Book of the Month

Articleman's picture

10 Days Left: Virginia Drifting From Romney, No Signs of Romney Revival

by Articleman 10/28/2012 - 1:27 am   |

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.

Virginia Showing Trend Away From Romney

The only real news in the polling today was that a pair of polls showed President Obama even in Virginia (unreliable Gravis Marketing, 48/48), and +4 (WaPo, 51/47).  Because Virginia is an absolute must-win for Romney, these polls are bad news for him.  Gravis was last in the field in Virginia on September 8-9, when it found Romney up 5, when everyone else thought the President was ahead.  The Post had last surveyed Virginia on September 12-16, in the heart of Obama's post convention bounce, finding him up 8, the strongest result in the fall season there for him.  Gravis does tend to have a Republican lean, but its polls do bounce around unpredictably, so standing alone, its conclusion that Virginia is tied is not that useful.

The reason the Romney campaign should be very worried is that the polls taken since President Obama's decisive win in the third Presidential debate average to a tie, and trending toward better numbers, as one sees from listing them oldest to newest:  FOX (Romney +2), Purple Strategies (tied), Rasmussen (Romney +2), WaPo (Obama +4), Gravis (tied).  Virginia back in the margin of error means a critical Romney state is now a coin flip.  This is consistent with my prediction after the third debate that it would be followed by a bit of movement back to Obama.

Yesterday, I noted the disjunction between conservative media attempting to spin that Romney is ahead or "surging" and that the President's campaign is faltering, failing, or recognizing that it is failing.  Virginia is a stick in the eye to those folks.  For example, Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics wrote on Saturday that Romney has a clear lead in states comprising 261 EVs, and included in that group Virginia.  Of course, Mitt Romney could win Virginia.  But he hasn't led there most of the year, has probably never led by more than a point or two, and may not lead today.  Likewise, the head of Suffolk University's "Political Research Center," David Paleologos, announced on Bill O'Reilly's The Factor back on October 9 that his group would no longer poll Virginia because it had "painted [it] red" -- Romney couldn't lose it.  The unscientific lack of curiosity Suffolk and Paleologos exhibited is characteristic of the degeneration of poll data (at least for the incurious and the intellectually dishonest) into advocacy.  It's also quite stupid -- President Obama led Virginia outside the margins of error of many polls, but Suffolk didn't stop polling then.  Mitt Romney storming into a *statistical tie* is only reason to look away and stop learning in the world of denialists who behave like political advocates rather than political scientists.

Other State Polls Suggest No Real Movement, Belie Romney's Supposed National Lead

The only polls of states that are reasonably close were of Minnesota, where St. Cloud State put President Obama +8 (53/45), and North Carolina, where Rasmussen saw a healthy +6 for Mitt Romney (52/46).  The St. Cloud number is a good one for Obama, as Minnesota voted in 2008 almost exactly like neighboring Wisconsin and Iowa, and the +8 represents only a 2 point Obama decline from 2008.  Again, it is impossible to square polls like that one with a world in which the President trails by 5, the Gallup fantasy.

The Rasmussen number in North Carolina is a good one for Romney, to be sure, and forms part of an average of polls putting Romney up 3 in North Carolina.  That, again, cannot be squared with the Gallup and Rasmussen national numbers, as a national Romney lead of 4 or 6 should result in a double-digit lead in North Carolina.  Indeed, Rasmussen's own sampling of swing states cannot be squared with the +6 result claimed for North Carolina.  President Obama won every swing state Rasmussen polls as such by more than he won North Carolina.  Rasmussen is making the ridiculous claim that all swing states together (CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, VA, WI) are +6 for Romney, but that Romney is +6 in North Carolina.  This makes no sense, and cannot possibly be true. (Never mind that the average of Rasmussen's state polls of these states is almost exactly even -- North Carolina's +6 is better than any number Romney has achieved in the great majority of these states all year.

National Polls Stay Silly, Largely Irrelevant

Gallup continues to find Romney decisively ahead (51/46), which simply contradicts all state polling one sees.  If so (taking Obama's 2008 margins and subtracting the 12 point difference), Romney should lead by 2-3 in MN, not trail by 8, and should lead in NC by 12, not 6 (or 1 point, the margin a Republican pollster leaning Republican reported yesterday).  The same point applies to Rasmussen, which sits at 50/46, and applies in reverse to RAND, which now shows Obama up 51/45.  It is comical to see poll denialists like Jay Cost or the right's Nate Silver-lite, Senor Numbersmuncher, who argue that Gallup and Rasmussen's party ID numbers mean Romney leads and will win.  They never cross-apply this wisdom to the state polls that are all of necessity (in that worldview0 very badly wrong, nor can they.  We will see on November 6, and some of these polling services will be humiliated, unless they conveniently break back to a place the state polls reflect just before November 6.  There is still time for Rasmussen's frame to move toward a more Democratic composition, and call the election a jump ball, then to claim that it was close enough either way.

Meanwhile, non-silly national polling by IBD/TIPP showed President Obama up 2.3 points, essentially unchanged, and WaPo (which showed Romney +1 on Friday) did not release a survey today.  Those two national pollsters (whose numbers can be square with state polling) alone failed to strain credulity today, and for that we are thankful.

Data Still Consistent With Narrow Obama National Lead

My theory of this race has long been that it exists in an effective range defined by Obama winning by up to 6 to a virtual tie in which Romney could prevail.  Obama overperformed for a while in September as Romney ran badly, placing Obama near the limit of his performance, while after Denver Romney stood near his.  State polling suggests the election is settling somewhere in between, perhaps closer to the Romney end of my range, but not at the edge of the range, as Romney would need to win.  The solidity of Nevada, the seeming solidity of Wisconsin, the drift back to Obama in Colorado and Virginia, seem to corroborate this.  It does seem that Romney should win Florida and North Carolina, though Florida seems close enough to be won by Obama yet.

From here, look for polling of Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, and Iowa.  If Romney fails to pull even in Wisconsin, he will lose unless he sweeps Ohio, Virginia, and Florida (and could lose anyway).  Colorado substitutes in for Wisconsin for Obama.  He can win with Nevada + Ohio + Colorado and no other swing state.  So if motion to Obama continues there, or even flattens at a narrow lead, that's very bad news for Romney.

In sum, if Romney cannot pull of an Election Day surprise in Ohio, the data on the board simply are not consistent with him winning the Presidency.

Today was the first day of early voting in Florida. The lines were longest I have ever seen in this county. It looked like several hundred and at the time a 2 hour wait so we will go back on Monday. This would be the only Saterday and Sunday that people who work could early vote. Sunday is Souls to the Polls and they plan to start before the polls open and hope to keep the lines long to force the shorten hours into longer hours. GoTv turned them out today and the polls ran over a couple of hours so everyone that made it in line before the schedual closing could vote. In Miami there was a 5 hour wait in some polling places today. Jacksonvile also had a long wait to vote. It was reported locally that at times the Jacksonvile voters were chanting Obama. Jacksonvile Churches also plans a big Souls to the Polls turn out with buses and vans to get the people to the polling places Sunday. Lawyers were pressed into action in Sarasota County over poll watching but I don't know any of the details or the out come was to that. This was in Northport where 1400 votes were lost in a past cycle from faulty voting machines that put Vern Bucannon back in office the last time. It is a purple area that swings. The turn out was heavy all over the state. We will know in a few days how well the ground game OFA is working when the data comes out. South Florida should show a strong Democrat turn out. I just know they have been working their butts off in my area. Just one more thing. Our ballot has 11 ammendments on it that reads like a novel of confusing stuff. I saw most of the people who were in line holding the sample ballots that was sent out to voters. People were prepared. We had ours filled out so we didn't have to spend a long time reading the ammendments. FL GoTv Rocks....
by trkingmomoe 10/28/2012 - 2:51 am

Florida going to Obama would make Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Virginia irrelevant. And Obama has polled ahead there more recently than Romney has in Ohio.

