tip off

Presidential election minus two months

With the Democratic convention under way, and two months minus one day to go until the big day, matters American are looming sufficiently large that I’m starting up a dedicated thread to accommodate them. At this stage of the race, all indications are that Barack Obama has a clear but not insurmountable lead. Premier US psephoblogger Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight calculates a 74.8% chance of an Obama victory, which has widened over the past week owing to a sub-par convention bounce for Mitt Romney (Clint Eastwood, we salute you). With 270 Electoral College votes required for victory, averaged poll results give Obama leads of over 5% in states accounting for 221 votes, and Romney leads accounting for 182. Piggies in the middle:

EC VOTES OBAMA ROMNEY
New Hampshire 4 49.1 44.7
Nevada 6 48.7 45.0
Wisconsin 10 48.7 45.4
Michigan 16 47.4 44.6
Virginia 13 47.4 44.8
Ohio 18 46.7 44.4
Iowa 6 46.2 44.6
Colorado 9 46.9 45.6
South Carolina 9 43.2 43.4
Florida 29 46.6 46.9
North Carolina 15 45.4 46.8

It should be noted that these figures capture Romney in his convention bounce, and conventional wisdom (no pun intended) tells us they should now be set to bounce the other way.

178
  • 1
    Darn
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    Well I don’t mind being the first.

    Thanks for the thread William. I’m almost as interested in the American election as the upcoming Australian one in 2013.

    For ordinary working Americans a win for the lunatic right in the present political climate would be a disaster. Fortunately all the indications are that it won’t happen. But I won’t be happy until Romney is finally sent packing and Obama is safely back in the oval office for another four years.

  • 2
    BH
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Thanks William – I’ll join you for a minute, Darn.

    Looks like Romney has a bit of work to do if the poll figures above were gathered after the Republic Convention.

    I caught Michelle Obama’s speech which was good even if a bit schmaltzy at times. Her comment that leadership ‘doesn’t show who you are – it REVEALS who you are’ is extremely pertinent.

  • 3
    Smokey
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    My impression from the last decade is that US Presidents have very little power to change anything, with the one striking exception that they seem to have unlimited power to start trillion dollar wars on the flimsiest of pretexts. But unless they also control the Congress and Senate, with sufficient numbers to prevent filibustering, their role is largely ornamental. I also get the impression that Romney is not as stupid as he sounds and would likely be a huge disappointment to the right-wing nutjobs once he gets the gig. For all that, I hope Obama wins as a further boost for tolerance in an intolerant world.

  • 4
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Question: who was the first candidate’s wife to speak at a national convention?

    Not surprisingly, it was Eleanor Roosevelt, in 1940. But that was an impromptu intervention from the floor of the convention, not a scheduled event from the podium. In the audience when she spoke was the young Nancy Davis, later Nancy Reagan.

    In 1952 Mamie Eisenhower appeared on the podium with Dwight but didn’t speak. The first candidate’s wife to make a formal speech at a convention was Pat Nixon in 1972. But it didn’t become a regular and expected part of the convention until Nancy Reagan’s speech in 1984.

  • 5
    ShowsOn
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Now the 538 model has Obama on 76.3%! It gives Obama a better chance of winning Florida than it gives Romney a chance of winning North Carolina.

    If Romney can’t win North Carolina he is going to lose in a landslide.

  • 6
    Aristotle
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    Betting markets currently estimate the probabilities of the election outcome as:

    Obama 66% Romney 34%.

    Prior to Republican Convention, it was Obama 63% Romney 37% a net loss of 3% for Romney.

  • 7
    Aristotle
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    That statement also stood out to me, BH, but I think she said “being President doesn’t change who you are, it reveals who you are”

  • 8
    kakuru
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    I’m a bit surprised Obama is so far ahead in Virginia – I would’ve expected it to be closer. I’m even more surprised (shocked even) that South Carolina is so close (43.2 vs 43.4) – that can’t be right. I didn’t even know S. Carolina was in play. It’s a fairly safe ‘red’ (Republican) state.

