Skip to main content

Not enough pundits mention this but Barack Obama narrowly won Indiana and North Carolina and almost won Missouri in 2008.  I'm not suggesting that this time around Obama will easily win Indiana or Missouri although he appears to be able to pull off a larger margin of victory in North Carolina as it's more of a swing state in 2010 than it was in 2008.

The point being, at least from judging the collective of polling data by Huffpost Politics Election Dashboard, is that anything can happen in this election cycle.  States that were deemed too red for Obama in 2008 may not be reliably red as they were years ago.

Right now, it would be safe to say that the red states in the U.S. that are not going to change in Obama's favor are Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Utah.

However, there are other states that are pulling away from being Safe Romney and are now in Lean Romney territory.  Arguably, some of these states may have gone back to Safe Romney territory in previous days but others have gone into the Lean Romney territory as of yesterday.

The Lean Romney states are as follows:

Georgia:  49% Romney, 45% Obama (upgraded to Lean Romney category by Huffington Post yesterday)

South Carolina:  51% Romney, 42% Obama

South Dakota:  50% Romney, 42% Obama

Tennessee:  50% Romney, 42% Obama

Even Huffington Post reports similar polling numbers for Strong Romney states, which it hasn't as of yesterday classified into Lean Romney states:

Indiana:  51% Romney, 42% Obama

Montana:  51% Romney, 42% Obama

Missouri:  50% Romney, 43% Obama

Now if we want to judge by Huffington Post's election polling data analysis, the conclusion for this fluctuation of red state data may indicate any of the following:

1)  Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention persuaded more centrist, moderate and even some conservative voters than expected.

2)  Mitt Romney is becoming a really lousy candidate who is dragging his whole party down like George W. Bush (perhaps even worse than Dubya).  Conservatives are starting to move away from supporting Romney.

3)  President Barack Obama's campaign and supporters are fired up from Obama's DNC speech and are pumped for this election.

Anyway, I'm not an expert on polls and data but I find this polling information interesting.  

Any thoughts?  Does President Obama have any chances in the Lean Romney states?  Does this polling data provide an insight into what the election season might look like in 2014 and even 2016?  Are any of these "red states" going to become swing states in 2016?

Keep in mind, polling data is subject to change and even the Lean Romney States I've mentioned could go back down to Safe Romney states.

Then again, anything can happen.  Three presidential debates and the vice-presidential debate have yet to begin.  In addition, there's roughly seven weeks until the election.

11:38 PM PT: It appears there's quite a discussion going on here with regards to the polling data and modeling that's being cited in Huffington Post's analysis.  A few things I want to point out:

1)  My diary is not about new polls that have just been announced.  It's about the real data analysis into these polls.

2)  I now argue that Obama can still win North Carolina this season and it may be possible for him to win the state by a larger margin than in 2008.  However, I can not be definitive in saying that Obama will definitely win NC.  Both Huffpost and Nate Silver report that there's a high likelihood that things in NC will go to Romney's favor.

3)  Data is data is data.  No matter how you interpret it, data can't lie.  Only how you interpret it is what matters.

4)  Not every red state is the same.  As one person who commented had pointed out, Georgia has a number of liberal areas (Atlanta and Athens).

Originally posted to pipsorcle on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:56 PM PDT.

Also republished by South Dakota Kos.


Which of the following states would Obama most likely win (if he's lucky)?

33%97 votes
20%59 votes
15%45 votes
9%27 votes
3%10 votes
1%4 votes
2%6 votes
13%40 votes

| 288 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That Georgia number is pretty nasty (4+ / 0-)

    for poor Mittster!

    For some reason, Tennesseans seem awfully resistant to him, even though he's  a white (pseudo) conservative. If it's even close there by election day, Florida and Ohio are going to be blowouts.

  •  Wouldn't it be nice if this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PZinOR, wilderness voice

    ended up being a big wave election that brought those states to the blue side?

    Expose the lies. Fight for the truth. Push progressive politics. Save our planet. Health care is a right, not a privilege.

    by lighttheway on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:02:39 PM PDT

  •  I admire your optimism but (5+ / 0-)

    I honestly don't think any of the states you mention are in play. And the polling numbers you give seem to corroborate my opinion.

    In fact, I don't expect Obama will win North Carolina. I'll be very happy if he can carry Ohio and Florida.

    "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

    by Demi Moaned on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:02:43 PM PDT

    •  Ohio and Virginia would be good enough for me (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Demi Moaned, Woody

      Florida would be the icing on the cake.

      Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
      ¡Boycott Arizona!

      by litho on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:30:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, OH, VA, CO and NV ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        will be quite a satisfactory take. Quite sufficient to secure the election. Florida would be great not just for the votes but for propaganda reasons. My feeling is that the Florida electorate will choose Obama, but there is such a history of electoral monkey-business in that state that I'm not sure our margins will be sufficient to overcome.

        "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

        by Demi Moaned on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 08:47:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Don't interpret my analysis as optimism (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Demi Moaned

      I'm just looking at data and comparing it to not only the 2008 election but even 2004 and 2000.

      Understand, I'm only offering an objective view of data.  I'm not trying to dig too deeply into what the data might imply.  Guessing is the best choice I have right now.  Notice at the end of my diary I leave everyone with a set of questions to ponder.

      Anyway, how can you be certain Obama won't win North Carolina?  He won it in 2008, the Democratic National Convention was held in the state and the race is really tight there.  Mitt Romney also hasn't maintained a consistent lead in the polls.

      Also, right now I think Ohio is a lock for Obama.  There should be no question about that.  Romney's "let Detroit go bankrupt" op-ed piece destroyed his momentum in key Midwestern swing states.

      Florida right now looks decent for Obama although by no means is he abandoning campaigning in the state.

      •  Where do you find certainty in my comment? (0+ / 0-)

        I'm happy that Ohio looks strong for Obama. Nate gives Obama a 73.5% chance of carrying it. But he gives Romney 74.8% for North Carolina.

        So, I just can't follow you to the point of counting North Carolina on our side and then looking for even redder states that we might pick up.

        It could happen, but it's not what I expect at this point.

        "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

        by Demi Moaned on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 08:44:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again, I'm only interpreting data from Huffpost (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          First off, you said "In fact, I don't expect Obama will win North Carolina" in your previous post.  I interpreted that as you being certain that Obama would not win NC in this election.  Perhaps I should have said "sure" instead of "certain" when I first asked you.

          Secondly, remember again, NC was won by Obama in 2008.  It's no longer considered a red state like it was in 2004 or even 2000.

          Also, I would like to respectively disagree with Nate on the 74.8% chance of Romney winning NC although he might have insight into polling data that I don't know about.  I haven't looked at his analysis in detail yet but I will.

          The point being:  NC is a swing state and the polling shows the race there is VERY tight (tighter than even Colorado or Florida).  Could Romney win NC?  Possibly.  However, it's more likely Obama will win NC than SC or Georgia.

          There's roughly seven weeks until the election.  Polling could change in NC and it may go up or down in Romney or Obama's favor.  However, I doubt NC is going to present Romney a BIG margin of victory.

          •  What polling are you seeing in NC? (0+ / 0-)

            "I expect" is a much weaker statement than "I'm sure" or "I'm certain". It's deliberately uncertain.

            "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

            by Demi Moaned on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 06:45:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here's what I'm finding (0+ / 0-)

              Keep in mind not all of these polls are taken the same day or week so there are changes that go on with the numbers:  they go up, down although not by a huge margin.

              Rasmussen (not necessarily the most reliable source):


              Elon University/Charlotte Observer Poll (taken after Romney's RNC speech):


              High Point University/FOX8:


              The News Tribute (an interesting article on polling data methods for data in NC)

              Dubious numbers

              “Our regular polling will show whether this Flash Poll is an outlier or a harbinger of a new trend in voter sentiment,” Civitas President Francis De Luca said in a Sept. 10 statement accompanying the poll.

              But the poll, by the generally respected SurveyUSA, found Romney winning support from 30 percent of black voters. It also found him getting 60 percent of voters ages 18-34.

              For many experts, that strains credulity. 2008 exit polls in North Carolina showed Obama winning 95 percent of black voters and 74 percent of voters ages 18-29.

