Obama Leads McCain in Average of Electoral Vote Projection Sites

Freedom's Lighthouse ^ | July 12, 2008 | BrianinMO

[blogsforthompson.com]

A unique feature of Freedom's Lighthouse is the "Average of Electoral Vote Projections," which you will see updated daily at the top of the left sidebar (see table below). The table shows the ten sites that are regularly updating their Electoral Vote Projection for the Presidential Race. At the bottom of the table are averages for all the sites. There is an average that includes "tossups" and an average of the sites that do not include "tossups." Right now, Obama leads handily in both averages. Come back and check the table on a regular basis. It will be updated at least daily, and several times a day as changes are made on the various sites.

Average of Electoral Vote Projections
Site	McCain	Obama	Tssup
Election Projection	232	306	0
538.com	229	309	0
Electoral Vote.com	215	320	3
Real Clear Politics	163	238	137
Real Clear Politics - no tossups	234	304	0
Federal Review	208	296	34
Coldhearted- truth	245	293	0
270towin	154	235	149
Hedgehog Report	191	347	0
Election Junkie	232	306	0
AVERAGE	210	296	32
AVG. NO TOSSUP	227	311	0
Last Updated 7/12/08 7:50 AM CDT Freedom's Lighthouse.com

[LS]

Paul, people are whistling past the graveyard here. These polls are pretty accurate, and McCain is in big trouble. He is showing a few signs of life, however; his fundraising has jumped, and he has come up in a couple of key state polls (MO, for one). But as of right now, Obama would be the next pres.

[TNCMAXQ]

Not looking great at the moment but things change. We have already seen how much, with the Newsweek poll having Obama up by 15 just weeks ago and now ahead by only 3. Some of these state polls sound a little absurd. Obama ahead or tied in MT and ND, while trailing in MO, and close in OH and MI? Just sounds way out of whack. Either people aren’t being truthful or the pollsters are off base.

[L98Fiero]

“These polls are pretty accurate, and McCain is in big trouble.”

McCain is doing better against his opponent, based on July polls, than the vast majority of his Republican predecessors who won against their Dem opponents.

McCain is sitting pretty.

[LaurenD]

“Some of these state polls sound a little absurd. Obama ahead or tied in MT and ND,”

I’ll never forget how shocked I was when N.Dakota went for Clinton over Bush Sr. And that was 16 years ago.

[TNCMAXQ]

I think ND went for Bush in 1992. Thanks to the Perot split, Clinton managed to take CO and MT by small margins, and with under 40% of the vote. I think if Perot had not been in, Mr Bush would have done much better.

[Sooth2222]

I think if Perot had not been in, Mr Bush would have done much better.

There have been three (3) Democrats who have won the White house since the Civil War with a majority of the popular vote -- FDR, LBJ and Jimmy Carter. When Republicans win, they usually win with a majority of the popular vote, 2000 being an anomaly. When Democrats win, there is usually a third-party candidate to split the conservative vote, and they win with less than 50% (like Clinton did twice).

Yes, Bush #41 would certainly have done better without Ross Perot.

Thankfully, Bob Barr is no Ross Perot.

[LaurenD]

Unless my memory is seriously failing me, I can remember working the evening shift which I had to do to put myself through college, and ND went blue on the map and all these older workers were in shock and disbelief. They couldn’t believe their state of ND went Democrat. It was the year Clinton won over Bush Sr and my sophmore year in college.

[LaurenD]

I just looked it up, and you’re right, ND did go for Bush in 92. I have no idea why I remembered it differently. It must have been some other state that went blue that hadn’t in a long time and some of those I worked with talking about it and I thought it was ND because that is where I lived. That’s the only sense I can make of it anyways because I could have sworn it was ND.

[El Gato]

43-43 without leaners and 46-47 with leaners. No idea how much of a Bradley effect Rasmussen is seeing this season.

Projected electoral count is much more meanfull than national "beauty contest" polls. That's the way Presidents are selected. McCain could have huge percentage leads in the "Red" states, and Obammy could have relatively small ones in his states. The popular vote would look close, but the electoral vote wouldn't be close at all.

[Sooth2222]

The state polls tend to follow the national polls, not lead them. The state polls have been conducted by a variety of organizations, some good, some not so good, and there have been some state polls that have been downright bizarre. The state polls don't reflect the Bradley effect any better than the national polls -- and the Bradley effect probably differs significantly from state to state.

If we have $300 oil and the Dow Jones at 5000 by November, McCain could easily lose it. But if we have $300 oil and the Dow at 5000, everyone who can might as well move to Australia, anyway.