I won’t bore readers with much about what they already know: Obama won; Democrats increased their margins in the Senate; Republicans lost House seats but easily hung onto control. Many of the scenarios we all spent a lot of time discussing during the General Election cycle are now moot: there was no “disputed election;” no electoral vote/popular vote “split;” no Republican Senate that would have allowed the GOP (in conjunction with a Romney win) to enact its agenda on a party-line vote; no Romney presidency without a Republican Senate that might (in theory, anyway) have enabled him to abandon his many promises to conservatives and pursue a bipartisan fiscal agreement.

As the final votes trickle in, it’s increasingly clear total voting will be down a relatively small amount from 2008, though not in most of the battleground states. And the composition of the electorate was very similar to that of 2008, despite widespread predictions that under-30 voters and Latinos would not turn out at anything like 2008 levels. In the end, the main difference between 2008 and 2012 from a demographic point of view is that Obama’s percentage among white voters dropped from 43% to 39%, which was partially offset by an increase in his percentage among Latinos from 67% to 71%. Yes, Obama’s percentage of under-30 voters dropped, but it was partially offset by a small gain among voters aged 30-44 (probably reflecting late-twenties voters from 2008 who moved into the next category). The only two states Romney “swung” to the GOP were the two closest Obama states in 2008, Indiana and North Carolina. Obama’s final popular-vote percentage will be very similar to George W. Bush’s in 2004. It does, as you may have heard, make him the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote in two consecutive elections since FDR.

Democratic gains of two net seats in the Senate were the most remarkable result, given the vastly pro-Republican landscape. A lot of the post-election talk was about the unforced errors of Tea Party candidates in Missouri and Indiana, but Republicans would have still fallen four seats short of a majority had both those states fallen into the GOP column. In the House, although there is some controversy over how to measure the national popular vote (some states don’t collect or report votes for unopposed candidates), it’s reasonably clear Democrats won a small plurality even though they only picked up ten net seats, leaving Republicans with a 232-203 majority. Continue reading “Election Watch: 2012 Is in the Books!” →

Despite Mitt Romney’s belated October dash toward the political center, moderates have lined up solidly behind President Obama. Centrist voters put Obama over the top in 2008, and they could very well do it again today.

Pew’s final campaign poll shows Obama moving from a dead heat to a three-point lead in the election’s last week. Specifically, he cut Romney’s margins among seniors (from +19 to +9) and padded his lead among women (+13 points) and moderates (+21).

Obama leads Romney 56-25 among moderate voters, close to the 60 percent he won in 2008. Because there are about twice as many conservatives as liberals in the electorate, Democrats have to claim big majorities among moderates to win elections. According to Pew, voters now identify themselves as 43 percent conservative, 32 percent moderate and 21 percent liberal, nearly identical to their ideological profile in 2008.

Although liberals consider themselves the Democratic “base,” there aren’t nearly enough of them to deliver victory. In 2008, half of Obama’s vote came from moderates, while liberals accounted for 37 percent. Republicans need fewer moderates to build majorities, which helps to explain why GOP centrists are a vanishing breed. Continue reading “Centrist Voters Back Obama” →

The big day is finally upon us, and while most signs are pointing to a very narrow popular-vote and perhaps more comfortable electoral-vote win for the president (along with small enough Democratic House and Republican Senate gains to maintain the congressional status quo), the polls and the intangibles are uncertain enough to maintain some sense of suspense.

After a week or so of favoring Romney, national polls have been slowly moving back towards Obama during the last few days. The RealClearPolitics “poll of polls” has Obama up by 0.5%; TPM’s average is at 0.7%. No major national poll—not even Rasmussen—has shown Romney with a lead going down the stretch, though the final Gallup Tracking poll (suspended last week because of the impact of Sandy on response-levels) today could change that. The final Pew survey showing Obama up by 3% is getting a lot of attention because it’s the polling firm that was the first to show a “Romney surge” after the Denver debate.

