Obama Leading In Eight Battlegrounds Bush Led In Four Years Ago
Here's another way to assess the state of the race right now: We've drawn up a chart comparing the Real Clear Politics averages right now in 13 core battleground states with the RCP averages in the same states from right before the 2004 election.
The results are startling. Obama is currently leading in eight swing states that Bush led in just before Election Day 2004, in several cases by big margins, and he's leading in all of the selected battleground states except for West Virginia. Take a look:
RCP 2004 Result 2004 RCP Now Colorado Bush +5.2 Bush +4.7 Obama +6.2 Florida Bush +0.6 Bush +5.0 Obama +2.7 Iowa Bush +0.3 Bush +0.7 Obama +11.4 Michigan Kerry +3.5 Kerry +3.4 Obama +17.0 Minnesota Kerry +3.2 Kerry +3.5 Obama +11.3 Missouri Bush +4.2 Bush +7.2 Obama +0.6 Nevada Bush +6.3 Bush +2.6 Obama +3.5 New Hampshire Kerry +1.0 Kerry +1.3 Obama +7.7 New Mexico Bush +1.4 Bush +0.7 Obama +8.4 Ohio Bush +2.1 Bush +2.1 Obama +6.3 Pennsylvania Kerry +0.9 Kerry +2.5 Obama +10.8 West Virginia Bush +8.5 Bush +12.9 McCain +8.0 Wisconsin Bush +0.9 Kerry +0.4 Obama +10.6
Obama is winning by sizable margins in Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, and Wisconsin, all states Bush led in four years ago. He's winning by slimmer margins in Florida, Missouri, and Nevada, also states where Bush led.
Also noteworthy: In every state but one -- Wisconsin -- the RCP average just before the election was predictive of the final outcome.
And get this: Obama is also competitive, or even winning, in an additional half-dozen states that RCP didn't even bother calculating the average of four years ago. Obama is winning in Virginia and holds a slight edge in North Carolina; he's roughly tied with McCain in Indiana; and he's even within striking distance in Montana and North Dakota.
Wow.
(Ed. Note: RCP doesn't have an archive of exactly what their averages were calculated as being one week before the election, the equivalent point to where we are now. That said, the raw poll data did not significantly change for most of the individual states during that final week in 2004.)
Wow! TPM EC posters have now mastered the <table> tag. And within a <blockquote>, no less!
I've gotta try this out to see if it works from the commenter's side!
October 28, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 28, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you specify the number of rows?
October 28, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the editor's note. I was curious about what "right before the election" actually meant.
You ought to title this post (ala Atrios) "poll porn".
October 28, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love your comment: Wow.
Wow indeed.
LOL!
October 28, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
IndyStar Indiana Poll: Obama 48 McCain 47
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081028/NEWS0502/810280405
October 28, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well done Greg and ERIC, who was rudely slammed last night. Thank you.
October 28, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
when was Eric rudely slammed? I wasn't around so it wasn't me - this time.
;)
October 28, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, no way was it you. It was last night, and at least one blogger said it was rude also. These guys are trying to do their job, and the nastiness didn't sit well with me, especially after we read readership has gone from 30 some thousand to 400 plus thousand. And yes CT, it was along the lines of Eric is in it for McCain, ridiculous.
October 28, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric in it for McCain?
Jeez. I thought he was in it for Obama last spring. Or maybe that was Greg. No. Wait. Greg was in it for Hillary. Or was that Eric?
If you want my opinion, they're both secret admirers of Huckadoodle.
October 28, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
O they both just hate to see Bush leave office.
;)
October 28, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was he rudely slammed? Was he goading commenters with a "cling" remark? A "shrinking lead" remark?
I swear he does it on purpose.
October 28, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh. I totally agree he does it on purpose just to get us riled and he probably laughs at us for posting sour comments when he does that.
October 28, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Florida seemed to have a lot of hidden Republican support, as did Missouri. On the other hand Nevada shows stronger Republican support than it votes.
October 28, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Florida is weird, but I got an email from a friend yesterday, who moved to Florida last spring and she told me that Obama was kicking ass and taking names in Florida.
I hope she's right.
October 28, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Melbourne, FL, in area that Bush won by 57 points in 2004. Back then, it was pretty much only Bush signs and stickers.
Now, while there are still many McCain signs and stickers, there's plenty of Obama too. I'd say 60-40 McCain, which is a lot better than 80-20 four years ago.
October 28, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Florida and Missouri had enough "hidden" Republican support in 2004 to erase Obama's current leads.
Of course, Florida was governed by the President's brother in 2004. Maybe they won't be able to cheat as easily down there this time.
-- ARG
October 28, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha...it's always stolen, or cheating when y'all lose. So, when you win a close one it's...?
