Hi all.  Just wanted to say thank you for the dialogue in the blogs about the recently-concluded elections.  It was an exciting and sometimes harrowing ride, through the conventions, the debates, and a strange Election Day and night.  

While doing so, I thought it fair to point out that for the second cycle in a row, yours truly outpicked Larry Sabato and Nate Silver in the Senate races, and in this cycle, the Presidential as well. [Read more]

Please join me Tuesday for a liveblog of the 2012 election.  I have already explained in a separate post why I predict that Democrats will pick up one seat in an uphill Senate cycle.  This blog details my view of the current state of the Presidential race, which explains why I believe President Obama is certain to win re-election, as well as the states and electoral vote total I think he will win.  Would love to hear your different predictions, if any.  Here we go: [Read more]

The Democrats are going to hold the Senate.  Let's get that out of the way.  The question is by what margin.  That the Democrats hold it at all is a historical anomaly.  Since direct popular election of the Senate began around World War I, the House had changed hands from one of the major parties to the other eight times -- and all eight times, the Senate did too.  The Tea Party helped make this history in 2010, when the nominations of Sharron Angle (Nevada), Christine O'Donnell (Delaware), and Ken Buck (Colorado) cost it three seats in the Senate.  Absent those clear mistakes, the GOP would likely have had 50 Senate seats for the last two years.  This time out, the mistakes were Todd Akin (Missouri), and Richard Mourdock (Indiana).  Like the other three mistakes, they were all the most conservative nominee in their respective primary fields.  Mourdock, like O'Donnell, helped retire a more-liked and more-moderate Republican incumbent (Rep. Castle in Delaware, Sen. Lugar in Indiana).  Lacking these latest two mistakes, the GOP would have 51 Senators for the next two years.  This blog explains why, instead, there will be 54 Democrats (or Democrat-caucusing independents), and 46 Republicans (or Republican-caucusing independents).  Before beginning, the author humbly notes that in 2010, he was one seat more accurate than both Sabato and Silver, as we all missed Nevada and Colorado, while I had Murkowski in Alaska and they did not.  Onward to the Democratic gains likely on Tuesday, in what was supposed to be a Republican cycle: [Read more]

Before the devastation of Superstorm Sandy put the Presidential campaigning on hold (as of course it should, no matter how close in time the election is), it was clear that President Obama had moved up in the swing states, taking as the inflection point (the point for before/after comparison) October 23, the day after the third Presidential debate.  One week after that date, it is easy to illustrate that the race has changed very slightly, but significantly, in the swing states that will decide the election.  This blog does that, by taking the polling in each swing state, using October 23 as the break point to compare polling before and after, and also comparing the Obama/Romney matchup in "apples to apples" comparisons in which a given pollster (say, ARG) polled the [Read more]

There was a bit of drama in Poll Land on Sunday, as a well-respected source in Ohio released The Ohio Poll, showing a dead heat between President Obama and Governor Romney.  It was the third poll that ever showed Romney hitting 49 in Ohio (Obama has hit 50 19 times, including in the other two polls that showed Romney at 49).  Indeed, two polls posted late Sunday night corroborated the theory of this piece that The Ohio Poll was taken during a modest recession in the President's poll numbers.  Moreover, other state polls released Sunday were consistent with the race being roughly even in popular vote, with the President leading narrowly in key states.  This race remains on course for a narrow Obama victory, most likely as a result of the President winning either Ohio (where he has led this week and most of the last two months) or Virginia (where he has seemingly moved into a tie).  Here is why the data continue to favor that narrow Obama win: [Read more]

Time is running out on Mitt Romney's campaign for President, which seems to have roared back into a competitive posture, but not the lead its cheerleaders in the media would wish.  Here's what the polls showed in another day that provided some good news for Obama, and no more good news for Romney. [Read more]