    I’m not all surprised that Obama is behind in North Carolina. Like Virginia, the demographics of North Carolina have shifted substantially in the Dem’s favour over time – but N. Carolina is still a fairly conservative state.

    I’d be happier if Obama was ahead in Florida, the biggest of the swing states.

    It’d be interesting to see the figures for Colorado, another piggy-in-the-middle.

  • 9
    kakuru
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Now the 538 model has Obama on 76.3%! It gives Obama a better chance of winning Florida than it gives Romney a chance of winning North Carolina.

    That makes sense. If Obama wins Florida and Ohio, he gets to keep the White House. North Carolina is just a bonus.

    If Romney can’t win North Carolina he is going to lose in a landslide.

    In ’08 Obama carried N. Carolina, but overall the election wasn’t really a landslide (though he did give McCain a good thumping, even winning Indiana and almost winning Missouri).

    If Obama carries S. Carolina this time round, it will be truly a landslide. It’s like Romney winning Oregon. But I don’t trust those 43.2 / 43.4 results from S. Carolina.

  • 10
    ShowsOn
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    Betting markets currently estimate the probabilities of the election outcome as:

    Obama 66% Romney 34%.

    Prior to Republican Convention, it was Obama 63% Romney 37% a net loss of 3% for Romney.

    First term presidents win re-election 2/3 of the time. So this doesn’t tell us much.

  • 11
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    Well spotted, Kakuru – Colorado should have been there. Is now.

  • 12
    ShowsOn
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    In ’08 Obama carried N. Carolina, but overall the election wasn’t really a landslide (though he did give McCain a good thumping, even winning Indiana and almost winning Missouri).

    I count 2008 as a landslide. Obama won 52.9% of the vote and just under 68% of the electoral college.

    That’s a genuine arse whipping.

  • 13
    Tom the first and best
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    12

    I would not count 2008 as remarkable victory by POTUSA standards.

    There have been many victories by significantly greater margins.

    The Electoral College also amplifies the apparent size of victories. For example, in 1968, Nixon out-polled Hubert Humphrey buy 0.7% yet the Electoral College vote was 301 to 191 (with Wallace getting 46). This lead to the closest the USA has got to introducing direct election of the president.

  • 14
    Expat Follower
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Could be a very low-tension evening – if Obama is called winner of either Ohio or Florida then it is all over. If Romney happens to win both, then it gets very interesting – as the likes of Virginia and Colorado will probably decide it. Agree if Obi wins Nth Carolina then he creams it in.

    Seems to me to be all about turnout. If the 2008 base is mobilised then Obi wins easily, but if apathetic then Romney capitalises massively on a 2010-style turnout pattern. Am assuming behind the scenes the Dems are investing gazillions in getting out the vote.

    What that implies in terms of the Senate races (about 5 or so that could tip the balance either way) let alone Dem prospects for gaining seats in the house… that’s the far more interesting question: If Repubs keep house (almost certain??) and regain a Senate majority (looking significantly probable) then not even sure how Obi can govern effectively except as a spoiler to the wignut policies… mind you, that alone probably justifies his existence. Dont hold out much hope of an effective partnership a la Bill Clinton, but would rather see if its possible than give the lunatics the keys to the whole asylum

  • 15
    Tom the first and best
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    Imagine the USA with compulsory voting!

  • 16
    Expat Follower
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Shows, Tom – what was Clinton’s Electoral College count in ’92? Something whopping but with only 43% of the vote, coz Perot took enough Bush votes away to hand a whole bunch of swing states to Bubba. If only Ron Paul ran as an independent this time… Obama would win something close to 400 ecv i reckon :-)

  • 17
    Diogenes
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    SO

    I count 2008 as a landslide. Obama won 52.9% of the vote and just under 68% of the electoral college.

    That’s a genuine arse whipping.

    As they say in the classics, looking at the scoreboard will tell you how much you lost by but only your arse can tell you how bad the whippin’ was. :D

  • 18
    Expat Follower
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    Compulsory Voting = permanent Democrat majority, i would think. Yeah, what a pity… but if those about to get annhialated by Republican policies cant get off their asses to go vote then they kinda almost deserve it?