October 28, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not always. But Florida in 2000? Yep.
October 28, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you see how shamefully cynical the GOP has become? The entire strategy now relies on keeping turnout down, and possibly invalidating the votes of those people that actually do vote.
October 28, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny. I have a dyed-in-the-wool righty friend and business partner who mentioned today he thought it was funny of the Obama campaign to ask people to take off on election day to "vote more often."
I had to remind him he was sounding a lot like the "liberals who cry foul when they lose."
October 28, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you must be right, Jonze. Why else would McCain be spending so much time in PA when, if these polls are right, he may be losing in NC, FL, NV, IN, OH and so many other states. It seems logical to conclude that his polls are telling him something different. Either that or he just wants to scare as many people he can about Obama and all the boogie bears.
October 28, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting to see that Bush significantly outperformed the polling average in Florida in 2004 (5.0 vs 0.6). A 4.4% lift would be enough for McCain to carry the state.
Was that the result of the Republican GOTV effort in 2004?
Any Florida polling experts out there?
October 28, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a polling expert, but generally speaking, Bush was able to over perform on his polling averages thanks to his huge GOTV effort. Good news for Dems is that Obama's is reportedly even bigger.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
October 28, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably. McCain has no such ground game. This is over.
I know McCain is betting on low turnout but did anyone notice 9000K people waiting in the rain to see Obama this morning?
October 28, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
McLame has 0 ground game is right.
October 28, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The photo diary on this over at dKos brought tears to my eyes. Especially the picture of the man holding the "Hope" sign, with smudges on it because of the rain.
Link: 9000 in a freaking cold yucky noreaster kinda rain for Obama
October 28, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
O my god - thank you for that, CT. Those pictures are just unreal - they are beautiful. That man in tears with the Hope sign really gets me. And Obama standing there in the rain - I'm sure Palin would stand there in the rain - NOT.
October 28, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Might wash off her Eskimo Tan.
October 28, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, I guess that is inspiring in a way. On the other hand, if (God forbid!) Obama were to catch pneumonia from standing out in a cold rain, that could make things sticky. I hope that his staging team books more indoor venues in the next few days, because we need him to stay healthy.
October 28, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Channeling Debbie Downer these days?
Just teasing you, I hope you realize...
He's not going to go all William Henry Harrison on us. At least I hope not.
October 28, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it was precisely Harrison I had in mind. Chalk it up to a graduate education in microbial pathogenesis.
October 28, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol... it's REALLY hard not to worry, isn't it? I had the same thought.
October 28, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just saw this. No lie.
What was the horse's name in Animal Farm? I don't remember. All I remember was his constant refrain: "I will work harder."
I will canvass some more.
October 28, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boxer. Speculate on the meaning.
October 29, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's ground game is hoping that the same Evangelicals who made up the bulk Bush's ground game will come back and work for him - which is a major reason why Palin was brought on. McCain spent no primary money on ground game (which would have been only limited to the amount he could raise) and the campaign couldn't afford to use McCain's $84M of public money to buy a ground game so he's hoping Palin will being out the same volunteers to make a 72 hour ground game that would start next Sunday after Church Service and carry though to the close of the polls on Tuesday.
October 28, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I wonder how much of that machinery is still in place in Florida. HuffPo had a piece recalling how Florida Republicans were bragging they'd be fine because they have the best ground operation in the country (granted it was over the summer - they may feel differently now).
At any rate, it seems that at the very least Obama has an equal ground operation in Florida which would offset any potential gains the Republicans might deliver. At best, they've got nothing and this year it will be Obama outperforming the polls.
October 28, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad Obama is so far ahead in Wisconsin. Otherwise I would've been worried after visiting Eau Claire, WI this last weekend. McCain-Palin stickers everywhere! It was like walking into a alternate world- I live in Minneapolis and the other areas in WI and MN are nothing like that. I was literally floored by the support for McLame there. What the hell, Eau Claire?
October 28, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me explain something about Washington state -supposedly so liberal, right? Gig Harbor, Wa is wall to wall Repugs. Tacoma is full of rednecks - most redneck place I've ever been.
Pretty much every state is mixed.
October 28, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are no "red states" or "blue states," remember? Stay on message!
Red areas and blue areas, OTOH....
October 28, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Even here in Massachusetts, we have our share of McCain yard signs...sometimes right in the districts of our openly gay representatives, and sometimes those voters support both! Interestingly, our youthful black governor, Deval Patrick, went from political unknown to unseating 15+ years of Republican gubernatorial control in about 18 months with a well-organized, internet-focused campaign, dosed with plenty of inspiring rhetoric. Mass is mostly "unenrolled" (ie independent) voters, and Deval won handily even though the GOP railed against "one party rule" on Beacon Hill, "Taxachusetts" and all that. I am hoping for Barack to take a page out of Deval's book! :)
October 28, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and WI is certainly a mixed bag. Really weird to got from such Obama country, as Minneapolis is, to Eau Claire and see that though. Gave me the willies.....
