"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors ..." -- U.S. Constitution
Ask your legislators to pass National Popular Vote

ZIP:
Endorsed by 2,110
State Legislators
In addition to 1,129 state legislative sponsors (shown above), 981 other legislators have cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.
Progress by State

Tom Golisano

Entrepreneur Tom Golisano Endorses National Popular Vote

Short Explanation
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee a majority of the Electoral College to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would reform the Electoral College so that the electoral vote in the Electoral College reflects the choice of the nation's voters for President of the United States.   more
11 Enactments
The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted into law in states possessing 165 electoral votes — 61% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the legislation.

  • Maryland - 10 votes
  • Massachusetts - 11
  • Washington - 12 votes
  • Vermont - 3 votes
  • Rhode Island - 4 votes
  • DC - 3 votes
  • Hawaii - 4 votes
  • New Jersey - 14 votes
  • Illinois - 20 votes
  • New York - 29 votes
  • California - 55 votes

  • Videos

    Fox Interview

    CBS Video

    Popular Vote

    Class Election

    more videos

    Advisory Board
    John Anderson (R-I–IL)
    Birch Bayh (D–IN)
    John Buchanan (R–AL)
    Tom Campbell (R–CA)
    Tom Downey (D–NY)
    D. Durenberger (R–MN)
    Jake Garn (R–UT)
    What Do You Think
    How should we elect the President?
    The candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states.
    The current Electoral College system.

    Add this poll to your web site
    Pundits Already Say Only 7-14 States Will Matter in 2012


    The vast majority of American voters are irrelevant in presidential elections. The reason is state winner-take-all statutes. These winner-take-all laws award all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state. The practical political effect of the winner-take-all rule is that presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the concerns of voters in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In 2004 and 2008, candidates concentrated two-thirds of their visits and ad money in the post-convention campaign in just six closely divided "battleground" states—with 98% going to just 15 states. The net effect is that two-thirds of the states, and 200,000,000 of 300,000,000 Americans are ignored in presidential elections.




    Sabato says "The 2012 Election Will Come Down to Seven States"

    The 2012 Election Will Come Down to Seven States
    National polls are nice, but Electoral College math is what matters
    By Larry J. Sabato
    The Wall Street Journal
    September 6, 2011

    Straw polls, real polls, debates, caucuses, primaries—that's the public side of presidential campaigns 14 months before Election Day. But behind the scenes, strategists for President Obama and his major Republican opponents are already focused like a laser on the Electoral College.

    The emerging general election contest gives every sign of being highly competitive, unlike 2008. Of course, things can change: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were both in trouble at this point in their first terms, and George H.W. Bush still looked safe. Unexpectedly strong economic growth could make Mr. Obama's re-election path much easier than it currently looks, as could the nomination of a damaged Republican candidate. But a few more weeks like the past couple, and Mr. Obama's re-election trajectory will resemble Jimmy Carter's.

    Both parties are sensibly planning for a close election. For all the talk about how Hispanics or young people will vote, the private chatter is about a few vital swing states. It's always the Electoral College math that matters most.

    Voting is predictable for well over half the states, so even 14 months out it's easy to shade in most of the map for November 2012.

    Barring a Carter-like collapse, President Obama is assured of 175 electoral votes from 12 deep-blue states and the District of Columbia: California (55 electoral votes), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington state (12) and Washington, D.C. (3). Three more states are not quite as certain, but still likely Democratic: Maine (4), Minnesota (10) and Oregon (7). Even though Minnesota is competitive enough to vote Republican under the right set of conditions, it is the state with the longest Democratic presidential streak, dating to 1976.

    Four other states usually vote Democratic for president, but they're hardly a sure thing: Michigan (16), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10). A low Hispanic vote in 2012 could flip New Mexico, as Al Gore carried it by only 366 votes in 2000 and a dedicated effort by George W. Bush flipped it in 2004. In Michigan, economic problems might cause voters to cool on Democrats. Wisconsin, narrowly Democratic in 2000 and 2004, is a cauldron of unpredictable countertrends. And although Pennsylvania has frustrated all GOP attempts to win it over since 1988, recent polls have shown weakness for Mr. Obama there. These 51 electoral votes will be GOP targets if conditions in the fall of 2012 approximate today's.

    Meanwhile, the Republicans have their own firewall. Almost any sentient GOP nominee will carry Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Utah (6), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3). These 18 states have 105 electoral votes.

    The Obama forces have bravely boasted that they can turn Arizona (11), Georgia (16) and Texas (38), mainly because of growing Latino voting power. But with the economy in the tank, electoral claims on these big three will likely go the way of John McCain's early declaration in '08 that California was within his grasp. Count another 65 red votes here.

    Four years ago, even optimistic Democrats didn't think they would pick up Indiana (11), North Carolina (15), or an electoral vote in Nebraska (which like Maine awards one vote per congressional district), yet all three went for Mr. Obama by small margins. In 2012, Indiana is likely to desert him, as is the one Cornhusker district. To keep North Carolina, the Democrats chose Charlotte for their national convention and will make a big play statewide. As of now, it looks tough for them. Thus Republicans are in the lead to win 26 more electors. Missouri was the sole squeaker that went for McCain; few believe it will be tight next year, so the GOP will likely have those 10 votes, too.

    Republicans therefore are a lock or lead in 24 states for 206 electoral votes, and Democrats have or lead in 19 states for 247 electoral votes. That's why seven super-swing states with 85 electors will determine which party gets to the magic number of 270 electoral votes: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13).

    Prior to Obama's 2008 victories in each of these states, several had generally or firmly leaned Republican since 1980. Virginia, which hadn't voted Democratic since 1964, was the biggest surprise, and its Obama majority was larger than that of Ohio, which has frequently been friendly to Democrats in past decades. Massive Hispanic participation turned Colorado and Nevada to Mr. Obama, and it helped him in Florida.

    The GOP has gotten a quiet advantage through the redistricting following the 2010 Census. The Republican nominee could gain about a half-dozen net electors from the transfer of House seats—and thus electoral votes—from the northern Frostbelt to the southern and western Sunbelt. Put another way, the Democrats can no longer win just by adding Ohio to John Kerry's 2004 total. The bleeding of electoral votes from Democratic states would leave him six short of 270.

    Of course, the best-laid plans of Electoral College analysts can be undone overnight by the rise of one or more third-party or independent candidates, as shown by George Wallace from the right (1968), Ross Perot from the middle (1992), and Ralph Nader from the left (2000).

    Right now, though, a troubled President Obama—so far unopposed for re-nomination—has the luxury of keeping both eyes on the Electoral College, planning his trips and policies accordingly. By contrast, the leading Republican contenders are forced to focus their gaze on delegate votes in a handful of early-voting states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Still, quietly they're already seeking admission to the only college that can give them the job they want.


    Mr. Sabato is director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, author of Pendulum Swing (Longman, 2011), and editor of the Crystal Ball newsletter, www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball.








    Alan Abramowitz Lists 7 Toss-Up States

    The Electoral College: Democrats' Friend?
    Alan I. Abramowitz
    Sabato's Crystal Ball
    August 25, 2011

    It's way too soon to make any firm prediction about the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. We don't know what President Obama's approval rating will be in the fall of 2012 or what condition the U.S. economy will be in a year from now. Economic conditions and ratings of the incumbent's job performance 14 months before Election Day don't predict what those numbers will look like a year later. And of course we don't know who the president's Republican challenger will be, which could make a big difference in the outcome.

    But while it's too soon to predict the outcome of next year's election, there are some things that we can predict about that election with a fairly high degree of confidence based on the results of recent presidential elections and long-term trends in American politics.

    First, it is very likely that next year's election will be close, at least in the national popular vote. We haven't had a true landslide in a presidential election since 1984, and the last three elections have been highly competitive. Even Barack Obama's seven percentage point margin over John McCain was relatively narrow by historical standards. Only seven of the previous 25 presidential elections were decided by a smaller margin in the popular vote.

    The reason why the popular vote is likely to be close next year is that identification with the two major parties is very even, and party identification is a very strong predictor of presidential voting. For example, the Gallup Poll showed that during the first six months of 2011 an average of 44.9% of voting age Americans identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party while an average of 44.8% identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party.

    Of course the winner of the presidential election is not determined by the popular vote but by the electoral vote, and while the electoral vote tends to closely reflect the popular vote, when the popular vote is very close, a split result is possible, as we saw in 2000.

    So what can we expect from the Electoral College in 2012? First, even without knowing the winner or the exact margin of the popular vote, we can already predict the outcome of the election with a very high degree of confidence in at least 33 states and the District of Columbia. Together, these jurisdictions will award 345 of the 538 electoral votes. No more than 17 states with 193 electoral votes are likely to be up for grabs in 2012, and the actual number could be a few as seven states with 85 electoral votes.

    Chart 1. Competitiveness of presidential election by states, electoral votes

    Notes: High = 0–4.99%, Moderate = 5–9.99%, Low = 10–14.99%, Very Low = 15% plus. District of Columbia included in 1976–2008 results.

    Source: www.uselectionatlas.org

    The reason why we can already predict the outcome of the 2012 presidential race in so many states is that over the past 30-40 years, as the data in Chart 1 show, the number of states that strongly favor one party has increased dramatically while the number of evenly balanced states has decreased dramatically. In the color-coded language of modern election analysis, there are far more deep red and deep blue states and far fewer purple states then there were in the past.

    Moreover, the deep red and deep blue states now include many of the most populous states that award large blocs of electoral votes. In 1976, for example, every one of the eight most populous states, including Texas, New York, Illinois and California, was a battleground. In 2008, however, only two of these mega-states, Florida and Ohio, were decided by less than five points while six were decided by more than 10 points and three by more than 20 points.

    Chart 2. 2012 Electoral College outlook

    Based on the results of the last three presidential elections, we can classify all 50 states and the District of Columbia into one of five categories: Strongly Democratic states voted for the Democratic candidate by at least five points in all three elections while strongly Republican states voted for the Republican candidate by at least five points in all three elections. Unless something happens to produce a landslide or near-landslide margin in the national popular vote, a result that seems rather unlikely, all of these 33 states, and of course the District of Columbia, can be expected to end up supporting the same party again in 2012. That would give President Obama 179 electoral votes and his Republican challenger 166 electoral votes.

    Another 10 states (along with one congressional district in Nebraska, which is one of only two states that allows its electoral votes to be split) appear to lean toward one party or the other. Some of them, like Michigan and Pennsylvania, have supported the same party in all three elections but sometimes by only a narrow margin. Others, like Indiana and North Carolina, have supported candidates from both parties but have given much bigger margins to one party than the other — in this case the Republican Party. If the national popular vote is close, within two or three points one way or the other, these states will most likely support the party they lean toward. Combined with the electoral votes of the strongly Democratic and strongly Republican states, that would give President Obama 247 electoral votes and his Republican challenger 206 electoral votes.

    If the national popular vote is very close in 2012, the outcome in the Electoral College will probably come down to seven toss-up states with a total of 85 electoral votes: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia. President Obama would need to pick up at least 23 electoral votes from these states while his Republican challenger would need to pick up at least 64. This means that President Obama could win the election by carrying just Florida or by carrying Ohio and Virginia or by carrying Ohio plus one smaller state (but not New Hampshire) or by carrying Virginia plus two smaller states. The Republican candidate would need to carry Florida, Ohio and Virginia plus one smaller state to get to 64 electoral votes.

    So a slight advantage to Obama. It appears that there are more ways that he can piece together the 270 electoral votes needed to win in a close election. Despite what happened in 2000, the Electoral College may yet turn out to be the Democrats' friend in 2012.








    Burgum Lists 7 and Says "It's the swing states, stupid"
    It's the swing states, stupid
    By Tom Burgum
    Longboat Key News
    September 29, 2011

    In 1992, Democratic operative James Carville coined the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid." It was his charming way of reminding the rest of us to focus on what was really important in that election. Carville was right, as he usually is, and Bill Clinton became president.

    Issues change from election to election, this year it's jobs. But there is one constant no matter the issue, no matter the year. The election will be decided by seven swing states.

    Most discussions concerning President Obama's reelection chances ignore what I call Electoral College realities. "Morning Joe" on MSNBC, "American Morning" on CNN and all the rest have a good time discussing the latest sampling of public opinion. Mika is thrilled when she learns that some outlier poll has Mr. Obama at a 49 percent approval rating. At another time, Joe is perplexed at Gallop's finding that only 39 percent of Americans think Obama is doing a good job. The entire cast is surprised to learn that 64 percent of Americans believe that Ron Paul is an alien sent from Uranus to study our political system. (Just kidding on the last one. You can't get 64 percent of Americans to agree on anything.)

    The 2012 presidential election promises to be extremely competitive. A generic Republican may beat Mr. Obama by eight points in some poll, but the flesh-and-blood variety Republicans rarely poll better than the president. For all the talk about disappointed blacks, angry Hispanics and up-in-arms white oldsters, both parties are gearing up to make their big effort in the nine swing states. Forget national polls, it's the Electoral College math that matters most.

    Columnist Gerald F. Seib, writing in The Wall Street Journal, believes the math greatly favors the Democrats.

    "Specifically, there are 18 states plus the District of Columbia that have voted Democratic in all five presidential elections since 1992. Combined, they carry 242 electoral votes — 90 percent of the votes needed for victory."

    What Seib misses is that since 1996, Democrats and Republicans have each won two elections. The 1992 race was skewed by Ross Perot who drew 19 percent of the vote, most of which would have gone to incumbent George H. W. Bush.

    Still, Seib's view that Republicans have a much steeper hill to climb is born out by the numbers.

    Baring President Obama confessing to be a Muslim extremist, he is assured of 216 electoral votes, not the 242 Seib gives him: Maine (4), Connecticut (7), Vermont (3), Delaware (3), Massachusetts (11), Rhode Island (4), Maryland (10), New York (29), New Jersey (14), Pennsylvania (20), Illinois (20), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), California (55), Washington State (12), Hawaii (4) and Washington, D.C. (3).

    On the Democratic side you might want to take issue with including Pennsylvania in the automatic column but even though the economy is bad, the Keystone State has resisted all Republican efforts, and the Democratic machine in South Philadelphia can steal enough votes to overcome disaffected voters in the western part of the state.

    Michigan (16), New Mexico (5) and Wisconsin (10) may not be automatics this year. Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, believes "A low Hispanic vote in 2012 could flip New Mexico… In Michigan, economic problems might cause voters to cool on Democrats. Wisconsin, narrowly Democratic in 2000 and 2004, is a cauldron of unpredictable countertrends." Still, at least Michigan belongs in the Democratic column, at least until we see the Fourth Sign of the Apocalypse — add 16 to the Democratic column.

    Republicans are assured of 170 electoral votes, presuming they run a candidate who will not be dribbling oatmeal from his, or her, mouth during debate performances: Alaska (3), Arizona (11), Idaho (4), Utah (6), Montana (3), Wyoming (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), West Virginia (5), Tennessee (11), Louisiana (8), Alabama (9), Mississippi (6), Arkansas (6), Oklahoma (7), Texas (38), Georgia (16); and South Carolina (9), Indiana (11) and North Carolina (15) surprised everyone and went to the Democratic side in 2008 but very few believe they will be there in 2012. Missouri (10) actually went for McCain in 2008 so that can be added to the Republican total.

    The Democrats have wrapped up or lead in 17 states with 232 electoral votes. Republicans have or lead in 24 states with 206 electoral votes. That is why the political operatives in both parties already concentrate efforts on the states necessary to reach the magical 270 figure.

    With neither party being assured of the necessary 270 electoral votes, it all comes down to the seven swing states. Florida (29) is the biggest prize and with Bush winning in 2004 and Obama in 2008, it is truly a swing state. Florida along with Ohio (18) and Virginia (13) have 60 of the 85 swing state votes. The remaining 35 come from Colorado (9), New Hampshire (4), Iowa (6) and Nevada (6).

    Mr. Obama is trailing in Florida polls but that is but a snapshot of the moment. Republicans may have a slight edge in Virginia, as it has been firmly Republican since 1980. Its swing to the Democrats in 2008 was a very big surprise. Ohio went Democrat in 2008, which was no surprise, but it was a narrower margin than predicted and Republican victories in the state since then have put the state in the undecided column.

    As to Colorado and Nevada, it all depends on Hispanic vote turnout. With Iowa, who knows? There's always trouble in River City. New Hampshire threatens to be a Republican oasis in true blue New England but it leans to the Democratic side.

    The president is now roaming around the country with an understandable emphasis on the swing states. He understands the importance of Florida and the others. We are the most important battleground, and it is very likely the Sunshine State with help from the Buckeye folks and the Old Dominion state will decide who will be our next president.

    Expect to see many dedications of windmills, solar panels, and even an odd bridge or two. Why not, we're important.








    New York Times Identifies 11 States that are Keys to Victory

    The New York Times has an interactive graphic that (as of September 29, 2011) shows the states that are "keys to victory" in 2012.







    Cook Lists 9 Toss-up States and 5 Leaning States (February 23, 2012)

    2012 ELECTORAL VOTE SCORECARD
    February 23, 2012
    COOK POLITICAL REPORT ELECTORAL
    COLLEGE VOTING RATINGS

    Solid Dem
    (13 states)

    Likely Dem
    (1 states)

    Lean Dem
    (4 states)

    Toss Up
    (9 states)

    Lean Rep
    (1 states)

    Likely Rep
    (4 states)

    Solid Rep
    (19 states)

    California (55)
    Connecticut (7)
    Delaware (3)
    Hawaii (4)
    Illinois (20)
    Maryland (10)
    Mass'setts (11)
    New Jersey (14)
    New York (29)
    Rhode Island (4)
    Vermont (3)
    Washington (12)
    Dist. of Col. (3)

    Oregon (7)

    Maine (4)
    Michigan (16)
    Minnesota (10)
    New Mexico (5)

    Colorado (9)
    Florida (29)
    Iowa (6)
    Nevada (6)
    North Car. (15)
    Ohio (18)
    Pennsylvania (20)
    Virginia (13)
    Wisconsin (10)

    New Hamp. (4)

    Arizona (11)
    Georgia (16)
    Indiana (11)
    Missouri (10)

    Alabama (9)
    Alaska (3)
    Arkansas (6)
    Idaho (4)
    Kansas (6)
    Kentucky (8)
    Louisiana (8)
    Miss'ppi (6)
    Montana (3)
    Nebraska (5)
    North Dak. (3)
    Oklahoma (7)
    South Car. (9)
    South Dak. (3)
    Tennessee (11)
    Texas (38)
    Utah (6)
    West Virg. (5)
    Wyoming (3)

    175 E.V.

    7 E.V.

    35 E.V.

    126 E.V.

    4 E.V.

    48 E.V.

    143 E.V.

    182 ELECTORAL VOTES

    270 ELECTORAL VOTES NEEDED TO WIN

    191 ELECTORAL VOTES
    217 ELECTORAL VOTES
    195 ELECTORAL VOTES






    Cook Political Report Lists 10 Toss-Up States and 3 Leaning States (September 15, 2011)

    2012 ELECTORAL VOTE SCORECARD
    September 15, 2011
    COOK POLITICAL REPORT ELECTORAL
    COLLEGE VOTING RATINGS

    Solid Dem
    (15 states)

    Likely Dem
    (1 states)

    Lean Dem
    (2 states)

    Toss Up
    (10 states)

    Lean Rep
    (1 states)

    Likely Rep
    (2 states)

    Solid Rep
    (20 states)

    California (55)
    Connecticut (7)
    Delaware (3)
    Hawaii (4)
    Illinois (20)
    Maine (4)
    Maryland (10)
    Mass'setts (11)
    New Jersey (14)
    New York (29)
    Oregon (7)
    Rhode Island (4)
    Vermont (3)
    Washington (12)
    Dist. of Col. (3)

    New Mexico (5)

    Minnesota (10)
    New Hamp. (4)

    Colorado (9)
    Florida (29)
    Iowa (6)
    Michigan (16)
    Nevada (6)
    North Car. (15)
    Ohio (18)
    Pennsylvania (20)
    Virginia (13)
    Wisconsin (10)

    Missouri (10)

    Arizona (11)
    Indiana (11)

    Alabama (9)
    Alaska (3)
    Arkansas (6)
    Georgia (16)
    Idaho (4)
    Kansas (6)
    Kentucky (8)
    Louisiana (8)
    Miss'ppi (6)
    Montana (3)
    Nebraska (5)
    North Dak. (3)
    Oklahoma (7)
    South Car. (9)
    South Dak. (3)
    Tennessee (11)
    Texas (38)
    Utah (6)
    West Virg. (5)
    Wyoming (3)

    186 E.V.

    5 E.V.

    14 E.V.

    142 E.V.

    10 E.V.

    22 E.V.

    159 E.V.

    191 ELECTORAL VOTES

    270 ELECTORAL VOTES NEEDED TO WIN

    181 ELECTORAL VOTES
    205 ELECTORAL VOTES
    191 ELECTORAL VOTES






    Cook Political Report Lists 6 Toss-Up States and 7 Leaning States (June 2, 2011)

    2012 ELECTORAL VOTE SCORECARD
    June 2, 2011
    COOK POLITICAL REPORT ELECTORAL
    COLLEGE VOTING RATINGS

    Solid Dem
    (15 states)

    Likely Dem
    (1 states)

    Lean Dem
    (5 states)

    Toss Up
    (6 states)

    Lean Rep
    (2 states)

    Likely Rep
    (2 states)

    Solid Rep
    (20 states)

    California (55)
    Connecticut (7)
    Delaware (3)
    Hawaii (4)
    Illinois (20)
    Maine (4)
    Maryland (10)
    Mass'setts (11)
    New Jersey (14)
    New York (29)
    Oregon (7)
    Rhode Island (4)
    Vermont (3)
    Washington (12)
    Dist. of Col. (3)

    New Mexico (5)

    Michigan (16)
    Minnesota (10)
    New Hamp. (4)
    Pennsylvania (20)
    Wisconsin (10)

    Colorado (9)
    Florida (29)
    Iowa (6)
    Nevada (6)
    Ohio (18)
    Virginia (13)

    Missouri (10)
    North Car. (15)

    Arizona (11)
    Indiana (11)

    Alabama (9)
    Alaska (3)
    Arkansas (6)
    Georgia (16)
    Idaho (4)
    Kansas (6)
    Kentucky (8)
    Louisiana (8)
    Miss'ppi (6)
    Montana (3)
    Nebraska (5)
    North Dak. (3)
    Oklahoma (7)
    South Car. (9)
    South Dak. (3)
    Tennessee (11)
    Texas (38)
    Utah (6)
    West Virg. (5)
    Wyoming (3)

    186 E.V.

    5 E.V.

    60 E.V.

    81 E.V.

    25 E.V.

    22 E.V.

    159 E.V.

    191 ELECTORAL VOTES

    270 ELECTORAL VOTES NEEDED TO WIN

    181 ELECTORAL VOTES
    251 ELECTORAL VOTES
    206 ELECTORAL VOTES






    Cook Political Report Lists 7 Toss-Up States (January 13, 2011): Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin

    2012 ELECTORAL VOTE SCORECARD
    January 13, 2011
    COOK POLITICAL REPORT ELECTORAL
    COLLEGE VOTING RATINGS

    Solid Dem
    (15 states)

    Likely Dem
    (0 states)

    Lean Dem
    (4 states)

    Toss Up
    (7 states)

    Lean Rep
    (2 states)

    Likely Rep
    (3 states)

    Solid Rep
    (20 states)

    California (55)
    Connecticut (7)
    Delaware (3)
    Hawaii (4)
    Illinois (20)
    Maine (4)
    Maryland (10)
    Mass'setts (11)
    New Jersey (14)
    New York (29)
    Oregon (7)
    Rhode Island (4)
    Vermont (3)
    Washington (12)
    Dist. of Col. (3)

    Michigan (16)
    Minnesota (10)
    New Hamp. (4)
    New Mexico (5)

    Colorado (9)
    Florida (29)
    Iowa (6)
    Nevada (6)
    Ohio (18)
    Pennsylvania (20)
    Wisconsin (10)

    Missouri (10)
    Virginia (13)

    Arizona (11)
    Indiana (11)
    North Car. (15)

    Alabama (9)
    Alaska (3)
    Arkansas (6)
    Georgia (16)
    Idaho (4)
    Kansas (6)
    Kentucky (8)
    Louisiana (8)
    Miss'ppi (6)
    Montana (3)
    Nebraska (5)
    North Dak. (3)
    Oklahoma (7)
    South Car. (9)
    South Dak. (3)
    Tennessee (11)
    Texas (38)
    Utah (6)
    West Virg. (5)
    Wyoming (3)

    186 E.V.

    0 E.V.

    35 E.V.

    98 E.V.

    23 E.V.

    37 E.V.

    159 E.V.

    186 ELECTORAL VOTES

    270 ELECTORAL VOTES NEEDED TO WIN

    196 ELECTORAL VOTES
    221 ELECTORAL VOTES
    219 ELECTORAL VOTES






    Stuart Rothenberg Lists 8 Battleground States (May 10, 2011) : Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, Florida, and New Hampshire

    Don't Start Planning Obama Inauguration Yet
    By Stuart Rothenberg
    Roll Call Contributing Writer
    May 10, 2011, Midnight

    While few are saying it openly, many I talk with sound as if there is no need to wait until November 2012 to declare President Barack Obama winner of a second term.

    Given the killing of Osama bin Laden, the expected $1 billion war chest of the president's re-election campaign, the less-than-intimidating Republican presidential field and the controversial GOP Congressional initiative proposing substantial changes in Medicare and Social Security, it isn't surprising that many are skeptical of GOP prospects.

    But there are so many dark clouds on the horizon that the president is only an uncomfortably slight favorite for a second term as we enter the spring.

    Until the news of bin Laden's death, Obama's job approval numbers looked weak. They are likely to return to those levels over the next few months unless other good news improves the public's underlying mood of pessimism.

    Surveys, pollsters like to say, are mere snapshots of public opinion, and polling conducted immediately after a major news event usually is nothing more than a photograph of the public's reaction to that event, whether good or bad.

    As we all expected, the president has received a nice bump after the bin Laden news, but when Americans turn their attention back toward the underlying state of the nation, the president's job approval numbers will slide back to about where they were before May 1.

    Actually, this same process already happened at the end of 2010 and early in 2011.

    Obama's job approval ratings, according to Gallup, shot up to 51 percent approve/41 percent disapprove in mid-January after the successes of the lame-duck session of Congress and the president's performance following the Tucson, Ariz., shootings on Jan. 8.

    But by the end of April, Obama's ratings had fallen back to 45 percent approve/47 percent disapprove, almost right where they were in late October 2010.

    Other polls confirmed the trend. The CBS/New York Times poll found the president's January job rating of 49 percent approve/39 percent disapprove slipping to 46 percent approve/45 percent disapprove in mid-April, while the ABC/Washington Post survey showed his 54 percent approve/43 percent disapprove ratings in mid-January plunging to 47 percent approve/50 percent in mid-April.

    These dips weren't unexpected, and I wrote in this space back in late January why the president's mid-January standing in the polls might be nothing more than a "bear market rally" for him rather than a fundamental shift in voter sentiment about his presidency.

    The bubble created by the accomplishments of the lame-duck session and the sense of national unity following the Tucson shootings burst because the nation's fundamentals remained unchanged. So as soon as people refocused on the nation's challenges (e.g., rising gas prices and the deficit), the president's poll numbers returned roughly to where they had been around Election Day.

    That's almost certainly going to happen again unless, of course, there is more good news — economic news — around the corner. Unfortunately for the White House, an unemployment rate of 9 percent and high gas prices don't quality as good news.

    Gallup's Jeffrey Jones suggests that Obama's 10th quarter in office "could be a telling sign for his re-election chances," which at the very least suggests that Jones believes the president's prospects for a second term are uncertain.

    The right direction/wrong track numbers have been equally bad. Depending on which polls you prefer, one-quarter to one-third of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction. These numbers are much worse than the ones pollsters got during the mid-December to mid-February bubble, and they are as bad, or in most cases a few points worse, than polls conducted in October.

    I looked at other survey data, of course, including Congress' job rating and party identification, but nothing suggests that Obama's re-election is, at this point, more than a jump ball.

    What about the thin GOP field and "the map"?

    Yes, the Republican field looks unimpressive overall. But it's hard to measure up to a sitting president, particularly one who is by any definition a historic figure with charisma and unmatched fundraising prowess.

    Still, elections are often referendums, not choices, as we have seen recently. If voters want change, they are inclined to look for something different. Democratic Congressional candidates were different in 2006, Obama was different in 2008, and Republican candidates were different in 2010.

    So assuming that voters feel next November as they do today about the president, Republicans can win in 2012 if they succeed in making that election a referendum on Obama's performance in office and if they nominate a candidate who is broadly acceptable to the electorate, even if he doesn't have all of Obama's skills and assets. (Obama's campaign, of course, will attempt to make the election a choice rather than a referendum if voters are unhappy with the president.)

    While the Republican field looks thin, there are a number of candidates now in the race who pass the "smell test" and could win if the electorate's desire for change is strong enough next year, assuming they run strong races.

    The presidential election map of 2012 says the same thing.

    There are probably six or eight true Tossups if we have a close presidential election next year. The list includes Colorado and Nevada in the West, Virginia and North Carolina in the South and Ohio and Iowa in the Midwest.

    If you feel like adding a few other states, possibly Florida and New Hampshire, go ahead. Please don't add Indiana or Missouri, both of which certainly lean Republican.

    If the president starts with 247 electoral votes and a credible GOP nominee starts with 191, the election will turn on eight states — eight politically competitive states that can go either way depending on the overall dynamics of the political environment and of the election.

    By any definition, that makes the presidential map definitely "in play," at least at this point.

    Finally, since nobody knows what sort of events will happen between now and the fall of 2012, it's hard to know how the president and his Republican opposition will be affected by circumstances.

    The killing of bin Laden is obviously an asset for Obama, and I'm sure we will hear about it often during the campaign. But between now and the fall of 2012, many other developments will define our politics and our politicians. Given all of these considerations, the 2012 Republican nomination looks more valuable than many people now seem to understand.

    Stuart Rothenberg is editor of the Rothenberg Political Report.





    Larry Sabato Lists 8 Battleground States (April 21, 2011): Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida

    The Map
    The Crystal Ball's First 2011 Take on 2012's Electoral College
    By Larry J. Sabato
    Director, U.Va. Center for Politics
    April 21, 2011

    With 18 months to go until November 2012, there is exactly one use for a current projection of the 2012 Electoral College results. This is merely a baseline from which we can judge more reliable projections made closer to the election. Where did we start–before we knew the identity of the Republican nominee for president, the state of the economy in fall 2012 and many other critical facts?

    And so, with that enormous caveat in mind, here is THE MAP.

    If you INCLUDE the "Leans" states with the "Likely" and "Safe," the numbers are as follows:

    • 247 Democratic EVs
    • 180 Republican EVs
    • 111 Undecided

    If you DO NOT INCLUDE the "Leans" states, i.e., just counting "Likely" and "Safe," the numbers are as follows:

    • 196 Democratic EVs
    • 170 Republican EVs
    • 172 Undecided

    With 270 needed for election, our Democratic readers will prefer the first tally, and our Republican readers the second. Indulge yourselves! As heated as the campaign will get, let's remember to have fun along the way.





    AP Says Obama-Romney Race is Focused on 7 States

    Obama-Romney race is focused on 7 states
    By Thomas Beaumontr
    Associated Press
    August 26, 2012

    TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — On the eve of their national party conventions, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are locked in a close race to amass the requisite 270 Electoral College votes for victory. And the contest is exactly where it was at the start of the long, volatile summer: focused on seven states that are up for grabs.

    Neither candidate has a significant advantage in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia, which offer a combined 85 electoral votes, according to an Associated Press analysis of public and private polls, spending on television advertising and numerous interviews with Republican and Democratic strategists in battleground states.

    The analysis, which also took into account the strength of a candidate's on-the-ground organization and travel schedules, found that if the election were held today, Obama would have 19 states and the District of Columbia, offering 247 votes, solidly in his column or leaning his way, while Republican Romney would have 24 states with 206 votes.

    Obama won all seven of the too-close-to-call states in 2008, and they are where the race will primarily be contested in the homestretch to the Nov. 6 election.

    Ten weeks before Election Day, the AP analysis isn't meant to be predictive but rather is intended to provide a snapshot of a race that's been stubbornly close all year.

    Among the unknowns that could shake up the electoral landscape before November: the latest unemployment figures that come out early next month, an unexpected foreign policy crisis in Syria or Iran and the outcome of the candidates' October debates.

    Both sides are working to persuade the 23 percent of registered voters who said in an Associated Press-GfK poll that they are either undecided about the presidential race or iffy in their support for a candidate.

    To woo them, the campaigns and political parties, along with allied groups with access to unlimited financial contributions, have already spent an astounding $540 million on television advertising, according to ad spending reports provided to the AP. And there's more to come.

    Over the past three months, the campaign took a sharply negative turn, at times becoming nasty and personal.

    Obama sought to define Romney early as a ruthless corporate raider for his time at the head of a private equity firm in Boston, and as an out-of-touch rich man keeping secrets about his wealth. Romney, in turn, worked to cast Obama as a failed president on a host of fronts, primarily the economy.

    Both candidates have hit road bumps: Obama saw the unemployment rate rise to 8.3 percent and gave Republicans an opening to argue that he was unfriendly to small business. Romney had a widely panned foreign trip and made a series of potentially problematic comments, most recently joking about the debunked conspiracy theory regarding Obama's citizenship.

    The national party conventions, starting with Republicans here, who convene Monday and start with a full schedule on Tuesday, and ending with Democrats the following week in Charlotte, N.C., will set the parameters of the fall campaign, and could provide each side with at least a temporary surge of support in national, if not battleground state, polls.

    While Obama has a clear advantage given his incumbency, Romney does have a path to victory — though it's a steep climb.

    He must win most of the seven most competitive states — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia — in order to reach the magic number. For instance, he can lose Ohio's 18 electoral votes and still become president if he wins the other six and hangs onto those already in his grasp. It's difficult to see a scenario where Romney wins without a victory in Florida, which offers 29 electoral votes.

    Neither side expects a dramatically different playing field this fall.

    "You know the states that are in play," said Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina. "I don't think there's going to be a surprise."

    Romney's political director Rich Beeson makes the same point: "I don't think you're going to see the map go crazy."

    Still, once their conventions are over, both campaigns will commission polls in the hardest-fought states to determine whether to shift their strategies. The candidates and their allied outside groups will pull money and manpower from states that are moving out of reach while relocating it to others they may now think they have a shot at winning.

    "We're in a holding pattern," said Charlie Black, a veteran Republican campaign strategist and informal adviser to Romney.

    Perhaps not for long.

    With a huge cash advantage, Romney is considering trying to put more states in play — and creating more state-by-state paths to reach 270. He's closely watching to see whether it's worth it to compete aggressively in Wisconsin, now that native son Rep. Paul Ryan is on the ticket.

    The Republican National Committee and GOP allies have been advertising in the state in hopes of making it competitive; at least one poll shows they've had some success and the race appears close. Obama, who has a formidable campaign on the ground that includes the state's active labor and minority blocs, hasn't advertised there but might be forced to do so.

    Romney also is eyeing a deeper investment in Michigan, where he campaigned Friday, and Pennsylvania, where Ryan was last week. Obama carried both states in 2008, but the GOP sees promise in the economically struggling northern industrial states, especially among working-class, white voters.

    The Republican may have the money to expand the map.

    August financial reports show that Romney's overall fundraising apparatus — his campaign, the RNC and a separate joint-fundraising committee — had roughly $177 million in the bank at the end of July. The reports are the most recent public data.

    And to a greater degree than Obama, Romney also has amassed an untapped stockpile of general election money that he plans to use this fall. He can begin spending it immediately upon accepting the nomination for president at the convention's close Thursday night.

    Obama and his comparable committees, in turn, had only about $127 million on hand, according to the most recent report.

    He also must wait until he accepts his party's nomination on Sept. 6, the close of the Democratic convention, to start spending his general election money.

    Unlike Romney, Obama isn't focused on expanding the map in earnest.

    He's mostly looking to hang onto as many of the states he won four years ago, with Ohio being of particular focus. In recent months, Obama's standing there has strengthened, the unemployment rate has dropped and last week General Motors announced a $200 million expansion of a northeast Ohio plant to continue building the Chevrolet Cruze there.

    Beyond playing defense, Obama's team is watching to see whether the political terrain becomes more favorable to him in Missouri in the aftermath of controversial abortion and rape comments by Rep. Todd Akin, a GOP Senate candidate.

    The backlash has been fierce, and polls show Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill — arguably the most vulnerable Senate Democrat — having gained ground. Obama competed for Missouri four years ago but lost and hasn't run ads there this year. Romney has had a comfortable advantage there.

    If they have the money to do it, both sides will engage in head-faking: spending money in places simply to force the other side to defend their home turf. For example, if Romney goes after Pennsylvania, which has voted Democratic in all recent presidential elections, Obama would likely have to spend money to defend it, limiting the amount of cash he'll have available to spend in more competitive states, like Florida or Virginia.






    Karl Rove's 3-2-1 Strategy Sees 6 Swing States

    Romney's Roads to the White House:
    A 3-2-1 strategy can get him to the magic 270 electoral votes.
    By Karl Rove
    May 23, 2012

    On Tuesday, Gallup's seven-day tracking poll had Barack Obama and Mitt Romney tied at 46%. With the incumbent stuck below 50% on the ballot and Mr. Romney's favorability rising, the Republican challenger has a good shot at winning.