              “There isn’t any way in any state that Mitt Romney is going to have 30 percent of the black vote,” says veteran Democratic pollster Peter Hart. “It would be impossible.”

              De Luca acknowledges that raised a red flag.

              “I doubted that result was completely accurate, but I thought overall the poll had relevant information in it,” he says. “I could have been more direct and said ‘I don’t necessarily believe these results,’ but I tried to do it in a diplomatic way.

              “If I had to do it over, I probably wouldn’t have released this poll because it allows people … to try to taint all of our polls. If you do as many polls as we do, some of them are going to be bad.”

              Some polls do have Mitt Romney clearly leading whereas other polls show Barack Obama with a slight lead.   It appears there's fluctuation from one poll to the next with no candidate consistently leading North Carolina in all the polls.

              Bottom line:  We still have roughly seven weeks left of this election.  Also, I haven't seen significant polling numbers come out after Romney's secret fundraiser video showed up all over the news and arguably, that video is what's really putting conservatives in a tale spin right now.

              •  The polls you cite are equivocal at best (0+ / 0-)

                Most of them still show Romney in the lead. I grant you that NC is still in play, but there's no way you can count it as highly likely for Obama based on this evidence.

                "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

                by Demi Moaned on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 02:21:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Highly likely may be an overstatement (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Demi Moaned

                  "Highly likely" is more along the lines of Ohio or even Michigan.  I'd argue North Carolina represents a possible Obama win this November but the probably of him winning Ohio is greater than winning NC.  On the other hand, the probability of Obama winning NC is greater than winning Missouri.  Obama did loose Missouri last election but only by a tiny margin.  He also won NC by at least 10,000 votes in 2008.  Even today, it seems the Obama campaign is spending considerable amount of resources in NC, more so than in Missouri (perhaps even more resources in NC than in 2008).  I believe they are in the state to win it although NC still remains to be a battle.  It's more so a battle than Ohio and Florida.

  •  If North Carolina was more a swing state (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    penguins4peace, Demi Moaned

    in 2010 than 2008 as you indicate, how come Obama isn't polling better there today than he was in 2008?  How do you see that he would win be a greater margin?

    "The 'Gay Agenda' has indeed been revealed, and it bears a remarkable resemblance to the U.S. Constitution." ~Donna Minnis

    by Decided Voter on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:17:14 PM PDT

    •  Depends on the Polls... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bear83, Decided Voter, blueoasis

      PPP has consistently had NC essentially tied (and Obama barely won it in '08)

      Some other polls have had Romney ahead by a bit more, but if PPP is on target (and it is their home state) then maybe Obama can pull it out again.

    •  Remember, Obama won by a tiny margin in 2008 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Decided Voter

      I don't have polling data from 2008 available (still looking for it).  I will say though that Obama won NC by 14,177 and definitely has a reasonable chance to win the state again this time around.

      Perhaps it might help to view the graph on Huffington Post's website (I'm hoping you are able to access it):

      What I've noticed in the graph of the polling data for North Carolina is that Mitt Romney did lead by a tiny margin for a while in August.  Then at the beginning of this month and after the Democratic National Convention, Romney's lead in the polling slowed down and Obama's has been increasing (perhaps not as much as in Wisconsin).

      Also note these four observations:

      1)  This is Sept 19 and we've still got roughly seven weeks until the election.

      2)  Mitt Romney continues to screw up.  Obama is not making any false moves.

      3)  In terms of votes in 2000, Bush won NC by 56% compared to Gore's 43%.

      4)  In terms of votes in 2004, Bush won NC by 56.1% compared to Kerry's 43.6%.

      •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

        I don't have polling data from 2008.  I admit I typed that assuming it had him ahead since he eventually won it.  So maybe that wasn't the case...

        I agree he definitely does have a reasonable chance to win the state this time around.

        Thanks for your thoughtful diary and comment.

        "The 'Gay Agenda' has indeed been revealed, and it bears a remarkable resemblance to the U.S. Constitution." ~Donna Minnis

        by Decided Voter on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:23:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  though it is amusing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Obama has led as many times in MO as Romney has in PA yet a site like 270towin has MO as good old safe red, whereas PA is beige swing... very interesting...

    "Never trust a man who, when left alone with a tea cosy, doesn't try it on!!"

    by EcosseNJ on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:23:12 PM PDT

    •  They always say PA is swing... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And it NEVER is...

      In order not to believe in evolution you must either be ignorant, stupid or insane-- Richard Dawkins

      by sandav on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:28:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Missouri is not the reddest state in the U.S. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      llywrch, blueoasis

      At least not in my view.  The whole Todd Akin fiasco and the fact that Claire Mccaskill seems to have momentum for re-election right now indicate to me that the Democratic Party may consider committing to the state more now than it did previously.

      I'd argue that the reddest states are either Oklahoma or Utah (although Salt Lake City is Democratic for the most part).

    •  270towin is the result of self-selecting voters (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      In other words, there are more pro-Romney people contributing than pro-Obama. To help counter this, I've been submitting some very unrealistic Obama victories like this one. (Yeah, that's an unbelievable result, & I'd be shocked if Obama carried Texas, let alone broke 400 EV, as I predict in that map.)

      Anyone with a few spare minutes might want to cast a vote for some similar Obama landslides on 270towin. Just to balance the consensus. Or even better, use it to help GOTV, & help win the more important contest.

  •  My theory on why Indiana has gone so red.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think part of it is the lack of a late season Dem Primary .... One of the unintended positive benefits of that late battle was LOTS of dem organizing and lots of dem advertising.

    I don't live in the Chicago area, but I can't imagine anybody is spending a whole lot of money on TV in that area (probably much more in Milwaukee?)

    So the state drifts back to it's red roots.

  •  Keep an eye on TX... n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
    ¡Boycott Arizona!

    by litho on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:29:33 PM PDT

    •  Yes, Texas. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      litho, blueoasis

      Arguably, Texas won't be won by Obama this election cycle but there is potential for the state for real long-term grassroots commitment by the Democratic Party.  I think the selection of San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro was among one of the smartest choices the Democrats made.  That and Texas has a handful of liberal/Democratic cities:  Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio.

      It would be nice to turn Texas blue as it does offer quite a huge amount of electoral votes.

      •  That "handful of liberal/Democratic cities" is (0+ / 0-)

        roughly 16.4 million people (if we count SMAs, not "cities" per se), out of a state population of roughly 25.1 million. And that doesn't include El Paso at 800,000.  The smaller places and rural areas do not have 1/2 as many folks.  The state is predominantly URBAN.

        Texas is only less populous than CaLIFORNIA.  We have 36 Congressional districts now, and 38 Electoral College votes.

        Texas has 25 metropolitan areas (MSAs) defined by the United States Census Bureau. The two largest are ranked among the top 10 United States metropolitan areas.

        Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

        by tom 47 on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 07:16:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Phony (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, wu ming
    "Republican Senate candidates in moderate-to-left-leaning states who need to keep the Democratic base pacified and still pull a sizable portion of independents in order to win could very well be hurt by this," he said.
    What a waste of a seat to have a Republican in it in a left-leaning state.  This comment reinforces that they're only there to ensure the GOP controls the Senate and vote for their agenda when they can sneak it in.  

    Blue states....don't fall for it.  Senate Democratic candidates in these states will need to run ads showing how having a Democrat win in their state will ensure the Democrats retain the majority....similar to what Sheldon Whitehouse did in 2006 very effectively.

    "The 'Gay Agenda' has indeed been revealed, and it bears a remarkable resemblance to the U.S. Constitution." ~Donna Minnis

    by Decided Voter on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:40:00 PM PDT

  •  TN surprises me a little (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    llywrch, Woody, blueoasis

    Assuming we divide up the undecided portion into proportions equal to the declared Obama and Romney voters, that leaves us with 55-44 Romney.  Which is amazing, because TN was one of the few states in 2008 where Obama's vote declined compared to Kerry in 2004.  Maybe some of the white Democrats in central and western TN that defected to McCain aren't quite as thrilled with Romney.  Plus there's a lot of auto parts building in TN, and I doubt Romney's bankruptcy comments played well in those areas.