October 28, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Texas is just like that - the metropolitan areas are Democratic and more liberal than not.
The suburbs and the rural areas are reactionary and beyond conservative.
October 28, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The poll of polls will help you sleep at night. It gives such a nice, wide picture. And it does a great job of drowning out statistical noise.
And seriously, being a Pharma rep in rural Georgia right now stinks. Every friggin waiting room has a TV tuned to Fox. Arghhhh
October 28, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed that about Dr.'s offices, here in CA too, Stockton and Sacramento areas. I always get up and hit the mute button :)
October 28, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doctors as such reactionaries. Frankly, most of them know next to nothing about our government and most of them are terrible business men.
October 28, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most doctors I know get their information and their attitudes about government straight from their malpractice carriers.
October 28, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to make such generalities, but it's mainly true. I hated to see that some of my friends who became doctors unquestionably accepted the Big Pharm/insurance company propaganda on plaintiff lawyers. It was like med school turned off part of their brains.
October 28, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL -- thanks for the workday comic relief! I'm a lawyer who writes contracts for doctors all day long...and I say at least once a week, "Argh, I wish they taught a business course in medical school!" Then there are the lawyers hired by the doctors....shudder...
October 28, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
A bit late for the election, but did you know there's a universal remote you can purchase that will allow you to change the channel, mute, or power-off those annoying TVs? I hate that stuff too.
Supposed to be small enough to put on a keychain, and no one need ever know "who turned off the sound?"
October 29, 2008 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg & Eric - you need to redo your "BattleGround" states. You have a host of +10 states, and happen to be missing these:
Indiana (11): Obama +0.3
North Carolina (15): Obama +1.6
Virginia (13): Obama +7.3
In fact, Obama is closer in these than he is in WV:
Georgia (15): McCain +5.3
Arizona (10): McCain +6.0
Montana (3): McCain +3.3
Those all need to be added to your chart to give a deeper picture of what's going on:
Arizona (10): Bush +10.5
Georgia (15): Bush +16.6
Indiana (11): Bush +20.7
Montana (3): Bush +20.5
North Carolina (15): Bush +12.4
Virginia (13): Bush +8.2
Not a *single* state that you list above that Obama has a chance of winning (since he won't win WV) was +10 for Bush in 2004. MO topped out the list at +7.2.
Every single one of these Bush strongholds was higher than that, with only VA under +10 and two of them +20.
That's what is happening here down the stretch. Obama has opened up new Battlegrounds. Part of this was the brillant strategy to attack VA and NC. Of course part of it is the GOP Brand being in tatters.
Anyway, if you're including WV as a "battleground state", you need to include some of these others. No one ever looked at WV as a true battleground, whereas VA has long been a target (since at least Webb's win in 2006), while NC was one that the Obama Camp targetted at a time others thought they were crazy to invest resources in it.
John
October 28, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
John,
Greg and Eric use these because they are the state RCP has the data on from 2004.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html
October 28, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you didn't read down to the bottom of their original post, did you?
They didn't include those in their table because there is no comparison data available.
But you make a good point. Which Eric and Greg also made.
-- ARG
October 28, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad. :)
John
October 28, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Obama has successfully expanded the number of battleground states. Last election's list is obsolete so we need a new and expanded list. Or perhaps it's just easier to check off the few states that are reliably 'red'. The rest are either safely 'blue' or are in play.
Right now McCain reminds me of Napoleon during his retreat from Moscow: desertions all around, incompetent subordinates, dwindling prospects, no resources and a rampant enemy.
Where can he make his final stand?
October 28, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
They just did an e-mail question segment about whether people believed the polls or not?
They didn't read one e-mial saying yes.
Shocked!
October 28, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is up by 10% in Nevada - 50 to 40
http://www.suffolk.edu/images/content/Nevada_Marginals_Oct_27_20081__2_.pdf
October 28, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if Dubya pulled off an October Surprise and nobody noticed???
<tinfoil hat=on>
Gasoline prices have dropped hugely in the past month.
</tinfoil>
It's amazing what things get lost in the debris of a full-blown economic meltdown.
October 28, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget, that little wag the dog invasion of Syria. The reaction is like, "whatever."
October 28, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey I noticed, and I also noticed that not many folks seem to give much a damn. Interesting. You really think there is some election-related price manipulation going on?
October 28, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
When is Rahm Emmanuel going to publicly apologize to Howard Dean for belittling his "50 State Strategy"? Seems like a pretty good idea now eh, Rahmmy?