    To take the White House, Mr. Romney needs 270 votes in the Electoral College. A "3-2-1" strategy will get him there.

    If Mr. Romney carries the states John McCain won in 2008 and regains Nebraska's second district (the state awards three of its five electoral votes by congressional district, the other two to the statewide winner), the Electoral College will be 14 votes closer than the 365-to-173 total in 2008. That's because the 2010 Census cost blue states such as Massachusetts, New York and Illinois congressional seats—and electoral votes—while red states such as South Carolina, Georgia and Texas gained seats.

    None of Mr. McCain's states appear in real jeopardy for the GOP this year.

    After this initial hurdle, Mr. Romney's victory road starts with "3"—as in Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia, a trio of historically Republican states. In 2008, Mr. Obama won by narrow margins in Indiana (barely 1%) and North Carolina (0.32%).

    Today, even Team Obama doesn't pretend Indiana is in play. North Carolina also appears to be sliding away from the president: A May 14 Rasmussen poll of likely voters showed 51% for Romney, 43% for Obama. Virginia, on the other hand, will likely remain a battleground through Election Day. Mr. Obama carried it by more than six points and remains ahead by a little more than three points, according to the RealClearPolitics average of state polls.

    Nevertheless, if Mr. Romney can put these states' combined 39 electoral votes back into the GOP column, the Electoral College vote would be 319 for Mr. Obama, 219 for Mr. Romney.

    Next up is "2"—as in Florida and Ohio. They flipped from Republican in 2004 to Democratic in 2008. Both were close—a 2.8% margin for Mr. Obama in the former and 4.6% in the latter.

    The president's commanding lead in Florida among Jews has been sagging, his lead among Latinos has sharply narrowed, and seniors are restless. In Ohio he has definite problems with white working-class voters and affluent suburban independents. The race is extremely close in the Buckeye State—a May 7 Quinnipiac poll of registered voters has Mr. Romney at 44%, Mr. Obama at 45%—while a May 21 Quinnipiac poll of registered voters in the Sunshine State has Mr. Romney up 47% to 41%.

    These two states have a combined 47 electoral votes. If Mr. Romney wins them, the Electoral College would stand at 272 for Mr. Obama, 266 for Mr. Romney.

    Which brings us to "1." Mr. Romney then needs one more state—any state—and the White House is his.

    There are many paths open to him. One is the Neighborhood route. If the Boston resident and former Massachusetts governor captures next-door New Hampshire, its four electoral votes would take him to the magical 270 and the Oval Office.

    There's also the Great Lakes route through Michigan (16 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10). Of these, Michigan may be the toughest. But Mr. Obama's antipathy toward coal, added to problems with working-class whites and suburban independents, puts Pennsylvania in play. A May 21 Rasmussen poll of likely voters had the president ahead by six percentage points.

    And if Gov. Scott Walker survives his June 5 recall by a healthy margin, Wisconsin could also be up for grabs—as it was in 2000 and 2004, when Democrats carried it by extremely narrow margins. A May 12 Marquette University Law School poll of likely voters shows the presidential race in Wisconsin tied at 46%.

    The Western route is Colorado (nine electoral votes), Nevada (six) or New Mexico (five). An April 23 Purple Strategies Poll of likely voters has the race tied in Colorado at 47%.

    With the nation's highest unemployment rate (11.7%), Nevadans remember Mr. Obama's notorious bashing of Las Vegas in 2010: "When times are tough, you tighten your belts. . . . You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas . . ." Meanwhile, New Mexico has a popular Republican Latina governor, Susana Martinez.

    Then there's the Plains route. Iowa (six electoral votes) launched Mr. Obama in 2008 but National Journal's Hotline reports Team Obama is targeting it for special attention with TV ads, evidence of its worry.

    Mr. Obama long ago lost his chance to duplicate his 2008 performance. A record of failure will do that. He's now forced to fight for states he easily won in 2008. The odds now narrowly favor a Romney win.

    Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions, 2010).





    Karl Rove Lists 14 Battleground States (May 5, 2011): Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina

    The 2012 Electoral Math Looks Good for the GOP
    The presidential election will likely be decided in 14 states.
    By KARL ROVE
    May 5, 2011

    The number 270 will come to dominate almost every waking moment for the Obama re-election high command in Chicago—as well as for their counterparts in the headquarters of the GOP nominee next year.

    Two hundred seventy is the number of Electoral College votes needed to win the White House. Strategists on both sides will obsess on how to cobble together enough states to reach that total.

    Since the 2008 election, 18 states have experienced a change in their number of electoral votes because of the decennial census. Some (mostly red ones) have gained electoral votes and some (mostly blue) have lost electoral votes. John McCain would have closed the gap by 14 electoral votes in 2008 if the contest had been run under the 2012 Electoral College distribution.

    Most states are not in play. Mr. Obama will not win Utah and Wyoming, and the Republican nominee will not carry the District of Columbia or Rhode Island. But right now 14 states (with 172 electoral votes) are up for grabs.

    Mr. Obama narrowly won three traditionally Republican states in 2008: Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina. Democrats last carried the first two in 1964 and the third in 1976.

    The president will be hard-pressed to win these states and their 39 electoral votes next year, especially Indiana and North Carolina. Democrats will have their convention in Charlotte in an attempt to hold the latter. But a 2009 study by political scientists Michael J. Berry and Kenneth Bickers (of the University of Colorado at Boulder and Denver, respectively) found "no evidence that hosting a national nominating convention has any discernible effect on the ultimate vote in that state."

    Ohio, with 18 electoral votes, and Florida, with 29, both went Democratic in 2008 (they went Republican in 2004), but the swing in each was less than the national average. This indicates some weakness for Mr. Obama that has persisted: A recent Quinnipiac University poll in Florida shows the president losing to a generic, unnamed Republican by three points.

    There are nine other states that have frequently been battlegrounds in recent contests. There is every reason to believe they will be so again.

    According to recent polls (conducted by Public Policy Polling and the polling arms of Suffolk and Quinnipiac universities, the University of New Hampshire, and Dartmouth College), Mr. Obama trails former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in New Hampshire (four electoral votes), and he leads a generic, unnamed Republican by only one point in Pennsylvania (20 votes), a state he carried last time by over 10%. He leads a Republican (both unnamed and named) in the Midwest states of Michigan (16 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10), Iowa (six), and Minnesota (10)—but with less than 50%.

    Then there are Western battlegrounds: Colorado (nine electoral votes), New Mexico (five) and Nevada (six). Mr. Obama leads in the first two with more than 50%—albeit in polls by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm that tends to be more generous to its party's candidates. But in Nevada, Mr. Obama trails Mr. Romney in a poll conducted by the same firm.

    The 2012 presidential election is likely to be decided in 14 states. If Mr. Obama loses the three states he narrowly carried in 2008 plus Ohio and Florida, then the GOP would win back the White House by swiping any one of the nine remaining battlegrounds. This is a good place for the party to be right now.

    The GOP could benefit from the enthusiasm and new registrations generated in its primaries, just as Democrats did in 2008. It also helps that there are Republican governors in 10 of the 14 battleground states. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is planning a big ground game in these states to register, persuade and turn out the vote.

    Team Obama can't afford to only play defense. They say they will make plays for Georgia, Arizona and Texas. The first is a long shot; the last two are either attempts to sucker the GOP into a defensive crouch or simply represent bravado. Neither state is likely to go Democratic.

    The president's team is already focused on its Electoral College math project. According to CBS Radio's Mark Knoller, since January President Obama has made 40 stops in 15 states. Twelve stops were in battleground states and of the remaining 28 events, 15 were fund raisers in Democratic treasure houses like New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

    At this point, the 2012 election is shaping up to be much closer than 2008. Mr. Obama has the considerable benefits of incumbency but also a dismal record. The electoral map has shrunk for him: Key states that went for him last time are unlikely to do so again. This election is within the GOP's grasp. The quality of the Republican candidate's campaign and message will decide whether it becomes so.

    Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.






    Examiner Political Buzz Lists 12 Swing States (May 27, 2011)

    An updated look at the electoral college map with polls
    Examiner Political Buzz
    By Ryan Witt
    May 27, 2011

    The 2012 election is 529 days away, and polling organizations are already starting to survey the individual states. President Obama has already announced his bid for re-election and there is not serious challenger to him on the Democratic side. The Republican nomination is still up for grabs, but pollsters can still ask respondents to pit Obama against a number of potential candidates. Below one can see the latest breakdown for each state along with the latest polling, if any, done on the 2012 race. Since the last update, new polls have been released in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, and Washington.

    A state is called "safe" based on the 2008 results, and should not be interpreted to mean that this state will not be in play in 2012. As can be seen below, right now Public Policy Polling is dominating the news when it comes to polling for the individual states. Beside each state is listed the candidate who polled strongest against President Obama (usually Mitt Romney with a few exceptions). President Obama's poll number is listed first, followed by the Republican challenger's number. Analysis is also provided after the table.

    StateElectoral VotesResult in 2008Latest Polling
    Safe Obama States
    California5561%-37%56%-33% (Romney) (PPP)
    Connecticut761%-38%
    Delaware362%-37%
    Hawaii472%-27%
    Illinois2062%-37%
    Maine458%-40%49%-40% (Romney) (PPP)
    Maryland1062%-37%
    Massachusetts1162%-36%
    Michigan1657%-41%48%-41% (Romney) (PPP)
    New Hampshire454%-45%47%-46% (Romney) (PPP)
    New Jersey1457%-42%
    New Mexico557%-42%53%-37% (Romney) (PPP)
    New York2963%-36%
    Oregon757%-41%
    Pennsylvania2055%-44%42%-43% (Romney) (PPP)
    Rhode Island463%-35%
    Vermont368%-31%
    Washington1258%-41%51%-40% (Romney) (PPP)
    Washington D.C.393%-7%
    Wisconsin1056%-43%51%-39% (Romney) (PPP)
    *Nebraska's 2nd Dist.150%-49%49-37% (Romney) (PPP)
    Total (270 needed to win)242
    Safe Republican States
    Alabama939%-61%
    Alaska338%-60%
    Arizona1145%-54%44%-48% (Romney) (PPP)
    Arkansas639%-59%
    Idaho436%-61%
    Kansas642%-57%
    Kentucky841%-58%
    Louisiana839%-59%
    Mississippi643%-56%40%-46% (Romney) (PPP)
    Nebraska442%-57%
    North Dakota345%-53%
    Oklahoma734%-66%
    South Carolina945%-54%45%-47% (Demint) (PPP)
    South Dakota345%-53%
    Tennessee1142%-57%41%-48% (Romney) (PPP)
    Texas3844%-55%42%-49% (Romney) (PPP)
    Utah634%-63%
    West Virginia543%-56%37%-50% (Romney) (PPP)
    Wyoming333%-65%
    Total (270 needed to win)150
    Swing States
    Colorado954%-45%47%-41% (Romney) (PPP)
    Florida2951%-48%42%-43% (Romney) (Suffolk)
    Georgia1652%-47%45%-48% (Romney) (PPP)
    Indiana1150%-49%
    Iowa654%-45%45%-41% (Romney) (PPP)
    Minnesota1054%-45%
    Missouri1049%-50%43%-44% (Romney) (PPP)
    Montana347%-50%
    Nevada655%-43%43%-46% (Romney) (PPP)
    North Carolina1550%-49%46%-43% (Romney) (PPP)
    Ohio1846%-42%44%-42% (Romney) (PPP)
    Virginia1353%-47%51%-40% (Romney) (PPP)
    Total146

    Little has changed in the overall picture since the last update. President Obama still leads in all the new polls, and have even increased his lead in Wisconsin. Multiple national polls, including Rasmussen Reports and POLITICO/GWU/Battleground show President Obama leading over Mitt Romney and a "generic Republican."

    The 2012 presidential election will likely be decided by the "swing states" once again. Of particular interest will be the states of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia given their large electoral vote counts.

    Right now it is easy to see why President Obama is considered the favorite. Assuming President Obama keeps all his "safe" states, a fairly large though not preposterous assumption, he would only 28 out of the 146 "swing state" votes in order to win the election. Under this scenario, Florida alone, or a combination of Minnesota and Ohio, could secure re-election for President Obama.

    Even if President Obama loses a "safe" state, such as Pennsylvania, he could make up the losses by simply winning North Carolina and Iowa. The Republican candidate, on the other hand, will need to win all of his "safe" states in order to have any chance of winning the general election.

    It is also worth noting that most of the PPP's polls were taken before the killing of Osama bin Laden, and therefore do not take into account any "bump" President Obama may have received from the operation.





    Reform the Electoral College so that the electoral vote reflects the nationwide popular vote for President