Reëlection Watch: July 14, 2012
Things are heating up in the Presidential race, and probably will continue to do so for the next four months. Though polling was lighter than usual over the past two weeks, the latest round has helped to confirm my suspicions of outliers from two weeks ago, and served to move one state.
So, how are things going for the President lately? Let’s dive in.
National Polls
Still no change in Obama’s approval/disapproval rating in the Real Clear Politics average. It’s been the same story of oscillation right around zero for the past few months, with no discernible trend. The slight worsening in the Right Track/Wrong Track polls I mentioned last time appears to have peaked. It has, thus far, proven to be but a tiny blip.
The improvement in Congress’s approval spread continues its slow and steady pace. The sharp decline I mentioned last time for Republicans in the generic Congressional ballot has since been echoed by the Democrats, taking people out of the decided columns and returning them to the undecided column. We’re getting more frequent polling on this metric, so we can expect the noise to diminish over the next month or two. It does look mighty close, either way.
In the national popular vote matchup of Obama versus presumed Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the President maintains his narrow lead, which appears to be stabilizing at a couple of points. However, keep in mind that there are enough people in the undecided column to exceed by a factor of four the gap between the two candidates.
Obama’s favorability polls continue to be generally over 50 percent favorable among “Americans” or “registered voters”, but less so on polls of “likely voters”. Quinnipiac had one worse than that trend, and Newsweek/Daily Beast had one better, which makes them appear to be marginally off the mark on either side. Romney’s favorable rating still has yet to crest above 50 percent on any poll, though he’s come close a few times. Both the Quinnipiac and Newsweek/Daily Beast polls show the same differences for Romney that they showed for Obama (i.e., Quinnipiac showed Romney worse than the trend, and Newsweek/Daily Beast better). In every poll where he and Obama appear on the same poll, his favorable rating continues to be lower than Obama’s.
While these polls are highly suggestive of an Obama victory, they are typically farther removed from the key signal of electoral votes than are many other indicators. We’ll hit the others down below.
As of yesterday, Intrade had Obama at a 55.7 percent chance of reëlection, up three and a half points from last time. This is the second increase in a row, and big enough to indicate a trend, reversing his April-through-June decline.
Things remain in a pro-Obama state on the national scene, and appear to be improving. It’s showing the glimmerings of a trend; we’ll keep an eye on this one.
The Competition
I haven’t had much reason for this section to appear in a while, but it’s time to take a closer look at Mitt Romney, in terms of his own potential as a general election candidate. As I mentioned above, his favorable ratings have consistently been lukewarm. His supporters seem to be more anti-Obama than pro-Romney, which is a problem for the challenger. A Presidential candidate badly needs to get voters to be enthusiastic to head to the polls and cast a vote.
And yet, over the past two weeks, Americans are frequently being reminded of why they aren’t enthusiastic about the former Governor of Massachusetts.
On the Supreme Court decision regarding Obamacare, he referred to the individual mandate as a tax, yet claimed that the same mandate enacted at the state level is not a tax. While a policy wonk can readily comprehend how this is possible (and to one who is able to comprehend this, the argument is unconvincing), the typical American is left bewildered. Even many of Romney’s supporters are left with a feeling that he’s being dishonest.
In a similar fashion, the question of when he departed Bain Capital smacks of dishonesty. Either he left in early 1999, in which case he wasn’t eligible to run for Governor in Massachusetts when he did (he would have been a resident of Utah), or he left a couple of years later, in which case he was involved in offshoring jobs and investing in a company that sold aborted fetuses. His filings with the SEC suggest a later departure.
All together, this is painting a picture that lines up with the existing meme that Romney is unprincipled, and says whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. Whether it’s true or not, it takes twice as much work to undo that sort of damage as to cause it.
The Electoral College
As I mentioned above, I’ll be narrowing the Tossup zone starting in our next installment, and widening the Likely zones.