October 28, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear. Gov Dean is probably too gracious to indulge such impulses, but he is surely entitled to enjoy a very sweet "I told you so" moment on Nov 5.
October 28, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'd like camera hogging motor mouth Chuck Schumer to apologize as well.
Add to that Paul Begala, who was just the epitome of an elite snob in his dismissal of a 50-state strategy.
And for the trifecta, I'd also have to toss into the mix James Carville, who spent a good deal of time trying to stab Dean in the back.
October 28, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the drop in price was tied directly to the world economic collapse.
October 28, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Tena, that was Bush's idea too.
October 28, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was due to the pyschological effect of all those ginormous gushers we imagined after the off shore drilling ban was vitiated by our spineless Democratic congresscritters.
October 28, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was due to the pyschological effect of all those ginormous gushers we imagined after the off shore drilling ban was vitiated by our spineless Democratic congresscritters.
October 28, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is. The drop off in demand and the strengthening dollar. And the lack of credit/liquidity has chased many an oil speculator from the market.
October 28, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush can't control the price of oil - I don't think. I know he's butt buddies with Prince Bandar, but Prince Bandar has to answer to the rest of OPEC.
October 28, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I meant the world economic collapse was Bush's idea. He's a smart feller.
October 28, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was because all those wells Bush drilled in the oil bidness back in the 80"s finally came in.
October 28, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I read it seems that the price drop of oil is a result of - besides a fall in demand - hedge investors coming up short on cash reserves, and having to dump assets at fire sale prices to re capitalize their positions, pay off margin calls, etc.
Now, I don't know about any possible collusion on the part of these investors, but I know this: big players in the financial world know that they stand a lot better chance of avoiding both jail and taxes under McCain. Just a thought.
October 28, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amelie - you a rep?
October 28, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
They overstated Bush's advantage in WI by 1.3%. OTOH, they understated it in MO by 3.0%.
So now they show Obama up by 0.6% in MO. That's not a big enough lead to feel comfortable about.
October 28, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are, of course, right that no one should grow complacent about Missouri. That said, I can assure you that no one here in Missouri is growing complacent.
October 28, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the thing - nobody is complacent this time around.
NOBODY.
we can quit being nagged about it - Jesus' Tits - Michigan now has 98% of the eligible population registered to vote.
You think they'll vote? I sure as hell do - unemployment in Michigan has been staggering. That's true of the whole rust belt.
October 28, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agree more. All this talk of complacency is driving me nuts. The anger and resentment that built over the last eight years coupled with the economic disaster we are living through will overwhelm any chance of complacency.
I think voters want to stick it to the GOP. One look at the states in play for Obama should be enough to convince us all that this election has become a primal scream against the incompetence, corruption, and ideology that has reduced us to where we now.
As Obama says: "Enough"
October 28, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said below that it's getting awfully close to nagging and that's counter-productive.
I wish they'd trust us to get it done - we've given our all -
October 28, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, sorry. I phrased it poorly.
I was directing that comfortable remark to arm-chair quarterbacks like me who are playing a virtual betting game.
Youz guyz and galz out in the field, well I won't tell you not to feel comfortable or complacent. That's your privilege as you see things from your vantage points.
But I'm sure you are keeping your efforts up regardless, and that's all any of us can ask. So, my very sincere thanks. And go get 'em!
October 28, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be something to be uncomfortable about if he needed Missouri to win. He has enough other states within the proper margin for the big picture to look good.
October 28, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. Right now, we need Obama more than he needs us. We have a long-standing reputation as a bellweather to uphold, whereas he just needs 270 electoral votes and it really does not matter which particular combination of states gives them to him.
October 28, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you fail Missouri will forever be in pundit purgatory. Five Our Fathers and Ten Bloody Marys for you. Plus excommunication.
October 28, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Zogby the poll that keeps changing the mix so it looks like McCain is gaining? Can we officially put these turds out of business Nov. 5 after the Obama landslide?
October 28, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they could survive how badly they did in 2004, they can survive anything.
October 28, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this article about the scene in Va
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/27/111716/90/236/643543
October 28, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this article about the scene in Va
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/27/111716/90/236/643543
October 28, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111568/Gallup-Daily-Presidential-Race-Narrows-Slightly.aspx
Expect to see LV-I quoted all over the place for the rest of the cycle.
John
October 28, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Increasingly McCain's path to victory is a variation on Dukakasis' last ditch gambit in Oct. 88 - 'We're only down by 10 in Ohio, but if we can take it, MI and PA, we might be able to string together enough electoral votes to win this thing." - as it turned out he still wouldn't even have come close had he won all three. Now, I'm not predicting 400+ EVs for Obama, but I have little doubt he'll run up bigger EV numbers than Bush ever did.
October 28, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink