Reëlection Watch: May 3, 2012
We’ve been running these for several months now. Now that the election is shifting gears and focusing on the two candidates, it’s time to shake things up a bit.
First, Reëlection Watch is shifting to a twice-monthly schedule. Second, some of the sections we had in previous versions are being eliminated or consolidated. And third, I’m zooming in more on the battleground states, since that’s where the action will be.
So, how are things going for the President lately?
National Polls
Last month, Obama’s approval/disapproval rating in the Real Clear Politics average had a +1.8 point spread. It has since dropped to +0.6 points, though the difference appears mostly attributable to the differences among polls of “Americans”, “registered voters”, and “likely voters”. That is, if the aggregate is heavier with “Americans”, the average is more positive than it is with the other two. This means that we need to look closely to determine the actual signal. Compare apples to apples, and you’ll see what I mean:
- Rasmussen gained four points to –1
- Gallup lost three points to +1
- Fox News gained three points to –6
- CBS gained 12 points to +6
In short, we have noise that’s bigger than any shifts in the overall score. The bottom line is that Obama is roughly equal between the approvals and disapprovals. Given where we are in the cycle, this is the mean to which we can expect localized bumps to revert. That said, we should be looking for long-term trend signals in the noise, but those need at least two months of data to be clearly signal.The Right Track/Wrong Track polls seem to be converging on their own mean. This month the spread grew by 2.5 points to −28.8, but this growth looks more like mean reversion than anything else. We should watch for changes if another budget battle crops up this summer.
Congress’s spread improved again, this time by 4.4 points to −64.0. It’s hardly a number worthy of celebration, but people are less angry at Congress than they were in February, when it was the worst spread on record.The generic Congressional ballot got redder for a while, then lost some of its red tint this month, ending up exactly where it started at R+1.4. It’s too early to tell if this is a harbinger of a trend back to the left, or merely reversion to the mean.
As of yesterday, Intrade had Obama at a 59.9 percent chance of reëlection, down 0.8 points from last month. This is looking like a roughly 60 percent mean as the starting point for the “real” race, as the 60 percent zone has been constant since early February, when trading started becoming appreciably more active.
Things have essentially stabilized in a somewhat pro-Obama state, though not necessarily pro-Democrat in the House.
The Economy
In many respects, this is a repeat of last time.
Nationally, employment growth has continued to slow down, though it remains in positive territory. ADP, the New Jersey-based payroll processing company, projects a seasonally-adjusted month-over-month rise in private-sector employment of 119,000, down from last month’s revised 201,000 (down a hair from their original 209,000 number). It’s roughly enough to keep up with population growth, which is a reflected in the expected lack of change in the U3 unemployment rate at 8.2 percent. Some have suggested that the lower rate of rise in employment has come from the mild winter, which started the spring surge a couple of months ahead of schedule. This would account for the higher numbers earlier in the year.
Unemployment in some battleground states differ significantly from the national average, though. Look at these:
| State | U3 Rate | Difference from National Average |
| Florida | 9.0 | +0.8 |
| Iowa | 5.2 | –3.0 |
| Nevada | 12.0 | +3.8 |
| New Hampshire | 5.2 | –3.0 |
| North Carolina | 9.7 | +1.5 |
| Pennsylvania | 7.5 | –0.7 |
| Virginia | 5.6 | –2.6 |
| Wisconsin | 6.8 | –1.4 |
Compared to the national average, then, Nevada has it worst, followed by North Carolina and Florida; Iowa and New Hampshire are doing best, followed by Virginia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
But the trend can have a bigger impact than the raw number. Nationally, the U3 rate dropped by 0.7 points. How did the key states do?
| State | Year over Year U3 Rate Change |
Difference from National Average |
| Florida | –1.7 | –1.0 |
| Nevada | –1.6 | –0.9 |
| Wisconsin | –0.8 | –0.1 |
Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia had rate changes low enough to be statistically insignificant. For those states, then, unemployment isn’t improving.
We can conclude from this that Iowa, New Hampshire, and Virginia are doing well overall, and Wisconsin isn’t far behind, while Florida and Nevada are moving in the right direction. On unemployment, North Carolina appears to be the most vulnerable, and Pennsylvania is more neutral (better-than-average unemployment rate, but not close to full employment and not improving).
In terms of oil, West Texas Intermediate crude is trading at about $105, up almost two percent from last month, while Brent crude (representing the European market) has fallen a little over three percent to about $119. The rise in Texas is most likely the seasonal price hike that occurs in the spring of every year, as transportation use rises sharply in the US. The fall in Europe is perhaps a combination of a more stable Iran and a clearer second dip into recession in Europe. Last month, I predicted that gasoline prices would fall in response to the falling oil prices. Sure enough, it fell about 12 cents per gallon, roughly three percent. The rise in oil prices this month will probably increase gasoline prices next month, though this increase should be significantly weaker than the last one.