October 26 was a good day for President Obama's re-election prospects, though not for the portrayal of his campaign in conservative media.  The volume of positive state polls for the President provide very good news for him as the campaign heads to its last full week, though as we discussed yesterday, it can be challenging to reconcile them with national polling that tends to show an even race or a tiny Romney lead.  Meanwhile, the Romney campaign and its allies in media are very assertively advancing the argument that Romney is surging.  This blog explains the implausibility of that claim, and how President Obama is closing in on re-election, with ten days of campaigning ahead. [Read more]

Today was a strange day of polling, like many others in 2012 -- it showed that Mitt Romney apparently leads in national polling, but is unlikely to win the Presidency.  All campaign long, the national and state polls have been subtly but clearly irreconcilable.  Today was more of the same, as the Obama momentum from the President's debate win Monday seemed to continue in state polls, but not in national polls.  The path to the White House is clarifying further, and it runs through Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin.  Here's what today's data set showed. [Read more]

Today was undoubtedly a good day for President Obama.  Both national and state polls suggested that he gained as a result of his debate win on Monday, state polls showed that Mitt Romney's electoral path is narrowing, and the national political story of the day impliedly aids President Obama.  Here's an analysis of the day's data. [Read more]

Someone keep Mitt Romney out of Boca Raton.  Last time he was in town, it was all 47% and I'd be President if I were Mexican.  Tonight?  Oy.  You know how you can tell Barack Obama peeled the bark off of his debating opponent this evening?  Click on RealClearPolitics.com.  It's burying the snap polls about the debate.  (What debate?  There was a debate?)  Or look around the Internet -- Kudlow tweeted that Romney was on Valium, and Hannity is angry that Libya was not a topic this evening.  This was Denver in reverse -- Romney assuming the role of the front-runner who didn't want to disagree, and who accepted harsh criticisms without rebutting them.  Just as Romney won the CBS poll of undecided voters by 24 in Denver, President Obama won that poll tonight by 30.  It is hard to see after tonight how President Obama does not win re-election. [Read more]

For two years, the prehistory of this race was one of Bush-Kerry -- an incumbent during war with a middling economy, a firm base, a modest deficit with independents, a middling flip-flopping opponent with big hair from Massachusetts, and just enough popular desire to stay the course to win a narrow re-election.  The race now looks a bit more like Bush-Gore:  it is rational to think that the Democrat might win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote, the Republican electoral path is narrower, but the Republican candidate has surprising momentum through the debate cycle and heading toward the wire.  I still see President Obama's re-election as likely, but I am downgrading the probability of his winning from 80% to roughly 65%, as a result of the week's event [Read more]

With twenty-four days to go until the final votes are cast, it is clear that the Obama-Romney contest has narrowed drastically.  The number of states that are “in play” remains small, and the number of states that could realistically decide this election is smaller still.  Taking a close look at data from the last week and reading it against what we know from 2010 gives us a window into how narrow this contest is, where it will be decided, and likely how.  As I will explain, I am more bullish on President Obama’s likelihood of winning re-election than others caught up in the national trackers, Nate Silver’s plummeting assessments of the President’s prospects, or the gloomy post-debate narratives (Andrew Sullivan being the undisputed champion of that particular raindance).  So here – with close attention to polls and what they do and do not show – is why I see President Obama’s chance of winning re-election at roughly 80% today. [Read more]

Now that the dust has settled on the first Presidential debate (though it still echoes through Romney's good poll yesterday from Pew, and whiny flagellations about it, like that of Andrew Sullivan today), we are getting a clearer picture of where the numbers are, and where this election is.  The answer is that it is presently a jump ball, though that state of affairs is close to the best possible present standing for Romney, leaving Obama far more opportunities to improve.  This election will be decided in Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, and New Hampshire.  President Obama will win it if he either performs at rough parity with Mitt Romney in coming debates, or if he wins what amounts to a coin flip, because the probability of winning if he does not is essentially 50/50. [Read more]