  • 19
    Expat Follower
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    I’m with Adam on Obama – a totally crappy waste of the two years where the Dems controlled everything. Crappy wasteful stimulus pork barrelling, and misdirected health care bill that devoured his total political capital. Most importantly, a total fraud in terms of ‘hope and change’ (compromises on earmarks and bribery to get Obamacare passed), and thus has to campaign in the gutter now to get over the line. End justifies the means (no Romney), but he’s crap. Huntsman or Daniels would have won comfortably, but thats the equivalent of Turnbull in Oz I suppose in terms of likelihood

  • 20
    kakuru
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    The Electoral College also amplifies the apparent size of victories.

    Yes, indeed it does. Obama gained 175 of the total 270 electoral college votes (64.8%) by winning 6 big states (CA, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH). California alone makes up over 20% of the electoral college vote.

  • 21
    ShowsOn
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Shows, Tom – what was Clinton’s Electoral College count in ’92? Something whopping but with only 43% of the vote, coz Perot took enough Bush votes away to hand a whole bunch of swing states to Bubba. If only Ron Paul ran as an independent this time… Obama would win something close to 400 ecv i reckon

    Well just yesterday the Virginia electoral board announced that the libertarian / far right Constitution party candidate Virgil Goode had made it onto the ballot. Even if he only wins a few percent of the vote, this could come at the expense of support for Romney, which could hand Virginia to Obama.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Goode

  • 22
    ShowsOn
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Seems to me to be all about turnout. If the 2008 base is mobilised then Obi wins easily, but if apathetic then Romney capitalises massively on a 2010-style turnout pattern. Am assuming behind the scenes the Dems are investing gazillions in getting out the vote.

    In most swing states Obama has had campaign teams operating for the last year and a half simply registering voters.

  • 23
    kakuru
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Well spotted, Kakuru – Colorado should have been there. Is now.

    Thanks, much appreciated.

    Colorado is another state that has become more friendly to the Dems, courtesy of many younger and more educated Americans moving there. This process is often called “Californication”.

  • 24
    ShowsOn
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Imagine the USA with compulsory voting!

    I doubt there would be any Republican presidents!

    In fact I wonder how a Republican presidential candidate will win in say 10 years when Texas (35 electoral college votes) has become a swing state due to the Latino vote?

  • 25
    ShowsOn
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    I’m with Adam on Obama – a totally crappy waste of the two years where the Dems controlled everything. Crappy wasteful stimulus pork barrelling, and misdirected health care bill that devoured his total political capital.

    What a load of crap. He got an $800 billion stimulus bill through, which in hindsight was too small, but was the absolute best he could do. His health care bill is the biggest reform of healthcare in the U.S. since 1965. Of course it isn’t perfect, but you seriously think he should’ve done nothing, when every Democratic U.S. presidential candidate since LBJ has campaigned on health care reform, including Clinton who couldn’t achieve such a reform in 2 terms!

    Most importantly, a total fraud in terms of ‘hope and change’ (compromises on earmarks and bribery to get Obamacare passed),

    He is a U.S. President, not a DICTATOR, He can’t just wave a pen and magically make laws.

    ...and thus has to campaign in the gutter now to get over the line. End justifies the means (no Romney), but he’s crap. Huntsman or Daniels would have won comfortably, but thats the equivalent of Turnbull in Oz I suppose in terms of likelihood

    Daniels? Ha! Too gutless to run. Huntsman is in the wrong party.

  • 26
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    I doubt there would be any Republican presidents!

    Yes there would, because the Republicans would move to the centre to remain competitive.

  • 27
    kakuru
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    In fact I wonder how a Republican presidential candidate will win in say 10 years when Texas (35 electoral college votes) has become a swing state due to the Latino vote?

    Having Texas in play is the holy grail for the Dems. I believe Texas now has 38 college votes, up from 34 in 2008. 10 years from now it’ll likely have even more electoral college votes. But I reckon it will take a lot longer than 10 years for Texas to become a swing state – if it ever happens at all.

    As Texas gains a larger slice of the electoral college, many of its extra votes come at the expense of ‘blue’ states in the Northeast and Midwest.

  • 28
    Roy Orbison
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    According to the Doonesbury strip a few weeks ago, Jim Crow has been out and about. Any other anecdotal evidence? I think the conservatives over there are exponentially more unstable than their Australian cousins, and we know how bad they are. Repug America simply does not accept a Democrat leader, let alone a black one and they don’t even bother to disguise it any more. I really fear for their national stability if Obama gets in, yet I hope he does.The Republican candidates are simply unworthy and have been for years. Who do we blame? Murdoch? Atwater? Rove? the Bushes? Limbaugh? Lincoln? To quote Reagan, “it’s a hell of a mess”.

  • 29
    Expat Follower
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    Shows, have u looked at how the Stimulus was applied in the USA (compared to Australia, as an example) – the act of passing $800m of itself isnt worth much if its allocated totally inefficiently… as evidence has shown – in stark contrast to Australia.

    He countered Hilary in the primaries by saying that the problem with coverage is fundamentally one of affordability. Granted, a further 50m people covered at incremental cents on the dollar is ok – but it has not addressed the fundamental problem, let alone actually strengthened the private insurers stranglehold over it.

    I’m saying he did the wrong things in the wrong way and ended up with a mediocre result accordingly. He ceded the politics entirely to the Repubs and can now only run as the lesser of two evils. “it could be worse” isnt a great platform, but about all he has left… he could have been a lot better and more effective on both substance and form.

    The parallels between his administration and that of the ALP federally in Australia are interesting. I think the latter are much better placed record and legacy-wise, but have lost the politics horribly since Abbott came along. Julia’s best/only bet is to run against Abbott – it might work but odds are against. She is not liked, and would get slaughtered by a more plausible alternative imho.

    Daniels am guessing felt that he would be crucified by the Tea Party as too moderate plus the circumstances of his marriage/split/remarriage would be too intrusive/salacious(?). The problem is who the Repub base nominates – with the right candidate, they could easily win. Romney ain’t it… but even if he wins, it could be worse!

  • 30
    Roy Orbison
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    Yes there would, because the Republicans would move to the centre to remain competitive

    Where would that leave their current customers? Would FoxNews approve? I doubt it. These deals with the devil take a long time to undo. The repugs are hardly able to walk into Chicago, say “Honey, I’m home” and expect everyone to forget their behaviour over the past thirty or so years, are they?

  • 31
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    These deals with the devil take a long time to undo.

    Maybe, but it would happen eventually. Where’s the percentage for Murdoch in backing the wrong horse every time?

  • 32
    ShowsOn
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Shows, have u looked at how the Stimulus was applied in the USA (compared to Australia, as an example) – the act of passing $800m of itself isnt worth much if its allocated totally inefficiently… as evidence has shown – in stark contrast to Australia.

    Well this is wrong at the level of basic economics.

    If the U.S. federal government bought $800 billion worth of Coke, that would increase GDP by $800 billion. Actually the Obama stimulus alone is responsible for reducing unemployment by about 2 percentage points. It is responsible for about half of the jobs created since 2009.

    What was your solution? Do nothing?

    He countered Hilary in the primaries by saying that the problem with coverage is fundamentally one of affordability. Granted, a further 50m people covered at incremental cents on the dollar is ok – but it has not addressed the fundamental problem, let alone actually strengthened the private insurers stranglehold over it.

    There are lots of reforms! Students can stay on their parents’ plan until they are 25. Already, children can’t be denied insurance for a pre-existing condition, and in 2014 that will apply to EVERYONE. Already insurance companies can’t increase premiums simply if someone files a claim!

    It is a significant reform. OF COURSE, our system is far better, but Obama got through the biggest reform to the U.S. health care system since 1965. If he wins this election then that will be locked in FOREVER. There is no way a future U.S. Presidential candidate will go to an election saying they are going to go back to the old system!!!

    I’m saying he did the wrong things in the wrong way and ended up with a mediocre result accordingly. He ceded the politics entirely to the Repubs and can now only run as the lesser of two evils. “it could be worse” isnt a great platform, but about all he has left… he could have been a lot better and more effective on both substance and form.

    You seem to think he should’ve tried to govern from some fantasy land instead of the actual place he found himself in, suffering complete and total opposition from the Republicans. You’re also completely ignoring the dynamics of the Democratic party which is an extremely broad party that goes from politicians that in Australia are so left wing they would be Greens to politicians who are Democrats In Name Only. But he managed to get through the biggest stimulus in U.S. history and the biggest reform to Health care in 45 years.

    The parallels between his administration and that of the ALP federally in Australia are interesting. I think the latter are much better placed record and legacy-wise, but have lost the politics horribly since Abbott came along. Julia’s best/only bet is to run against Abbott – it might work but odds are against. She is not liked, and would get slaughtered by a more plausible alternative imho.

    Obama is a far better politician than Rudd and Gillard. For Obama to get elected after not even one term in the U.S. Senate is just astonishing.

  • 33
    Expat Follower
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    If the U.S. federal government bought $800 billion worth of Coke, that would increase GDP by $800 billion. Actually the Obama stimulus alone is responsible for reducing unemployment by about 2 percentage points. It is responsible for about half of the jobs created since 2009. What was your solution? Do nothing?

    By that logic, we should be economically indifferent between spending $800b or re-releasing it into the economy in the form of tax cuts… and further, shouldnt care if its to the top 1% or spread around. Cmon, the knock-on effects of resource allocation are something you surely know enough about than to make this kind of argument above. Am of course not suggesting that he did nothing, which you surely can work out, but that he engaged in inefficient application of the stimulus money relative to how the Aussie stimulus money was applied. I cant believe this point needs to be explained.

    You seem to think he should’ve tried to govern from some fantasy land instead of the actual place he found himself in, suffering complete and total opposition from the Republicans

    My principal gripe is how he utilised the period between inauguration and the mid-terms, where we know that the political landscape was massively in his favour – and which he in fact utilised to do what he did. I am saying he mis-used it for a mediocre result, and the result speaks for itself in terms of macroeconomic and electoral outcome. to repeat myself, the act of getting these two huge things through is of itself not particularly praiseworthy if they are largely unhelpful in terms of addressing the most important problems requiring solution?

    Obama is a far better politician than Rudd and Gillard. For Obama to get elected after not even one term in the U.S. Senate is just astonishing.

    He was the right guy with the right message at the right time. His campaign was indeed brilliant. Once elected, however, he has not proved to come close to such lofty heights as a governor… and i suspect Gilliard for all her shortcomings will be able to look back on 2009-2013 with a hell of a greater sense of lasting accomplishment than Obama will look back on the same years.

    Incidentally, I suspect we are similarly ideologically-oriented, just disagree on execution for the most part… why the personal aggro as a default style of engaging an issue?

  • 34
    ShowsOn
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    Having Texas in play is the holy grail for the Dems. I believe Texas now has 38 college votes, up from 34 in 2008. 10 years from now it’ll likely have even more electoral college votes. But I reckon it will take a lot longer than 10 years for Texas to become a swing state – if it ever happens at all.

    If the current demographic trends continue, by 2030 a majority of voting age Texans will be Mexican Latinos:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/could-latino-voters-turn-deep-red-texas-democratic-by-2020/257738/

  • 35
    Expat Follower
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    By the way, Billbo, the flame wars of 2008 were incredibly fascinating and enjoyable, with no shortage of personal abuse mixed amongst some really excellent discourse… is there no way of re-reading such without having to make 100 clicks back in time of your main page? Perhaps a “go back in time” clickable section might be worth adding to the site?

  • 36
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    Just watched Castro’s keynote address. The speech was very aspirational and he was very warm and personable. The speech (although a little too much focus on Romney for my liking) was still on message and went down well with the crowd. A very stark contrast with Chris Christie’s self-serving address last week.

  • 37
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    EF, go to the “categories” menu on the sidebar and select “US Politics”.

  • 38
    Expat Follower
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    Thanks William, i should have known you’d cater for this! Wonder if you enjoyed those interactions or were more pained by them? Was brilliant, and i must give retrospective credit to the amigos and their arguments.

  • 39
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Watched Michelle Obama’s address. She did very well. Unsurprising. Michelle Obama is one of Barack Obama’s biggest assets, politically speaking.

  • 40
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    I must confess I’ve been following this election quite closely and have been snaffling the opinion polls in the swing states over the past several weeks. Overall I think that Obama is going to do very well; his campaign has only just started, as he likes to ramp things from a steady pace to an extraordinary sprint at the end.

    Anyway hope these figures are helpful for you.

    Probable Obama/Biden 221 EC votes, Probably Romney/Ryan 191. Unknown 126

    The key states are Florida (29), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), and North Carolina (15), Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Nevada (6), Iowa (6), and New Hampshire (4).

    These are the most recent opinion polls.

    Florida PPP (D) Obama 48, Romney 47 Obama +1 Sep 03
    Florida CNN/Time Obama 50, Romney 46 Obama +4 Aug 27
    Florida CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 49, Romney 46 Obama +3 Aug 23
    Florida Rasmussen Reports Obama 43, Romney 45 Romney +2 Aug 16
    Florida Purple Strategies Obama 47, Romney 48 Romney +1 Aug 15
    Florida CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 51, Romney 45 Obama +6 Aug 1
    Florida PPP (D) Obama 48, Romney 47 Obama +1 Jul 31
    Florida SurveyUSA Obama 48, Romney 43 Obama +5 Jul 21
    Florida Purple Strategies Obama 45, Romney 48 Romney +3 Jul 16

    Ohio Columbus Dispatch* Obama 45, Romney 45 Tie Aug 26
    Ohio Ohio Poll/Univ of Cin. Obama 49, Romney 46 Obama +3 Aug 23
    Ohio CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 50, Romney 44 Obama +6 Aug 23
    Ohio Purple Strategies Obama 44, Romney 46 Romney +2 Aug 15
    Ohio PPP (D) Obama 48, Romney 45 Obama +3 Aug 14
    Ohio Rasmussen Reports Obama 45, Romney 45 Tie Aug 14
    Ohio CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 50, Romney 44 Obama +6 Aug 1
    Ohio WeAskAmerica* Obama 48, Romney 40 Obama +8 Jul 27
    Ohio Rasmussen Reports Obama 47, Romney 45 Obama +2 Jul 19
    Ohio Purple Strategies Obama 48, Romney 45 Obama +3 Jul 16

    Michigan PPP (D) Obama 51, Romney 44 Obama +7 Sep 04
    Michigan EPIC-MRA Obama 49, Romney 46 Obama +3 Aug 30
    Michigan Mitchell Research Obama 47, Romney 47 Tie Aug 27
    Michigan Detroit News Obama 48, Romney 42 Obama +6 Aug 23
    Michigan Baydoun/Foster (D) Obama 44, Romney 48 Romney +4 Aug 21
    Michigan Mitchell Research Obama 49, Romney 44 Obama +5 Aug 16
    Michigan EPIC-MRA Obama 48, Romney 42 Obama +6 Aug 01
    Michigan Mitchell Research Obama 44, Romney 45 Romney +1 Jul 25
    Michigan Rasmussen Reports Obama 48, Romney 42 Obama +6 Jul 24

    North Carolina Elon Univ./Ch. Observer Romney 47, Obama 43 Romney +4 Sep 03
    North Carolina PPP (D) Romney 48, Obama 48 Tie Sep 03
    North Carolina High Point/SurveyUSA Romney 46, Obama 43 Romney +3 Sep 03
    North Carolina High Point/SurveyUSA Romney 43, Obama 43 Tie Aug 28
    North Carolina CNN/Time Romney 48, Obama 47 Romney +1 Aug 27
    North Carolina PPP (D) Romney 46, Obama 49 Obama +3 Aug 7
    North Carolina Rasmussen Reports Romney 49, Obama 44 Romney +5 Aug 7
    North Carolina Rasmussen Reports Romney 49, Obama 44 Romney +5 Aug 2
    North Carolina Civitas (R) Romney 49, Obama 48 Romney +1 Jul 20