    GA, though is the most likely of Obama's long-shots.  Normally I might say MT, but MT in 2008 was made artificially closer by the presence of Ron Paul on the ballot.  GA's Atlanta suburbs have been slowly trending Dem since 1992, and assuming the trend continues (and there's no real reason not to) GA may even be closer than in 2008.  I doubt it will flip, but if Romney start to REALLY sink in numbers, that'll be the first firewall to fall.

    All your vote are belong to us.

    by Harkov311 on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:40:32 PM PDT

  •  If Obama's Doing Well in the Swing States... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, llywrch, blueoasis

    I'd love to see him try to expand the field into these states. Even if he can't ultimately win any of them, it seems like it may help some down-ballot races.

    Plus it'd be great if he were in position to have a true 400+ EV landslide if everything breaks his way.

  •  You know I wish we would try to do (0+ / 0-)

    what they do in blue states, and hamper them.  I mean, wouldn't it be awesome if the liberal Koch bros. nuked Georgia with ads just to see how many people could flip?  What about some parts of Alabama and Mississippi?  I know it might seem like pissing away money, but I think there's a huge depressed Dem vote out there.

    Romney/Caligula 2012!

    by sujigu on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 08:21:39 PM PDT

    •  You raise a good point (0+ / 0-)

      I'm afraid I don't know Alabama or Mississippi well enough to be a judge on where to campaign.  However, it wouldn't hurt for further outreaching to the states for the Democratic Party.  I doubt though the Obama campaign will want to spend its resources in those states right now.

      Mississippi is traditionally conservative although when Howard Dean was chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he committed more resources into the state than before.

      Alabama may even be more red than Mississippi.  It was difficult for Artur Davis to maintain his status as a Democrat because it's difficult to be pro-Obama and pro-Democrat in the state than being a moderate conservative, which is what Artur Davis is.  On the other hand, Davis is dillusional and sold his mind to the GOP.

  •  Romney's current advantages... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in these states are comparable to Obama's current advantage in Virginia and only a couple points off Obama's current advantage in Ohio.  Think about that.

    States that are off the board are states where one candidate is consistently up 10/15+ points, as Obama is in, e.g., California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts and Romney is in, e.g., Alabama, Oklahoma, Idaho and Utah.

    In contrast, these states are NOT off the board.  Rather, these states are either actually or close to being in play; in any event, far from safe Romney.  Obama would not win these states if the election were held today.  But the red team is not on a very good trajectory and frankly the coalition looks much more vulnerable at this point in 2012 than they did at this point in 2008.  As stupid as it might sound, they did not expect to be playing from behind this year and were not ready to run a campaign in which they had to actually persuade independent voters.  Romney is not campaigning--and cannot campaign---in Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, Missouri, etc.  Republicans are sliding right now, in disarray and off-message.  Unless that changes quickly, yes, the R advantage in these states could erode.

    •  I agree your analysis (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chicago Lawyer

      My feeling is this:  

      We have seen the Democratic National Convention where Bill Clinton gave a persuasive argument for moderates, moderate conservatives, some conservatives, swing voters and independents AND where Barack Obama gave his argument for his base and even those Obama supporters he had in 2008 that have had reservations for him or have chosen Romney or even the Green Party due to being disillusioned by Obama's actions in the White House.

      We have also seen Mitt Romney continue to screw himself up and his campaign up in ways neither any Democrat nor Republican could have imagined prior to him being the GOP presidential nominee.  Romney himself, by his actions, speeches and decisions, is revealing to America and the world more about the GOP than before and it is really damaging the party more.  Every time he's going off on his campaign, poor GOP spokespeople have to try to defend him and they do a terrible job at doing so.

      Then of course there's the Todd Akin and Paul Ryan factors.  Those are also hurting the GOP as well.

      In essence, I think the GOP is right now becoming more distant from reality than it was even in the 1980's.

    •  Add to this 3rd party options (0+ / 0-)

      In a number of the swing states, there is a notable 3rd party presence which could appeal to the disaffected Republican rank-&-file. For example, the Libertarian candidate received 1% in Indiana & 0.8% in Georgia; a determined campaign would be to build on these numbers & aim to double their voting numbers.