But it’s the electoral college estimates that are most favorable for Obama, reflecting polls consistently showing him ahead in Ohio, Iowa and Nevada, a combination that along with less competitive “blue states” would give him the presidency. It’s also less clear than it seemed to be last week that Romney has actually pulled ahead in Virginia and Florida, and despite a few outlier polls showing him within striking distance in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, the consensus is that barring some surprise turnout disparities, those states will fall to Obama as well. Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight rates the probability of an Obama electoral college win at 85%, and Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium at 98%. The conventional wisdom (though not among most Republicans!) is that Obama is in much the same position as George W. Bush was in 2004, with job approval ratings at or just above 50%, and a very small undecided vote. Continue reading “Election Watch: Decision Time 2012” →

With eleven days left before November 6, the general perception is that the presidential contest is even, though most formal prediction models continue to give Obama a slight edge and some of the more hackish Republicans continue to insist Mitt Romney is riding an endless wave of “momentum” to a landslide.

It’s unclear whether the Romney Surge in the polls that followed the first presidential debate subsided on its own, or was smothered by the vice presidential and the second and third presidential debates, all of which were generally rated as Democratic wins. And for that matter, it’s unclear if the Romney Surge was purely produced by the first debate, or was partially attributable to a natural decline in Obama’s post-convention Surge.

But it does appear that a razor-thin margin divides the two candidates in national polls of likely voters (Obama pretty much leads them all among registered voters), and that while Romney has made gains almost everywhere, he’s still trailing in Ohio, Nevada, Wisconsin and Iowa, and has probably taken the lead in North Carolina and Florida. Virginia and Colorado are too close to call. Post-first-debate measurements of “enthusiasm” that showed Republicans picking up a big advantage were as likely as catching lightning bugs in a jar; both “bases” seem very motivated, particularly in the battleground states. As for undecided voters, some polls (though not others) show Romney making impressive gains among women—presumably charmed by Moderate Mitt—and virtually all show him doing very well—perhaps over 60 percent—among white voters. The new ABC/WaPo poll that came out today, giving Romney a 50/47 lead among LVs, had Obama at 37 percent among white voters, a level lower than any Democratic presidential candidate has received since 1984. But polling in Ohio has universally shown Obama performing better there among white voters than nationally, helping explain his persistent lead in the state most observers think will decide it all (aside from his reported two-to-one lead in early voting). Indeed, the increasing possibility of a Popular Vote/Electoral Vote split in the final results, with Romney winning the former and Obama the latter, is becoming a big preoccupation of the punditry.

So the contest, it appears, will go down to late paid media, GOTV efforts, and external news events. Republicans have a significant but not overwhelming advantage in paid media; Democrats are still perceived to have an advantage in GOTV; and nobody knows how the news will cut, although presidents tend to have more leverage over the news than do former governors. Certainly no one factored Hurricane Sandy into their presidential election forecast models, representing all sorts of challenges and opportunities for Obama, and quite likely disrupting campaign activities in several states in the most crucial days before the election.

Republican hopes of taking back the Senate took yet enough hit this week as Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock—already locked in a closer-than-expected race with Democratic congressman Joe Donnelly—followed the path of Missouri’s Todd Akin in making offensive remarks in a public setting about rape and abortion. Mourdock has not been repudiated by national Republicans the way Akin was—indeed, Mitt Romney’s ad endorsing Mourdock is still running despite Romney’s disavowal of the hard-core-conservative Hoosier’s comments calling pregnancies resulting from rape “God’s Will.” But with polls showing significant gains by Democratic candidates in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and no signs of a GOP breakthrough elsewhere, the odds of the GOP making a net gain of three seats are not good. So even if Romney and Ryan win, they may be dealing with a Democratic Senate. This could be very discomfiting to conservatives who don’t trust Romney and assumed he would be effectively controlled by a Republican Congress. But in the heat of the final stretch of the presidential campaign, no Republican is going to breath a word about it.

All in all, between hurricanes, conflicted polling, the possibility of “split decisions” (between the popular and electoral vote, and between the presidential and Senate results), and the even stronger possibility of contested results in key states (both sides have been lawyering up heavily for election day disputes), this could be one of the wildest end-games since—well, 2000. The 2004 scenario of a very close race being decided by Ohio almost seems like a nice, placid fantasy.

