Start the process mathematically ignoring the RCP average. Averaging samples collected with different methods makes no mathematical or statistical sense.
The overall dynamics are absolutely bizarre this year.
Comparisons to 2004 do matter, but what we have going on is in Iowa McCain explicitly stated from day one that he opposed ethanol subsidies. It is for this reason he didn’t even campaign there in the primaries.
Despite this, he is campaigning there now, with some internal numbers suggesting it’s competitive. IOW, in a state where he explicitly took a stand the farmers would hate, he’s still competitive.
Look, people, west of the Mississippi River the states in flux are CO, IA, NM and NV. Nothing else. That’s a total of 26 EVs. All were red in 2004. Bush won by 16 EVs.
So McCain has to hold any losses among those 4 to under 17 EVs. CO(9), IA(7), NM(5), NV(5). In other words McCain has to win any 2 of the 4. If he maintins all else red in the east, he wins.
Everything else is contortion to make up for losing something in the east or losing 3 of those 4 in the west.
Or, if he somehow manages to take Pennsylvania, he could lose all four of those and still win.
And we have ethanol from corn becoming less and less of an issue in Iowa and elsewhere, as most now understand that ethanol can't come from food and that any ethanol must come from products that people don't count on for food. The grudge against McCain is losing its foundation.