There is a lot of turnout and enthusiasm nationally, it is good to know that FL is like that.

by Articleman 10/28/2012 - 10:59 am (re: trkingmomoe)

Sandy

Not to belittle its' serious consequences- people will die and there'll be great inconvenience and property damage- but just being factual, it is going to be  an impediment to Romney's  chance of playing catch up  this week in the affected area..

Conversely it may reduce turn out on election day.

And if FEMA disappoints that will be held against Obama.

by Flavius 10/28/2012 - 8:12 am

Romney leads 51/47 in VA early voting in Purple Strategies that shows an overall tie. Sandy is a real wild card.

by Articleman 10/28/2012 - 11:04 am (re: Flavius)

And, it's not just early voting to be concerned about. Other than Charlottesville (where I live) the only other real Obama portion of the state is in Northern Virginia, near DC. The land-locked portion of the state, which is only going to be affected peripherally by Sandy, leans strongly Romney. I suspect this same dynamic might play out in other Eastern seaboard regions.

by Verified Atheist 10/28/2012 - 7:31 pm (re: Articleman)

I ignore FOX just as I usually ignore Rasmussen polls. Except I just read some ditty that FOX aint so happy about Rasmussen polls either.

I recall that in 2008 Rasmussen was so far off in its predictions that its polls 'magically' changed during the last few days prior to the election. An obvious attempt to cover up its 'pudge luntz' slant on things.

But my real confusion deals with this Washpo poll in Virginia. Neither CNN nor MSNBC have given much hope for an Obama win Virginia.

And yet I read your recent comments on voting in Virginia and Washpo's recent discussion yesterday--

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/obama-clings-to-slim...

and I am really confused on this election.

These cable discussions are all over the place as they are on the web.

The discussions will shift to Romney's real chances in Wisconsin of all places!

Hell, Romney's team is claiming possible victory in Minnesota? Well that is ridiculous.

Anyway, I appreciate your daily pronouncements and will continue to read them.

I still am wondering if this entire exercise that I witness on cable and on the web is simply an attempt to increase ratings and readership!

I suppose it bodes well for the dems since it sure as hell is keeping the voters at the polls.

by Richard Day 10/28/2012 - 8:51 am

Thanks.  Let me take each of the points you raise in turn:  Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota.

It is silly for anyone to rule out of possibility Obama winning Virginia, a state he won by 6.3 points in 2008.  The economy there is strong, with unemployment in the 5's, the federal workforce is strong there, the state keeps getting more Northern culturally each successive cycle, and Obama has maintained a strong presence there.

Nate Silver has never modeled Romney winning Virginia by more than about a half point, and now models Obama winning it.  But I am not entirely enamored of Nate's model at that level.  It tended to price into Virginia a modest shift in other states that had not yet appeared there.  States with firmer bases on both sides (VA is one) are less elastic, less swingy, and they should not move as much as Wisconsin (reasonably swingy) or New Hampshire (very swingy).

When you look at the state polls, PPP and WaPo are clear that Obama is winning, and by 5 and 4.  I don't buy that, or the happy talk from hacks who think a few +2's for Romney mean game over.  It's all turnout.

Wisconsin is very much in play.  Obama led by about 6 nationally, and about 8 there.  He now is about even nationally and leads by about 2 there.  This all makes sense.  It's a mostly white state, and thus has more independent, "swingy" voters.  Like Ohio, it performs pretty narrowly and regularly in frequent polls, with the range in Wisconsin showing about 0 to +6.  I would be more worried if any sample showed Romney +2.  We haven't seen that in the last six weeks.