For now, let’s see what the current Electoral College looks like, based on current polling data:

You’ll notice the list below is much shorter than last time. Many states have not been polled in the past two weeks. Here are the states with new data since last time, covering only those discussed around the Internet as “leans” or “tossups”, from reddest to bluest:
- North Carolina has three new polls. Republican-sponsored Civitas found a five-point lead for Romney among registered voters. Democratic-sponsored Project New America/Myers indicated a one-point lead for Romney among likely voters. And Public Policy Polling came up with a one-point lead for Obama (corresponding to an adjusted five-point lead for Romney). This is in line with what we’ve been seeing for a while among Tar Heels. North Carolina is near the border between “Tossup” and “Leans Romney”, though just far enough away to stay in “Tossup” until probably October, at the current rate.
- Florida had two new polls, one from WeAskAmerica and one from Rasmussen. WeAskAmerica found a one-point lead for Obama, and Rasmussen a one-point lead for Romney (which adjusts to almost a point for Obama), both among likely voters. A margin that narrow is statistically indistinguishable from a tossup, even if on the day before the election. Florida today is exactly where Iowa was two weeks ago.
- Virginia got only one new poll since last time, from Public Policy Polling, who found an eight point raw lead for Obama (translating to an adjusted five points). This is close enough to the trend to confirm that the WeAskAmerica poll I mentioned two weeks ago was, indeed, an outlier. Virginia remains on the blue end of the Tossup range.
- Wisconsin was polled again by Marquette University, who now shows an eight-point lead for Obama on a Likely Voter model (they had six points last time) and Public Policy Polling, who had a raw six-point lead for Obama (this adjusts to three points). As I suggested last time, Rasmussen’s adjusted two-point lead for Romney appeared to be an outlier. The additional data confirm this; I remain confident that Wisconsin belongs in the “Leans Obama” column, though Real Clear Politics believes it to be a tossup.
- Pennsylvania has a new poll from WeAskAmerica, whose Likely Voter model shows Obama with a seven-point lead. This matches the long-standing trend, and confirms that the Keystone State is a “Leans Obama” state.
- Maine had a recent poll from Critical Insights, who found a 14-point Obama lead in a Registered Voter model. This is the confirmation I was looking for last time; both Real Clear Politics and Logarchism are moving Maine to “Likely Obama”.
In the past two weeks, only Maine has moved, from “Leans Obama” to “Likely Obama”. Some of this comes from the low number of tossup and leaning states that were polled since last time. Nonetheless, Obama still needs 39 electoral votes out of the 126 in the tossup group.
Conclusion
Romney’s rise in the national polls still appears to be reaching a ceiling, at least for now. The Electoral College is showing early signs of moving in Obama’s direction. Thus far, the Supreme Court opinions at the end of their term do not appear to be having an impact.
If I had to predict an Electoral College result, I’d keep things exactly where they were last time. That would give Obama 303, and Romney 235. In that scenario, Obama would be 62 votes shy of his 2008 tally.
How do you feel about these predictions? Do you differ on them? If so, how, where, and why?
Related articles
- Reëlection Watch: June 30, 2012 (logarchism.com)
- Obama Leads Romney Nationally, Boosted By Unmarried Voters: Poll — Huffington Post (huffingtonpost.com)
- From bad to worse with blue-collar men for Obama (decoded.nationaljournal.com)
- Poll of Polls: Obama ahead of Romney, but slightly (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
- New Pew poll shows Obama up by seven points on Romney in national race (examiner.com)
- Marriage gap fuels Obama’s lead over Romney: poll (news.yahoo.com)
- Poll: Married and unmarried voters don’t see eye to eye over election (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
- Obama Slips With Latino Voters: Quinnipiac Poll (huffingtonpost.com)

This entry was posted by Michael Weiss on July 14, 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 shortchain 10 months ago
filistro,
I beg to differ on “swift-boating” as a description of what’s being done to Romney. I regard “swift-boating” as using lies and deceit to create a largely false impression of a candidate in the voter’s minds. (Which Kerry, given his unlikeable nature, couldn’t afford.)No, what’s being done here is to illuminate the character of Mitt Romney. There may be some areas in which there is a bit of gray, where Romney really isn’t lying about his past, or hiding things — but given his refusal to release his tax returns, and the documentation issues on when he left Bain, there really isn’t any doubt that we’re being given, as a country, a crash course in the real Mitt Romney.