    Virginia Rasmussen Reports Obama 47, Romney 47 Tie Aug 24
    Virginia PPP (D) Obama 50, Romney 45 Obama +5 Aug 21
    Virginia Purple Strategies Obama 45, Romney 48 Romney +3 Aug 15
    Virginia CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 49, Romney 45 Obama +4 Aug 8
    Virginia Rasmussen Reports Obama 48, Romney 46 Obama +2 Aug 8
    Virginia Quinnipiac Obama 44, Romney 44 Tie Jul 19
    Virginia Rasmussen Reports Obama 47, Romney 46 Obama +1 Jul 18
    Virginia Purple Strategies Obama 46, Romney 44 Obama +2 Jul 16

    Wisconsin CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 49, Romney 47 Obama +2 Aug 23
    Wisconsin Marquette University Obama 49, Romney 46 Obama +3 Aug 22
    Wisconsin PPP (D) Obama 47, Romney 48 Romney +1 Aug 21
    Wisconsin CNN/Opinion Research Obama 49, Romney 45 Obama +4 Aug 16
    Wisconsin Rasmussen Reports Obama 47, Romney 48 Romney +1 Aug 16
    Wisconsin Marquette University Obama 50, Romney 45 Obama +5 Aug 8
    Wisconsin CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 51, Romney 45 Obama +6 Aug 8
    Wisconsin Rasmussen Reports Obama 49, Romney 46 Obama +3 Jul 27
    Wisconsin WeAskAmerica Obama 49, Romney 42 Obama +7 Jul 19

    Colorado PPP (D) Obama 49, Romney 46 Obama +3 Sep 03
    Colorado Keating (D) Obama 48, Romney 44 Obama +4 Aug 24
    Colorado Purple Strategies Obama 49, Romney 46 Obama +3 Aug 15
    Colorado CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 45, Romney 50 Romney +5 Aug 8
    Colorado Rasmussen Reports Obama 47, Romney 47 Tie Aug 7
    Colorado PPP (D) Obama 49, Romney 43 Obama +6 Aug 7
    Colorado Purple Strategies Obama 45, Romney 44 Obama +1 Jul 16

    Nevada PPP (D) Obama 50, Romney 47 Obama +3 Aug 29
    Nevada LVRJ/SurveyUSA Obama 47, Romney 45 Obama +2 Aug 22
    Nevada Rasmussen Reports Obama 50, Romney 45 Obama +5 Jul 26
    Nevada WeAskAmerica* Obama 49, Romney 43 Obama +6 Jul 19
    Nevada AFP/Magellan (R) Obama 50, Romney 46 Obama +4 Jul 19

    Iowa PPP (D) Obama 47, Romney 45 Obama +2 Aug 28
    Iowa Rasmussen Reports Obama 44, Romney 46 Romney +2 Aug 10
    Iowa PPP (D) Obama 48, Romney 43 Obama +5 Jul 17

    New Hampshire PPP (D) Obama 51, Romney 45 Obama +6 Aug 14
    New Hampshire WMUR/UNH Obama 49, Romney 46 Obama +3 Aug 13
    New Hampshire WMUR/UNH Obama 49, Romney 45 Obama +4 Jul 17

    Based on the polls Obama wil win all swing states except North Carolina with an result of 332 EC votes to 206. This compares with the 2008 result of 359 to 179.

  • 41
    Tom the first and best
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    25

    The Democrats should have removed the filibuster (meaning waiting out the filibuster on the rule change) asap (known as either the Constitutional option or the nuclear option by its proponents and opponents respectively). At the Very least they should have made far more use of reconciliation bills to get tax and spending reforms through.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29

  • 42
    Kevin Bonham
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    First term presidents win re-election 2/3 of the time. So this doesn’t tell us much.