Minnesota could move about as much as Wisconsin, but there is no special affinity (like Ryan), Wisconsin moved heavily by 2010 (consider Walker and Feingold), and it's clear that Wisconsin is just trending a bit more Republican.  Romney has made no efforts in Minnesota, and noises about "competing" in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota are way too late and are only meant to push the theme of a Romney surge.  Those states all seem like they are Obama +5 to me, and I wouldn't worry a bit about them.

by Articleman 10/28/2012 - 3:28 pm (re: Richard Day)

I appreciate your time on my rant, for sure.

I agree with you.

But I wish that these polls would be more like Vegas odds; those who lose should have to pay the goddamn piper and the idiots I see on cable and the pollsters like luntz who are way off should have TO PAY THE PIPER.

But as you say; time will tell.

Just as an aside, I want 'us' to win in the worst way so that Scarborough has to shut his goddamnable mouth for a few months!

Of course this idiot was claiming that McCain had a real chance in 2008 up until the end--it was so fun to see Olbermann just shut him down.

Now that was fun!

by Richard Day 10/28/2012 - 3:55 pm (re: Articleman)

If Obama wins Virginia, Paleologus will be (very deservedly) humiliated.  He is anyway in the eyes of anyone who understands his job (political science) and the current state of Virginia polling (tied).

Gallup and Rasmussen stand to lose a great deal in this cycle.  They are spending their cred (I hate the current idiom, doubling down) on the wrong assertion that Romney is simply way out in front.

Scarborough sometimes exhibits insightful, independent thought.  I like him better, and find him to be much more intellectually honest, than most of the very conservative TV talking heads.

by Articleman 10/28/2012 - 7:28 pm (re: Richard Day)

I think the translation of "paleologos" from the Greek runs something along the lines of an old stone in thought and speech.

I heard Paleo on Bloomberg radio two days ago spinning the race as a flip, never questioned on the matter of his having tried to take Va. out of the equation.

I assume the Cin. Enq poll of Ohio as tied doesn't mean all that much when averaged in with all the rest.

by Oxy Mora 10/28/2012 - 9:54 am

It's a good number for Romney, but he keeps never leading.  As you point out, the average is good for Obama, but the range is also very narrow and stable.  The universe of Ohio polling has become tied through Obama +5, which is harder to change given massive early voting.

Compounding that, it reports (contrary to all polls) that less than 20% have voted, and thus probably understates Obama's vote.  Other pollsters found that at 21% 10 days ago, and 26% after that.

by Articleman 10/28/2012 - 10:54 am (re: Oxy Mora)

The Enquirer poll is not as good for Romney as appears at first blush since the data was compiled over the 6 consecutive days beginning 5 days before the throwdown in Boca Raton.  I am slightly more troubled by the Star-Tribune/Mason Dixon poll finding Obama only +3 in MN with all data compiled post-Boca.

by KRXA Hal 10/28/2012 - 11:19 am (re: Oxy Mora)

Minnesota is a lock.  Yesterday's +8 and today's +3 frame a race that should be around +5.  Even +3 would represent a 7 point shift from 2008 and should not be a problem.  There are many states Obama won by 10 that Romney needs to win (NH, IA, WI), and MN illustrates how the last 5 points are hard to come by.

Good point on the Ohio poll, but it also undoes my critique about undercounting early voters.  It's still a good number for Romney because he's tied and also because he got to 49.  It's still at the edge of the range, though.  Since Ohio is likely to decide the election, that poll is more important and concerning, though still ok for Obama.

by Articleman 10/28/2012 - 1:34 pm (re: KRXA Hal)

WaPo endorsed Obama on Friday.  The Des Moines Register endorsed Romney this morning.  Will the former help Obama in Virginia?  Will the latter help Romney in Iowa?  My initial pessimistic reaction is that while the Post's endorsement will have a very mild nationwide effect that will not change any one state's vote the Register will swing a few votes in the Hawkeye State to Romney - votes that might just might prove dispositive both there and ultimately in the general election. 

by KRXA Hal 10/28/2012 - 11:49 am

I think the DMR endorsement is significant and could help cost Obama Iowa.  OTOH, Obama seems to lead there, and it's probably not worth two full points, and as we addressed in a few of the recent blogs, OH, WI, CO, and VA matter more.  