I knew Barack Obama was in trouble when he took time off from debate preparation to visit Hoover Dam.  Don’t get me wrong, I love Hoover Dam.  I read a whole book about its history, and have written about it myself.  But I had a big professional event the other day in Nevada, and I stayed up until 2 a.m. getting ready to perform.  I got four hours sleep.  And I didn’t visit Hoover Dam.  That debate wasn’t quite Bush-Kerry I in 2004 – the worst performance by an incumbent President in a Presidential debate in my lifetime.  It wasn’t even quite Reagan-Mondale I in 1984, when President Reagan looked tired and out of command of facts, briefly raising questions as to his fitness to serve a second term.  But it was bad.  Here’s why it was bad, what it means, and what it doesn’t. [Read more]

This space has recently opined that Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan likely put the Presidential election out of reach, and also that President Obama would take a modest lead after the Democratic convention, as uncommitted voters would be swayed by President Clinton in a way they were not by the Marathon Man.  Check, and check.  The Democratic convention, even Scott Rasmussen has been forced to admit, has resulted in a substantial Obama bounce, placing the President ahead, outside the margin of error.  This column is about why the election is nearly over, and what that means. [Read more]

Like some hardcore conservatives, I was pleasantly surprised today to learn that Congressman Paul Ryan will be the Republican nominee for the Vice Presidency.  This is a choice so unnecessary and unhelpful that it is helpful to catalog the ways in which it is dumb.  I am very pleased to report to you, dear readers, the many, many ways Mitt Romney blew the race for the White House today. [Read more]

As we head through a slow August in a campaign that has never really started and yet is almost over, the talk on TV, in print media, and in blogs, is about Harry Reid's charge that Mitt Romney has not paid taxes for ten years.  Romney's tax returns were an issue during the Republican primaries, when Newt Gingrich pummeled him and briefly made hay on the same issue.  Incredibly, Peter Beinart at the Daily Beast and others have argued that Romney's tax returns don't matter.  Nothing could be more wrong.  Here is why. [Read more]

Yesterday was a good day for the law, people without healthcare, liberalism, the Tea Party, and President Obama, in no particular order.  I was surprised to see the PPACA upheld.  After the length of the oral arguments devoted to the PPACA, I thought there was one chance in three or four that Justice Kennedy would cross over to affirm its constitutionality, and no real chance that Chief Justice Roberts would if he did not.  The other votes all seemed certain.  But a funny thing happened on the way to what seemed predestined -- the intellectual honesty of Chief Justice John Roberts.  With respect and admiration, Mr. Chief Justice, this blog's for you. [Read more]

I love basketball, so I love Jeremy Lin.  He's awesome.  I also love to write about basketball, so I was waiting until I had seen more of Lin's play to write a blog about his fascinating rise to celebrity status and into the upper echelon of NBA guards.  I was not waiting to blog about Lin until idiots thought it was cool to use the ugly and out-of-bounds racial slur "chink" in prepared text to refer to him.  Nonetheless, we have been exposed this week to ESPN making wordplay with this racist slur, and to boxer Floyd Mayweather and even columnist Jason Whitlock joining the racist foot-in-mouth comment club.  So before we get back to enjoying the Linsanity where it belongs, on the hardwood (where Lin scored 28 and dished out 14 assists in a nationally televised Knick win over the Mavericks today), let's recognize the teaching moment our culture suddenly finds itself in about the not widely paused upon subject of antiAsian racism. [Read more]

Dirty Dancing teaches us a lot.  Nobody puts Baby in a corner.  There is joy in the upstate New York summer camp experience.  Sometimes it is possible to hear the pop music of the distant future if you just break into dance during an emotionally charged moment in your upbringing.  Stuff like that.  But the deepest wisdom in this Kahlil Gibran-like wellspring of profundity came from Baby Houseman's dad, Dr. Houseman, when he apologized to Patrick Swayze's Johnny, who he had cruelly misjudged.  Taking back his incorrect assessment of rough-hewn Johnny's pure motives toward Baby, Dr. Houseman set a shining example for us all by saying, "When I'm roo-wawng, I say I'm roo-wawng." [Read more]