    Another indicator – from 1900 on, the party running for a second consecutive term in the White House (as the Democrats are now) has won 10 out of 11 times. 1980 was the sole exception.

    Before 1900 a party running for its second consecutive term in the White House usually lost.

  • 43
    Expat Follower
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    Lev,

    yeah the present consensus is that Obi wins everything he did in 2008 except for Nth Carolina, Indiana and Nebraska-II… with redistricting etc this is the 332. Surely a high water mark… possibly could hold NC and get to 346.

    To get 63 electoral college votes back from him, Mittster simply HAS to win both Ohio and Florida (47), Virginia and Colorado (22). If one follows fivethirtyeight.com, states like New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin and Nevada are 75+% Obama holds – and I wouldnt even be mentioning Michigan as a tossup (despite the polling u quote).

    I would be happy to call the election as soon as Obi wins any one of OH, FL, VA or CO… turnout turnout turnout!!!

  • 44
    ShowsOn
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

    Watched Michelle Obama’s address. She did very well. Unsurprising. Michelle Obama is one of Barack Obama’s biggest assets, politically speaking.

    Apparently Michelle Obama’s approval rating is in the low 60s. So that means about 10 – 15% of voters who don’t support her husband approve of her!

  • 45
    ShowsOn
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    The Democrats should have removed the filibuster (meaning waiting out the filibuster on the rule change) asap (known as either the Constitutional option or the nuclear option by its proponents and opponents respectively). At the Very least they should have made far more use of reconciliation bills to get tax and spending reforms through.

    The reason the filibuster wasn’t reformed in the current Congress was because of an agreement made between Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. But Harry Reid has flagged that if the Democrats retain their majority after the election, the FIRST thing he will do in the new Senate is reform the filibuster rule. He wants to make it so in order to sustain a filibuster, a Senator or Senators must actually hold the floor, i.e. speak while standing.

  • 46
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    I think one concern that Democrats may have about removing the filibuster is it may be a useful tool for them in the future when there is a Republican in the White House and a Republican Senate majority. The filibuster was a very useful tool for Democrats blocking extremist judicial nominations during the Bush II years.

  • 47
    ShowsOn
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    The filibuster was a very useful tool for Democrats blocking extremist judicial nominations during the Bush II years.

    Sure, but the Democrats actually did something in the Bush years that Republicans don’t.

    They compromised.

  • 48
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    Wonder if you enjoyed those interactions or were more pained by them?

    Was pained by them.

  • 49
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Certainly ShowsOn but that was also because the “nuclear option” was threatened. Don’t get me wrong, I hate the filibuster – it’s an abuse of procedure but many veteran Democratic senators have long term memories and know it can benefit them down the track.

  • 50
    Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Another interesting issue that’s being pushed is Peurto Rico statehood. The Republicans are for it and the Democrats may also be drawn on board. One possibility is an agreement could be reached where PR gets statehood, in return for DC getting it. (Similar compromises have been made before for new states – the Maine/Missouri trade comes to mind.) Of course, there are a few flaws in that idea.

    Firstly, while Peurto Rico leans Republican, it does elect Democrats at times. Whereas DC does not elect Republicans. Two extra Democratic Senators, in return for two possible Republican senators may not be worth it to the GOP.

    Secondly, PR statehood makes a good political issue to beat Democrats with, among Latino voters, lest they decide to play politics with it. While most Latino voters won’t change their vote based on that, if a small portion of Floridan Cuban-Americans (those of whom aren’t already Republican) change their vote in sympathy, then it could turn the state red.

    Thirdly, even if the compromise is reached and Congress approves both, there is a possibility the Supreme Court could rule DC statehood unconstitutional (Article 1, sec 8), leaving DC the way it is and giving PR its statehood. A complete win for Republicans. However, the Congress could circumvent this by redefining “the seat of government” as just the grounds of the primary federal govt buildings (White House, Capitol etc.)

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...