IA comes into play as decisive only in slightly weird scenarios, when paired with NH to make up for CO or WI.

I think losing the WaPo endorsement would have helped Romney more than getting it helps Obama.  Romney should be very worried about VA.

by Articleman 10/28/2012 - 1:37 pm (re: KRXA Hal)

Ohio with its Detroit bail out and Florida with its wild, vast diverse demographics (from the elderly on medicare to Hispanics) going for Obama would pale in comparison to Virginia going to Obama in regards to the Republicans contemplating their hardcore conservative base going forward. 

If Obama wins in VA, I think we can assume he wins NH, OH, WI, and NV (and maybe even CO).  This would be an electoral blow out given the economy, and given the first debate, the Romney is a lousy candidate excuse can't be used with a completely straight face.  Throw in Team Aikin-Mourdock, and the establishment Republicans will have to consider a new strategy going forward and eyes on 2016, a strategy that just might make a less hostile Congress for Obama's initiatives.

by Another Trope 10/28/2012 - 2:48 pm (re: Articleman)

Winning Virginia, a 6.3% win in 2008, would not necessarily entail winning Ohio, or even Colorado, which was a bigger win but which is almost all white.

I do not think the narrow Obama win I expect will alter anything about the Tea Party House or its negotiation strategy.  Obama would have to go Clinton 1995 in his second term to get the public engaged in what the Tea Party is doing, and I think the better argument is that he doesn't have it in him, likely because this Republican House is more popular now than Gingrich's government-shutdown initiative was in 1995.

by Articleman 10/28/2012 - 3:35 pm (re: Another Trope)

First if we are looking at victories and what the polls are saying - if a tied VA goes to Obama one can make the assumption the enthusiasm gap was made to be a too big of a deal - and so far the evidence even in places like Georgia shows that the Dem base is showing up. So if the base is showing up in VA, then one can make the assumption they'll show up in OH and CO and WI.   It is also based on the idea that Obama's ground game is going to outplay Romney's in the states that matter. 

Second I was not talking about the tea party house.  I was talking about the establishment Republicans, not only the elected ones, but the ones behind the scenes like Rove and the unnammed CEOs.  They want the WH in 2016 should Obama win.  Let's face it, if Obama wins, Hillary will be the Democratic nominee.  These establishment power brokers are going to do everything within their power to ensure that Republican party is more acceptable to the center moderates of this country.

Of course they can't completely control the tea party house members, but we all also know the subtle "threats" that are going to be made to them about playing ball.

by Another Trope 10/28/2012 - 5:37 pm (re: Articleman)

And if Hillary is the nominee, can one imagine the Republican party of Akin and Mourdock even standing a chance?

by Another Trope 10/28/2012 - 5:39 pm (re: Another Trope)

I have been very confident throughout this period leading up to the election. But sometimes when I think about it, I have a tightening in my chest and I worry just a little bit about Romney winning.

After the Bush debacle and the 2010 craziness it's hard to predict what Americans will do.

We already voted and mailed in our ballots yesterday. Our ballots were larger than normal, as the years move on, we have to vote on more and more legislation, that has distorted our systems ability to provide services to citizens. 

Because of all these things this election suddenly makes me feel uneasy.

by tmccarthy0 10/28/2012 - 2:57 pm

Within 1 point either way, anything can happen.  I really don't think about the national trend.  I think about Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Virginia.  Obama needs the first and one of the next three.  There really is nothing else.  (I suppose Obama could win Iowa and New Hampshire and Iowa, but it's hard for me to see him do that and lose the other three.)  

And we do have a modest chance in Florida, which would bigfoot each of those.

I think there's plenty of reason to be worried.

by Articleman 10/28/2012 - 3:32 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

I believe I'm agitated and worried because there has been more wrong than right with this electoral process.  Truly, if it wasn't for A-man and his daily analysis, I think I would most likely be in a corner, rocking back and forth, murmuring incoherently. 