Meanwhile, natural gas prices continue their slide. Over the past year, the spot price has fallen from five dollars per million British Thermal Units to about two dollars, a drop of 60 percent. There are many reasons behind this, but that’s a topic for a future article. In the meantime, it’s worth keeping in mind that the lower natural gas prices translate to lower electricity prices in many parts of the country.
All in all, it’s a mixed bag on the national scene, though good in some key states.
The Electoral College
This month, I’m adding a new wrinkle here. There are two separate trends involved, and it’s worthwhile to tease them apart.
First is the national trend, where all states move in the same direction. Big news, such as last year’s killing of Osama bin Laden, or a widespread economic shift, causes this effect.
Second is the state trend, where a state moves relative to the nation as a whole. This can be caused by local news stories, or media buys, or political rallies…something that isn’t of much interest outside the state’s boundaries.
We could track the state trends for all 51 contributors to the Electoral College, but that’s hardly worth the effort. After all, with Texas being over 20 points in Romney’s direction, and the District of Columbia over 60 points in Obama’s direction, flipping either of them would take a shift in the national landscape of such epic proportions that nobody would have much interest in the Presidential election.
So, instead, I’m going to track only those in play. For now, I’ll have to ignore those without recent polls.
The Real Clear Politics national average gives Obama a 3.7 point lead over Romney. Let’s see how the states RCP considers “in play” compare to that average (some of these are adjusted to correct for house effects):
| State | Current | 2008 Election | Shift Since 2008 |
||
| Obama Margin |
Difference from National Average |
Obama Margin |
Difference from National Average |
||
| Arizona | –3.2 | –6.9 | –8.6 | –15.8 | +8.9 |
| Colorado | +7.0 | +3.3 | +9.0 | +1.7 | +1.6 |
| Florida | +3.3 | –0.4 | +2.8 | –4.4 | +4.0 |
| Georgia | –12.0 | –15.7 | –5.2 | –12.5 | –3.2 |
| Indiana | –9.0 | –12.7 | +1.0 | –6.2 | –6.5 |
| Iowa | +3.0 | –0.7 | +9.5 | +2.3 | –3.0 |
| Maine | +12.0 | +8.3 | +17.3 | +10.1 | –1.8 |
| Michigan | +11.3 | +7.6 | +16.5 | +9.2 | –1.6 |
| Minnesota | +9.6 | +6.1 | +10.2 | +3.0 | +3.1 |
| Missouri | +3.0 | –0.7 | –0.1 | –7.4 | +6.7 |
| Montana | –3.0 | –6.7 | –2.3 | –9.5 | +2.8 |
| New Hampshire | +3.5 | –0.2 | +9.6 | +2.4 | –2.6 |
| New Mexico | +15.0 | +11.3 | +15.1 | +7.9 | +3.4 |
| Nevada | +8.0 | +4.3 | +12.5 | +5.2 | –0.9 |
| North Carolina | +2.4 | –1.3 | +0.3 | –6.9 | +5.6 |
| Ohio | +5.3 | +1.8 | +4.6 | –2.7 | +4.5 |
| Oregon | +11.0 | +7.3 | +16.4 | +9.1 | –1.8 |
| Pennsylvania | +3.0 | –0.7 | +10.4 | +3.1 | –3.2 |
| Virginia | +2.5 | –1.2 | +6.3 | –1.0 | –0.2 |
| Wisconsin | +12.7 | +9.0 | +13.9 | +6.6 | +2.4 |
I left South Carolina off the list, even though RCP considers it in play, because of the lack of recent polling there.
If the difference from the national average is appreciably far from the 2008 results, and there isn’t a clear explanation to account for that difference, then I’d be particularly suspicious of the current state polling. As it is, though, I can see credible reasons for most of the shifts. I’m unsure of Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio, though.
In any case, for the next few months I’ll be tracking both the national average movement and the relative movement of each state compared to the national average. This should give us a chance to evaluate the credibility of the state polls, and see what impact the campaigns are having on the individual states, relative to the nation as a whole.
Now let’s see what the current Electoral College looks like:

There has been some shuffling, but the net result is a shift from the “Leans Obama” column to the “Tossup” column. Here’s what’s changed since last month’s battleground, from most likely to go Romney’s way to most likely to go Obama’s way:
- Arizona is being called a tossup by RCP. I do believe that it’s going to be less red this time than in 2008, simply because Senator John McCain was the hometown candidate. That makes Arizona more of a “Leans Romney” than a “Likely Romney”, but I’m not ready to call it a tossup.
- Missouri got a new Rasmussen poll, taking six points away from Romney. That moves the Show Me State to tossup.
- North Carolina remains solidly in tossup territory. The Survey USA and Rasmussen polls each show Obama and Romney, respectively, as the leader. In both cases, it’s by small single digits.
- Pennsylvania had no Romney vs. Obama polls in April. With no new data, there’s no reason to move this one.
- Florida, had polls from left-leaning Public Policy Polling, and right-leaning Rasmussen and Fox News. All three sit inside the margin of error, making Florida a pure tossup.
- Nevada turned into a clearer Obama Lean, based on an April Rasmussen poll. I’m still leaving Nevada purple…but if the trend continues in the current direction, my next update will put Nevada into the Leans Obama column.
- Ohio is less certain this month, now that Fox and Rasmussen give Obama smaller margins than last time. But it’s still far enough away from zero to be Leans Obama.
- Virginia also looks less certain for Obama than it was last month. Rasmussen came away with Obama having lost a full ten points, giving Romney the edge by one. Coupled with Public Policy Polling’s eight-point Obama lead, this looks like it’s barely better than Ohio for Obama’s prospects.
Based on this month’s polling, Obama needs only 34 electoral votes (up from 12 last month) out of the 121 in the tossup group. This means that, worst case, Obama would need five of the nine states in the category. If he gets the three easiest from the above list, it would be enough. Or he could get two of the three, plus any one of pure tossups Florida, Pennsylvania, or North Carolina.
One thing is clear from all of this: now that the distractions of the primary race are falling away, Obama has little margin for error in keeping his job.
Conclusion
With the Electoral College getting a little more competitive, and another weaker-than-expected jobs report, things aren’t necessarily rosy for Obama. Long-term indicators remain mixed, leaving too many opportunities for things to shift in the next six months. We need to start looking at the trends to see where things are headed.
Something to keep in mind: four years ago, the polls tightened up in March and April. By this day four years ago, Obama’s five-point lead over McCain narrowed to 1.1 points in the national RCP average. He held that lead, which grew to as large as seven points, until the Republican convention bump. Once that bump faded, and McCain and running mate Sarah Palin made misstep after misstep, Obama’s poll lead widened to 7.6 points. He won the election by 7.2 points.
Related articles
- Reëlection Watch: April 2012 (logarchism.com)
- GOP lawmaker mocks new Obama reëlection slogan (thehill.com)
- As the economy slows, so slow his reëlection chances (steveprestegard.com)
- Milbank: Obama embraces the permanent campaign (politico.com)
- S.E. Cupp: Obama ‘Miscalculated’ With Osama Ad, Provoking Criticism From The Left (mediaite.com)

This entry was posted by Michael Weiss on May 3, 2012 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Reelection Watch. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
#2 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Is that common to run ads targeting a certain race or ethnicity? Is that something to be proud of? I would hope Romney’s ads would appeal equally to all genders, races, religions. What are these targetted ads for Hispanics? “Hey hispanics, the GOP wants you dead”. Sounds like more dividing/race hustling from the Divider in Chief. -
#3 written by dawolf 1 year ago
I honestly believe rgbact that long term you will realise that Obama is nothing of the sort. Obama is one of the least divisive politicians I can imagine (this is a man who built his entire political persona based on unity and non-divisiveness), but when your opponents are only intent on obstruction and division of their own it makes it impossible.
Frankly, I consider some of the Republicans deliberate damage of their own country for political ends pretty close to treason. -
#4 written by mclever 1 year ago
@rgbact,
To reply to your snarky question with a serious answer:
Yes, in communities with substantial Hispanic populations, it’s common to run ads targeting them, and largely that is done by running the same general campaign messages, but translated into Spanish and running on Spanish language TV or radio. So, not the “dividing/race hustling” that you suggest with your hyperbole about the GOP wanting them dead.
I’m shocked that you find just running essentially the same message, whether it’s “Yes, we can!” or “Sí, se puede!” to be so divisive. -
#5 written by mclever 1 year ago
Oh, rgbact, BTW, Romney ran Spanish language ads in Miami during the Florida primary, so it’s not just a Democratic thing to do…
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Romney-Spanish-language-campaign-ads/2012/01/11/id/423854
Is Romney now a “divider in chief” because he ran Spanish campaign ads?
Sheesh. -
#7 written by mclever 1 year ago
I think the state-by-state analysis with comparisons to 2008 is particularly fascinating. I’ll be interested in seeing the trends as they develop.
I can offer a partial explanation for Ohio’s blue shift, in that 1) local moderates are unhappy with their state Republicans right now and 2) they also benefit from saving the auto industry, especially up along Lake Erie from Toledo to Cleveland.
Minnesota I see as being a “reversion to the mean” of sorts, considering that they’re usually quite blue, even in overwhelmingly red Reagan years. Also, there might be some anti-crazy backlash going on with my neighbors to the north.
With Missouri, I haven’t got a clue, despite their state sharing a border with mine. -
#8 written by Max 1 year ago
rgbact,
Is that common to run ads targeting a certain race or ethnicity? Is that something to be proud of? I would hope Romney’s ads would appeal equally to all genders, races, religions. What are these targetted ads for Hispanics? “Hey hispanics, the GOP wants you dead”. Sounds like more dividing/race hustling from the Divider in Chief.
In order:
Yes. Yes. Your “hope” is not practical in any marketing tactic, commercial or political. Just look them up “somewhat” and see for yourself. Oh, you already have a pre-conceived opinion that’s ignorant, as well as lame. Your opinion “sounds like” it is based on partisanship, not reality.
I see also why you have never bothered to post any tactical and strategic analysis of an “easy” mission to eliminate UBL. Seems you base YOUR concepts and conclusions on partisanship and “hope”, instead of practical realities and necessary planning.
-
#9 written by rgbact 1 year ago
I see also why you have never bothered to post any tactical and strategic analysis of an “easy” mission to eliminate UBL
Because, you totally missed the point I was trying to make (as you do almost always). So, if you notice me “avoiding” your responses some times.…its probably cuz you’ve gone off in your world of red herrings and fake arguments that I’d rather not play in.
-
#10 written by Max 1 year ago
No. Actually you “corrected” me on what you say I missed. (We can go back and repost the exchange, if you wish to be called out on it) My response to your “correction”, in your words “I meant the risk of trying to capture/kill him wasn’t a “big deal””, was to ask you to quantify an “easy” mission so as to give credence to your position.
You have failed to even attempt to make that position credible.
You know, as dc and shiloh pointed out previously “disagreeing is half the fun”. I LIKE it when people disagree with me and we can subsequently enter into a debate where each puts up their best arguments. Many times a fair amount of research is required, research that can, at times, demonstrate that MY position was based on a false premise and I am forced to change that position.
At the least, it requires me to THINK about why I hold that position and whether or not it is, or may still be over time, a valid one.
Perhaps, one day, you’ll join us. And you can’t make it personal to me, because you (fail) to respond (with valid argument), when challenged, to EVERYONE here. Just look at the comments.
Beats the hell out of blind allegiance to a certain ideology.
-
#11 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Is Romney now a “divider in chief” because he ran Spanish campaign ads?
So, that’s the extent of Obama’s big push with Hispanics. Speaking spanish? Fact is, Dems are the party of interest groups, so it shouldn’t be too shocking that their ads are far more focused on race/gender/sexuality.
Anyway,if I was Romney I’d focus far more on white Reagan Democrat types not Hispanics. Obama remains very popular with minorites but is really hurting with whites. Obama just needs the Hispanics to actually vote.…so I fully expect him to spend alot of money on GOTV.
-
rgbact,
Is that common to run ads targeting a certain race or ethnicity?
Extremely so. Targeted ads are the reason Google and Facebook are making so much money, and ethnicity (more than race) is a pretty powerful way of targeting advertising.
Is that something to be proud of?
To answer that depends on what you mean by “that”. Acknowledging that different ethnic groups have different interests is a very good thing. The United States never has, and probably never will have, a single, homogeneous population. Some lament this, while others celebrate it. I’m in the latter camp. I guess that makes it something to be proud of.
I would hope Romney’s ads would appeal equally to all genders, races, religions.
So do I, since such ads will not be very appealing to anyone.
What are these targetted ads for Hispanics?
Wait…you don’t know? So why are you assuming that they’re divisive?
-
mclever,
I can offer a partial explanation for Ohio’s blue shift, in that 1) local moderates are unhappy with their state Republicans right now and 2) they also benefit from saving the auto industry, especially up along Lake Erie from Toledo to Cleveland.
Perhaps, but I find it hard to believe that Ohio is 1.8 points bluer than the national average. It just doesn’t feel right to me.
I’m also a little suspicious of Florida’s numbers. A movement of four points is significant. It’s not like Arizona’s nine-point move (which can easily be attributed to the lack of a McCain on the ballot).
-
#14 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Wait…you don’t know? So why are you assuming that they’re divisive?
I didn’t. Thats why I asked if it was more targeted marketing or targeted message.
So do I, since such ads will not be very appealing to anyone.
Ads about how this is the worst recovery in history.….for everyone.…won’t be appealing.….for everyone? -
#15 written by Max 1 year ago
rgbact,
Wait…you don’t know? So why are you assuming that they’re divisive?
I didn’t. Thats why I asked if it was more targeted marketing or targeted message.No, that’s NOT what you asked. EXACTLY what you SAID (no question asked) was:
“What are these targetted ads for Hispanics? “Hey hispanics, the GOP wants you dead”.
Why be dishonest?
-
-
but when your opponents are only intent on obstruction and division of their own
ie during the Rep primary, 90/95% of mittens ads were negative as apparently Romney was trying his best to piss off conservatives er divide the Rep party!
rgbact, C– for effort and a fail for results. Unless you’re trying to portray yourself as a fool!
take care
-
#18 written by Max 1 year ago
-
Based on the latest Pennsylvania poll from Quinnipiac, I’d push Pennsylvania into the Leans Obama category.
-
-
an awful lot of options
Special PAC $$$ aside, again it also helps Obama his opponent is a frickin’ train wreck. Yes, the economy is still anemic thanx to Rep obstructionism, but as Tweety mentioned, if unemployment is 8%, Obama wins ~ 9% he loses.
FDR won a landslide in ’36 w/16.9 unemployment. I digress.
-
-
#23 written by mclever 1 year ago
Wow, Michael. The Quinnipiac numbers for Ohio and Florida are about what I’d expect, but the difference in Pennsylvania is striking. Do you think it’s perhaps because they’ve heard an extra dose of Republicanism with their native boy Santorum running in the primaries? I think those numbers could be more a rejection of Santorum than any endorsement (or lack thereof) towards Romney. As Santorum fades farther from the limelight, I expect those numbers might revert to the mean. I’ll give Pennsylvania a “leans Obama” for the time being, but I wouldn’t be too surprised to see it back in the toss-up category by summer.
-
-
-
To my astonishment, Public Policy Polling published a poll today showing Obama with a ten-point lead over Romney…in Iowa! I won’t change my stance on the state until we get at least one more poll to indicate that this isn’t an outlier. But if it’s real, that’s pretty remarkable.
-
#27 written by mclever 1 year ago
On Iowa!
The PPP results fit the mood on the ground here, but my county is also nicknamed “the People’s Republic of Johnson County” for a reason… We racked up a 30K cushion of votes for Obama in ’08 in this county alone. I know the Republicans must be busy in other parts of the state, but around here I see an active, motivated Obama campaign that already has staff on the ground, making calls, and energizing volunteers. Considering the pro-Obama activity after the Republicans moved on, I wouldn’t be too surprised if opinion has shifted blue by several points, so I’d guess it’s probably around Obama +5 rather than PPP’s rosy +10. You know I’ll be eagerly awaiting the next poll in my state!
-
#28 written by rgbact 1 year ago
-
Re: Iowa, no surprise as their state unemployment is 5.2%.
Again, this is not rocket science!
Which begs the question: Why aren’t ND/NE/SD solidly Dem also.
btw, Virginia’s unemployment is 5.6%. -
shiloh,
Why aren’t ND/NE/SD solidly Dem also.
Because unemployment is one of many inputs into the political leanings. It moves the needle, but since the Dakotas and Nebraska were already so far to the right, the low unemployment rate isn’t enough to push them to the D column. In 1996, a great year for unemployment in the US, the incumbent Democrat lost North Dakota by 7 points, South Dakota by 3.5 points, and Nebraska by a whopping 19 points.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About Michael Weiss (323 posts)
Michael is a jack of many trades, and master of a few. His varied background includes government and private businesses, both large and small. His experience in the financial services and computer industries has led him to computer security.






Chucky T mentioned the Obama campaign has already spent over 700k nationwide targeting Hispanic voters, whereas mittens has spent zilch! One of the panel suggested political malpractice re: mittens’ campaign lol.
Rubio’s makeshift laughable alternative to the “Dream Act” notwithstanding, rock and a hard place indeed ie conservatives immigration policy er lack thereof = Reps have no positive message for Hispanics. So why bother w/song and dance messaging as it would just make the situation worse w/Latinos/Hispanics.
One would think Rubio would rather lay low rather than give a speech at the 2012 Rep convention, his recent campaign funding faux pas and lying about his family Cuban history aside.
Si Se Puede!