handful of states where you could earmark $5 or $10 million and potentially blow the doors off this thing in the fall. Idaho (2 CDs); Wyoming (1 CD; 2 Senate races); Nebraska (3 CDs); Kansas (4 CDs); Mississippi (4 CDs; 2 Senate seats); and Alaska (1 CD) are all states that are conceivably flip-able by Barack, and, more importantly, have Senate races this fall. [I'm completely serious about this -- I think we're in landslide potential territory this fall. There are only about 5 or 6 states that I don't think we can win in the Presidential race under any circumstances -- Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Utah, South Dakota, and probably 0klahoma and West Virginia.] Now, that doesn't mean I think the various Dem committees should spend willy-nilly in these states. BUT, with Barack conceivably raising $200 million or more for the rest of the race, investing in these red states with active Senate races could really earn a return on investment.

While I too would love Texas and Georgia and Florida to flip, I think it would be a wiser use of resources to spend conservatively in those states; focus on the swing states with better demographics such as VA, NC, C0, NH, NV, NM, MI, IN, M0, and 0H; and then really see what we can do to expand the map in ways rarely before conceived.

Look at the RCP polling in Wyoming -- 13 points, same as some polls in Texas. Wyoming has approximately 500k residents and no expensive media markets; Texas has approx. 24 MILLI0N people, and very expensive media markets in Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonia, and Austin. And, Wyoming has both Senate seats up for re-election due to the previous death of Craig Thomas, and a competitive House seat.

Idaho -- again, 13 points. Nebraska, 15 or 16 points -- but, the EVs are apportioned by CD, so 2-4 EVs are plausible. Kansas, 10 - 15 points, with an unpopular Senator running against a good candidate.

Montana and North Dakota are 6 point spreads at this point and would also warrant investment.

There are so many ways the red/blue divide could be destroyed this fall with the proper investments. Hopefully someone at 0bama HQ and the DNC is giving these scenarios some thought.

Wow!  Also, as we begin to add in congressional seats I think your position will be reinforced by that data...  

for some rigorous analysis, take a look at:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

They base their outcome on regression analysis, rather than rolling averages.  Right now they are predicting 55% chance of Obama victory and an electoral result of 278 to 260.

It's a long way to November.

That makes sense as a methodology in the primaries where you have very similar demographic data to apply to future states but I don't see what data points (other than polls which you eschew) are available for the purposes of a general election analysis. Please explain that to me.

Kerry got a way bigger jump in the polls follwoing his nomination in the Primaries and so did Gore in 2000. The concern is that it appeasr as Obama bounce may only be half as much amongst Democrats at the point of nomination. This could be why some of the races are closer than they should- PA for example. This cannot be ignored. We cannot forget that at the same stages of the race (though this season is much longer) Carter was ahead of Reagan and I think Dukakis was leading as well. I wonder if there is data, probably not because we did not have the polling apparatus we have now to know what the interactive map would look like. You cannot remove the foot from the accelerator regardless.

Kerry and Gore were almost completely different from the Obama-Clinton race. Are you referring to polls taken after the Democratic conventions in 2000 and 2004?  If so, then you're comparing apples to oranges. Are you talking about polls taken in June 2000 and June 2004?  Totally confusing.

and he won by 3.

Just sayin'

here.   Keep in mind that the primaries were pretty much over by February 10 (actually, even earlier) that year.

to the Party not the contest from the polls taken right after the nominee locked up the nomination, whether before the convention or at the convention. What I am saying is that Obama pre- Saturday polls are only about eight points lower than they are today before Clinton conceeded. The polling when Gore locked up the nomination and when Kerry locked up the nomination saw double digit increases in the numbers thats what I am saying. What it goes to is the Clinton supporters have not yet gotten fully on board. And by the way Kerry was ahead of Bush in polling right after he secured the nomination and it was the swift boat crap that keep eating into the lead if I recall.
So what I was saying coming out of the nomination process but Gore lead BUsh and Kerry lead Bush as well as Carter led Reagan and Dukakis led as well but by much larger numbers. The polling I refer to are the ones taken the first week there are two confirmed nominees.
This race thus is proving to be much tighter than in reality it should be in my opinion given the groundswell of new voters for Obama which is why I am not putting real faith behind the polls.
A lesson learned from Byrne/Connolly I suppose.

Putting Obama's lead into perspective
Posted: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:44 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, McCain, Obama, Polls

From NBC's Mark Murray
In the latest NBC/WSJ poll, Obama leads McCain by six points (47%-41%) among registered voters. While polls can't accurately gauge an election five months out -- after all, so much can still happen -- it's worth putting Obama's lead into this perspective: Bush never trailed Kerry in the 2004 NBC/WSJ polls that measured registered voters' preference for Bush, Kerry, and Nader. And Bush's lead was never bigger than four points.

VIDEO: NBC's Andrea Mitchell discusses the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the first that matches up John McCain and Barack Obama since the primaries ended.

Bush won that presidential election by three percentage points, 51%-48%.

Here were the NBC/WSJ trial heats from March 2004 (when Kerry pretty much locked up the nomination) to late October 2004:
March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%
May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%
June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%
July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%
September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%
Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%