That said, I have little faith in the sanctity of this election and sadly do truly believe 'they' can and will resort to whatever is needed to skew this election. 

by Aunt Sam 10/28/2012 - 3:33 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

Oh crap, I just read his last sentence, I'm off to the corner with my blankee.

by Aunt Sam 10/28/2012 - 3:35 pm (re: Aunt Sam)

Romney has more reasons to worry than Obama, but this is going to be a very close one.

by Articleman 10/28/2012 - 3:39 pm (re: Aunt Sam)

Our democracy is going down the toilet if everyone on both sides wants to disbelieve results and think everything is stolen.  Fortunately in combating the delegitimizers, Obama has a chance to win by a good electoral margin, even in a very close election, as by winning OH, VA, WI, and CO, which would be 294-244.

One thing wrong with this electoral process is the amount of money in it.  I am glad to see people on both sides recognizing how out of control this is, though fewer Republicans seem to.  That is one way in which the sanctity of what an election is has been sullied, from my view of things.

by Articleman 10/28/2012 - 3:38 pm (re: Aunt Sam)

One thing an Obama victory will do is to prove to a bunch of billionaires (who are billionaires because they are consumed about making not losing money) that just throwing money at the election process will produce the results they want.  Kind of like their view on spending money on education. 

Of course, the next election in 2016 will generate 2 billion + dollars - but its sway on the public will be about the same. 

It is on the grassroots people to work in every community to have real face to face dialogues with the voters.  In my little local world, I can't see one vote, either way, being altered by one tv commercial.

by Another Trope 10/28/2012 - 5:50 pm (re: Articleman)

'they' can and will resort to whatever is needed to skew this election.

'they' also know if that if the 'smoking gun' is found proving they did whatever is needed to skew this (or any) election, it will destroy their party for the next decade or so.  In other words, they will skirt the edges, but always an eye on the consequences.  All it takes is an email or text message to blow it all up in their face.  Or a whistle blower waving some documents on the court house steps. 

by Another Trope 10/28/2012 - 5:45 pm (re: Aunt Sam)

'they' also know if that if the 'smoking gun' is found proving they did whatever is needed to skew this (or any) election, it will destroy their party for the next decade or so.

 I cannot see evidence that they "know" any such thing. There is already plenty of evidence of blatant attempts by Republicans to "skew" this election.  Is it hurting them at all? Hard to say, but with the Romney apparently gaining any small success at the "skew" could be enough. If not enough to win then maybe get it close enough to steal.

 Did the theft of 2000 destroy the Republicans for as much as a minute? Did it even ding them? Seems to me like they charged ahead as if they had an overwhelming mandate. 

 

 

by A Guy Called LULU 10/28/2012 - 6:27 pm (re: Another Trope)

evidence of skewing the election (e.g. number of election booths located in a particular site) is different than actual evidence of a conspiracy to skewing election (email talking about how limiting election booths will help the republican candidate).

Having watched too many re-runs of Law and Order, I would say it not enough to show the behavior indicating such an intent, one needs to show evidence of intent.

by Another Trope 10/28/2012 - 6:41 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

No conceivable event intended to wrongfully skew the vote, whether it results in a conviction in a court of law or is revealed by obvious evidence available to be judged in the court of public opinion, is going to destroy the Republican Party. Half of half the country will not believe and the others on that side will say nice try. 

by A Guy Called LULU 10/28/2012 - 7:33 pm (re: Another Trope)

Actually there is about 30-30, or at best 35-35, that is so ideological bent that no matter what scandal emerges, the voting pattern will not change.  That leaves about 40 to 30 percent of the likely voters who will be swayed by such things as missing minutes on a tape recording and an email indicating an attempt to change the outcome of an American election.

by Another Trope 10/28/2012 - 8:59 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

Latest Comments

more