“Define your opponent” is older far than Karl Rove. What Karl added was “to eliminate his advantages, using whatever tactics, however dishonest — such as using surrogates and whisper campaigns” (think McCain in SC, or Kerry in 2004.)
-
#3 written by Max 10 months ago
fili,
I concur with shortchain.
(1) Romney is RUNNING for president based on his business experience first and his experience as MA governor second. Thus, a full and free review of his years as a businessman is right and fair. Good, bad or indifferent.
(2) I find it interesting that Romney was willing to give up 20+ years of his tax returns to the McCain campaign in 2008 for review of his qualification to be VICE-PRESIDENT, but is unwilling to give up that much to the American people for review of his qualification to be PRESIDENT.
Perhaps the fact that McCain, upon review and reflection, chose Palin over Romney has something to do with that stance?
I believe that without releasing his tax returns going back to 1999, he will not be elected president due to the suspicions of the electorate. I suspect that if he does so, he will not be elected president due to those suspicions being confirmed.
Were I an adviser to the Obama campaign, I would run the fact of (2) in commercials and ads until either Romney released his returns or until November 5.
-
Well, I guess I’ll have to differ with two of my favorite people. Darn
I think “swift-boating” is entirely accurate here. As a military strategy it would be best described as a sudden overwhelming frontal ambush based on a grain of truth and made more effective by the element of surprise. Overwhelming in its sheer ferocity, unexpected because it attacks the victim in an area of strength rather than weakness.
I’m betting the Obama campaign has had this information about Romeny’s tenure at Bain gathered and held in reserve for a long time, waiting to release it during the dog days of summer when the opponent is caught off guard, there is a lull in the news cycle and it’s very hard to effectively counter an attack.
Really, honestly, when you set partisanship aside and come right down to it, what does it matter whether Romney left Bain in 1999 or maintained some ties for the next three years? How would that affect his ability to govern well… any more than John Kerry’s wartime experience would have had any effect on his role as president?
But by the time September comes around and people start paying attention, the image of Romney as a liar, flip-flopper, opportunist and generally sleazy guy is going to be set in stone and impossible to reverse. We’re seeing a brilliant use of an audacious tactic. I would actually be a little embarrassed at our side making such effective use of it except:
1.) all’s fair in love, war and politics
and
2.) THEY DID IT FIRST!!!
After watching that Republican convention where hundreds of people wore bandaids painted with purple hearts to mock John Kerry’s wartime injuries (and this from people who in many cases did all they could to get out of serving in the military) I am really not crying any tears over a tough campaign tactic being used against Mitt Romney.
-
He is being attacked methodically, repeatedly and brutally in his area of strength (“I’m a competent businessman, I’ve run companies so I can run the country.”)
You are right about this. The really delicious part is that Romney invited it, because this is what he’s running on.
The Obama campaign in 2008, and the Obama White House in the ears since, has been one of the most disciplined in living memory. (I’m convinced even most of the “gaffes” that the rather clueless media so loves to underline were done on purpose. There’s a marvelous West Wing episode about that.) For a Democrat to put together this sort of juggernaut of a coördinated campaign is something Republicans don’t know how to defend against.
And in the end, the President has one more card up his sleeve on Romney’s “economic strength.” It can’t be played yet, because it would take a lot of groundwork — it’s a complex argument, and the terms first have to be defined, so it’ll have to wait until late in the fall, if it turns out to be needed at all. There are hints of it already, so it’s clearly in the wings, but it will take a couple more months of preparation for it to have the impact it needs to have.
The Republican/Romney/Ryan plan for the economy is Bushism gone cosmic. Everything that Bush did to tank the economy, R/R/R want to do again — except more and bigger.
Every day, we hear about another bank or investment house that has been involved in the same sort of gambling schemes that brought down Wall Street and led to the bailouts — R/R/R want to repeal Dodd-Frank so the banksters can do it again.
Those tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy that led to the back-breaking Bush deficits and the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the 400 richest families, the new American hereditary aristocracy, R/R/R wants to expand those tax cuts while raising taxes on everyone else. Their budget would add trillions to the deficit, trillions that go into their own pockets.
The R/R/R plan for Medicaid and Social Security is to dismantle them, replacing Medicaid with drug store coupons, and SocSec with 401(k)s that are handled by the same deregulated bankgsters who destroyed middle class investments and housing values back in 2008. Do you really want them watching your retirement money while no one is watching them?
And who needs firemen or policemen or teachers?
Romney insists he “didn’t inhale” while he was governor of Massachusetts — he learned nothing about government. It shows. He knows nothing about America. The R/R/R plan has nothing to do with governing, and everything to do with enriching the criminals who caused the last collapse while stealing the future of America’s middle class.
It’s a complex argument, based on the realities of Republican policy. Everything America hated about Bush, everything that led to the worst presidential approval numbers since Nixon, that’s what Romney wants to bring back, only more so.
Romney wants to return to the Golden Age of the Robber Barons.
-
#6 written by Max 10 months ago
-
KITCHEN SINK: Outsourcing, Tax Havens, Overseas Accounts… ‘Instant Classic’
>
Thanx for playin’ and please drive safely …
>
hmm, Obama’s one of those new fangled, take no prisoners Dem.
Just ask bin Laden!>
As much as conservatives hate Obama aside, how depressed must they be thinkin’ how in hell did “we” get stuck w/Romney ?!? who can’t get out of his own way!
-
@shiloh…
Oh dear. That’s going to leave a mark…
Obama is truly running a cold, calculated, ruthless, take-no-prisoners campaign. It will help him immensely, since we tend to want a streak of brutal ruthlessness in our leaders. After all, they have to make the decisions the rest of us can’t.
This flows seamlessly from the killing of bin Laden and the assassination of all those Al Qaeda leaders. It’s the same style. As shiloh wisely points out… Republicans may loathe the guy, but this is the kind of president that Americans want in the Oval Office.
Incidentally (or perhaps not
… today is (I believe) the first day in a month or so that shows Obama with a lead in Rasmussen’s daily tracker. Sometimes those numbers get so overwhelming that even Charlie Daniels couldn’t fiddle them enough to create an advantage. -
filistro,
I think the polling picture now, while accurate as presented, doesn’t reflect what is really going on out there on a macro level.
That may well be true. I’ve mostly tried to avoid making predictions about how the attacks on Romney will play out in terms of polling numbers.
Keep in mind that, on the Republican side, there is a coördinated, concerted effort to reduce voter turnout among Democrats in the critical states of this election. That, too, will have an impact, but in the other direction.
-
@Michael… there is a coördinated, concerted effort to reduce voter turnout
among Democrats in the critical states of this election. That, too,
will have an impact, but in the other direction.Increasingly, I’m not so sure about that either. Certainly voter suppression was the goal, but there might just be (as with so many dark deeds) some unintended and… for the Republicans… very unwelcome consequences.
Friends involved in the campaign have told me stories about how intensely this effort to suppress turnout has motivated and mobilized GOTV efforts. There is a truly enormous movement aimed at helping people get proper ID and then make sure they get to the polls. I’m told it makes the Dem GOTV work in 2008 (which was pretty damned impressive) look like organizing for high school class president. And thanks to Republican governors in places like OH and WI, the unions are fully onboard and committed to deploying their armies as well.
So while it may have looked like a dandy idea for Republicans to disenfranchise poor and minority voters, they may just find this coming back to bite them big-time.
And so it should. What a truly shameful thing they’re doing.
-
Republicans are now all about short term shenanigans.
ie the 2004 anti-gay marriage hate referendum in (8) states.
and now voter disenfranchisement of African/Americans, Hispanics, older voters etc.
>
One day they’re gonna wake up and Hispanics will be the majority ethnic group in America :::gasp!::: and they’ll be up a creek w/their ad nauseam, childish, racial hatred re: immigration etc.
ok, ok, they are pretty much already there, god love ‘em.
>
Indeed, as Ed Rollins said recently the GOP needs to be less old, white and fat!
er a bunch of old white guys …
btw, Rollins made his comment on a network run by Roger Ailes lol.
-
#15 written by GROG 10 months ago
-
In regards to this voter supression nonsense, blacks and hispanics are not nearly as lazy and dumb
Thus, Michael Steele and Alan Keyes did not convince backs and hispanics that Republicans support the interests of minorities, just as Sarah Palin didn’t convince former Hillary supporters to vote for McCain.
Thus also, minorities, college students, poor people, elderly, and inner-city dwellers can recognize voter suppression efforts even when Republicans try to deny what they’re doing.
Certain people also pretended poll taxes and literacy tests were not vote suppression efforts. No one bought that silliness, either.
-
#19 written by GROG 10 months ago
-
Calling it “voter suppresion” is sleeze ball politics at it’s
highest. I understand that it’s the political climate we exist in
today, but it’s still sleezy.Indeed. Republican politicians frequently feel it is unfair (even “sleezy”) to call them out on their schemes and dishonesty. Since there is no evidence of widespread voter impersonations, as you said, blacks and hispanics are smart enough to realize these voter ID laws are nothing but a transparent vote suppression effort.
“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.”
- Harry S TrumanAs filistro points out, this latest scheme looks as if it could backfire on Republicans, as well it should. Republicans may have energized the Democratic base.
-
-
#22 written by Max 10 months ago
Yeah, just as it’s sleazy to demand Romney provide full disclosure on his Bain tenure, jobs created, jobs lost, jobs outsourced. Even to demonstrate that he has paid his taxes in proper measure and the tax return match his business reports. Even though he runs, not so much on his gubernatorial experience, but on his “business” experience.
He has submitted his resume. But it is “sleazy” to do follow-up on his job experience. It is “sleazy” to investigate when some things, such as his SEC filings and his interview statement in 2002, contradict things he stated on his resume. It’s “sleazy” to request from him that he expand upon his stated goals, should he get the job, and how he would expect to attain them.
Yes. All very “sleazy”. But if MY H.R. person brought me a candidate with a hiring recommendation for a prospect and all that “sleazy” stuff had not been done, I would fire the sorry bastard for incompetence.
So, if all that is “sleazy”, then the American electorate should revel in the sleaze as they “review” the resume of this job appliant.
-
#23 written by mostlyilurk 10 months ago
Calling it “voter suppresion” is sleeze ball politics at it’s highest. I understand that it’s the political climate we exist in today, but it’s still sleezy.
Grog, You may want to wander over to 538 today and do so some reading. Nate just posted an interesting article on this very topic.
-
#24 written by Max 10 months ago
-
#25 written by turrboenvy 10 months ago
I can’t help but wonder if Romney’s missing an opportunity. Every Republican “knows” that regulation kills jobs. Romney could say something like: “Yes, we outsourced jobs. Thanks to Democrat [sic] job-killing regulation, unions, etc, it was the only way we could make money.” He could then follow with a promise to repeal said regulation and crush said unions. As if workers aren’t getting screwed over enough already, he could run on making it worse.
-
@turbo… I think Romney is in a terrible corner right now. There are few opportunities for him anywhere… and nothing he can do short of releasing the tax returns, which must contain some awful stuff or why would he be taking these brutal hits over holding them back?
National Review is currently running a poll on their home page… “Should Romney release his tax returns?” Close to 4,000 readers have voted by now, and the vote is running 65–35 against.
Now remember, NR readers voted 92% last week that the speech at NAACP was a “plus” for Romney. If Democrats are demanding to see Romney’s tax returns, and over one-third of conservatives agree that he should release them… then I think Romney has a big, big problem here.
-
Romney’s problem is getting deeper yet. Ed Gillespie’s “retroactive” statement is turning Romney into a Palin-like joke. (Am I the only one who remembers the Nixon White House telling us that some previous statements were “no longer operative”?) Couple that with the Etch-A-Sketch comment. All we need is for Tina Fey to do an SNL bit as Romney to clinch it. This level is ridicule is fatal to a campaign, and they’re doing it to themselves.