      Now if Obama builds a solid enough of a lead over Romney in mid-October -- say 5-6% -- Republicans who are lukewarm to cold about Romney might decide that they'd rather vote for Johnson or Goode. Especially if the Libertarians & Constitution parties made a convincing argument they could reach the 5% threshold nationwide to get public funding.

      With that in mind, what would happen if the Republicans lost 5 points in some of these lean Romney states, like Georgia, Missouri, Indiana & so forth. In other words, there is a real chance of an Obama landslide in the electoral college -- an endgame play, something to plan for if everything else has gone right.

  •  Those aren't polling numbers (0+ / 0-)

    they're some sort of mystical projection ("model estimate"), and utterly bullshit. In fact, they smack of cheap linkbait.

    Now some real polling in the future may corroborate HuffPo's optimism, but right now there is none. And hell, if their projections are based on anything more than faith they don't say it.

    We have plenty of reason to be optimistic without convincing ourselves that South Dakota is competitive.

    •  Perhaps I should change my diary title... (0+ / 0-)

      ...To include polling data collective analysis modeling, rather than to emphasize "new polls."  That might have been a bit misleading and I apologize if you interpreted the title as such.  I'm probably going to change the title soon.

      That being said, in no way am I implying that we should depend on Huffington Post's analysis.  In fact, I'm looking at Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog right now and am finding that Nate is in agreement with HuffPost on the probability of North Carolina going in Romney's favor (I still think Obama will win the state in the end but that's just my view).  The difference is HuffPost predicts a 56% probability of a Romney lead whereas Nate Silver predicts a 74.8% probability of a Romney win.  Also, for Missouri, HuffPost argues a 99% Romney lead whereas Nate Silver argues an 89.6% Romney win.  I'm not sure yet if Huffpost implies a "lead" means a "win" but if it's not, well then, I don't know what to think.

      I think we should be careful to interpret any polling data, polling analysis and polling data modeling and anything of the like as being "optimistic," "pessimistic" or even "cynical."  I'm not going to give any optimism or rash assumptions based on Huffpost's analysis as I still intend to examine Nata Silver's analysis and others more closely.  I'm just raising questions for the most part and making observations.  My Philosophy professor in college said that with regards to polling data: 1) data is data and it cannot be false and 2) interpretation of data can be subjective.  You could make the argument that the polls Huffpost references and analyzes in its modeling are not the most accurate polls in comparison to Nate Silver's analysis or any other person's analysis.  However, in the end all that matters is GOTV and voter turnout.

      Anyway, the point of my diary is for people to examine the red states in detail and if there happen to be any ones extremely red vs. not so red.  What makes a red state like Georgia less red than a red state like Oklahoma?  Does polling tell the true picture?  If Huffpost isn't accurate on its data modeling, then perhaps Nate Silver or others are more reliable.  However, one cannot simply say that in looking at data and knowing states in reality and demographics that Georgia is exactly the same red state as Oklahoma.  Georgia has liberal/Democratic areas like Atlanta and Athens (where one of my friend lives) whereas Oklahoma not as much (although I haven't traveled to GA or OK yet).  I'm mainly pointing out that on Daily Kos, I have not seen diaries and their discussions dig deep into red states and whether they truly are red states after all.  Maybe I haven't been as active as others.

      Lastly, in no way am I suggesting South Dakota will become a competitive race anytime soon nor am I even saying Georgia could become a swing state by Oct. 15.  At best, what the Obama campaign needs to do is focus on the states that are REALLY competitive right now and worry about say Georgia later (in fact, GA shouldn't even be a priority right now).  As I've pointed out in my diary, polls can change and Huffpost may cite new polling data and conduct its own data modeling scheme the way has done yesterday, the previous week, last month and even the beginning of this year.  Hell, if the polls Huffpost cites are not the most reliable and up-to-date polls, then that's fair argument.

      After all, does President Obama depend on any polling data, data modeling and data analysis for his speeches and how he's running the country?  Of course not.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site