Romney even has the audacity to accuse President Obama of running a “negative campaign”! Pot, meet kettle.
Romney is so incredibly inept as a campaigner, one has to wonder just how stoopid business people are, for him to have gotten so rich. And this Keystone crew (Keystone Cops, not Pipeline) is the best Republicans can come up with? Really?
-
-
DC… it’s also kind of fun that in the wake of the kerfuffle over Romney’s tax returns, Republicans have now resumed their demand for Obama to “Release yer college transcripts!”
Someday he’s actually going to, and boy, will they be sorry.
I know Republicans are anti-education, but do they really not understand the significance of juxtaposing “Harvard” and “magna cum laude?”
Apparently not.
-
@filistro,
do they really not understand the significance of juxtaposing “Harvard” and “magna cum laude?”
I suspect Republicans will use this as proof that Obama got undeserved honors from colleges. After all, whoever heard of a black Muzlin from Kanye being awarded magna cum laude from Harvard without cheating to get it?
It’ll be used to prove he’s uppity.
-
stoopid business people
dc, mittens was a vulture er venture capitalist ie he made $$$ regardless.
Nice gig if your daddy can fund all your college tuition and all your business intersts/dealings.
Much like Bush43 … hmm. Except Bush43’s (3) businesses funded by daddy and Saudi oil $$$ all went belly-up lol. Remember the Savings and Loan scandal when American taxpayers had to bail out Texas.
I digress.
-
#34 written by Max 10 months ago
Campaigns do a lot of cost benefit analysis and I’m sure they did on the tax return issue.
Their calculation of the cost of NOT releasing them would show it pretty high. So their calcs of the negative benefits outweighing those costs must have been pretty strong.
Add in that it will become more well known that Romney released 20+ years of returns to McCain in 08 and the questions and suspicions will grow!
Of course, it could be rank arrogance!
-
#35 written by shortchain 10 months ago
I’m guessing that one thing they’ll show will be that, although Romney claimed that, in 2001, he “retroactively” resigned as CEO of Bain, he was still drawing a salary — and he didn’t “retroactively” give that money back (why would he, as sole proprietor?)
So, although he claimed that he didn’t make any of those evil decisions to invest in companies that furthered outsourcing, he profited handsomely from them. Probably “handsomely” doesn’t even begin to adequately describe the returns he got.
There’s no good way to overcome the smell that is going to come off those documents. I’m guessing also, based on the unbelievable size of that IRA, that there’s at least borderline fraud involved in the shenanigans that led to it. It’s highly probable that he didn’t get audited (or if he did, his legal team made it go away), but that the documents simply reek.
Utterly damning that he was the best the GOP could field this go-round.
-
#36 written by shortchain 10 months ago
As Max says, a lot of calculation goes into the campaign decisions — but you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, no matter how strenuously you grind the numbers.
Occasionally, IOW, calculation becomes miscalculation. I suspect (I do a lot of suspecting) that Romney’s advisers indulged in a bit too much wishful thinking, shading the truth in the favor of what they wanted to believe. This is a common occurrence in the upper reaches of management, and I’ve seen it many times — consultants don’t tell the people who sign their checks things that might get them fired.
-
After SB1070 decision Obama widens lead over Romney among Latinos ~ 70% to 22%.
carry on
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About Michael Weiss (322 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.






I think the polling picture now, while accurate as presented, doesn’t reflect what is really going on out there on a macro level.
Something very unusual is happening in this campaign. We are seeing (as Josh Marshall points out) a level of “concentrated energy and cool ruthlessness that is unusual from a Democratic campaign.”
Put simply, Mitt Romney is being swift-boated. He is being attacked methodically, repeatedly and brutally in his area of strength (“I’m a competent businessman, I’ve run companies so I can run the country.”)
This is the strategy developed and perfected by Karl Rove, and used to deadly effect on many Democratic candidates over the years. Republicans are now getting their own back, in spades. The impact is not yet showing up in the polls, but it is widespread and will deepen and set over the next month. Romney will not recover from this attack, and his numbers will steadily worsen into fall.