With just 18 days left until Election Day, and with early voting picking up all over the country, it can be said that the state of the presidential race is as hard to figure as it ever was. A paucity of big national polls with data drawn after the vice presidential and the second presidential debate has made it difficult to determine if the president got the boost (at least in Democratic enthusiasm, if not swing-voter allegiance) many analysts expected. The tracking polls have shown varying results, and the most influential, from Gallup, has shown a steady rise in support for Mitt Romney—an astonishing seven-point lead among likely voters as of yesterday—that has perhaps been complicated by the firm’s implementation of new sampling practices and a likely voter screen. Battleground-state polls are also varying significantly, but many have shown Romney gaining pretty steadily, and perhaps even taking the lead in Virginia and Florida (even as almost everyone concedes NC to him) while drawing near even in Wisconsin. Just this morning NBC/WSJ/Marist surveys from Iowa and Wisconsin (including some post-second-debate data) were released indicating that Obama had regained robust leads in those two states, but this particular polling combine has regularly given Obama better-than-average numbers.

In terms of the dynamics of the race, the second presidential debate showed an invigorated incumbent attacking Romney’s moderate credentials, while the challenger refined his “failed economy” rap and repeated it very often. Both candidates exhibited swing-state obsessions, particularly in an extended argument over energy policies that seemed to become a battle over which of them was the best bet for the fossil-fuel industries. Foreign policy made its first appearance as a major issue, though it’s unclear who got the better of the exchange over Libya; it’s difficult to imagine quite how an entire debate over foreign policy will play out next Tuesday in the final debate.  Both candidates appealed overtly to women, though again, it’s hard to determine who did better (unless Romney’s “binders of women” line migrates from the Twitterverse, where it’s everywhere, to broader venues). It’s important to remember, of course, that the final debate, strictly on foreign policy topics, is being held in just three days, so it may be very difficult to isolate reactions to individual debates.

Early voting estimates seem to indicate an Obama advantage in Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin and perhaps Ohio, with a Romney advantage in Florida and North Carolina. A Supreme Court decision rebuffing Republican efforts to shut down Ohio voting the weekend before Election Day was very good news for Democrats, but Republican officials are managing to keep early voting hours limited.

It appears the campaigns will be roughly even in stretch-run paid advertising, despite earlier reports of a big pro-Romney advantage. But where the money is deployed is another subject, particularly with the standing of candidates in the battleground states so much in flux. And as always, assessment of GOTV efforts will be difficult to make before the November 6, though it’s assumed that Team Obama will have an advantage in most key states, but not as large as the one it enjoyed in 2008.

Down-ballot assessments haven’t changed a great deal in the last couple of weeks, though there is some Republican optimism that Romney’s improved performance could lift the entire ticket, particularly in battleground states. The one place that sort of effect could be measurably happening is in Wisconsin, where GOP Senate candidate Tommy Thompson, despite multiple major mistakes, seems to be again closing the gap with Democrat Tammy Baldwin. Observers will now be closely watching polls to see if Romney’s stronger numbers in Virginia and Florida will help George Allen break a long deadlock with Tim Kaine in the former and/or make Connie Mack competitive with Bill Nelson in the latter. Republicans desperately need a positive surprise to keep hopes of a Senate takeover alive.

Indeed, one of the more interesting subplots right now is the increased possibility that Romney could win without his party gaining control of the Senate. Most scenarios until recently, based on the early assumption that the Senate was an easy reach for the GOP, have figured otherwise. There was some debate back and forth as to whether Romney’s recent talk about “reaching out to Democrats” after the election disguised an implicit agreement with congressional Republicans to enact the Ryan Budget on a straight party-line vote using reconciliation procedures. That would become very difficult with a Democratic Senate, particularly one that will lose some of its most notable party heretics (e.g., Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson). Expect a lot more speculation in the next few days about the extent to which Republicans might actually allow a President Romney to depart from the many very specific promises he made during the primaries.

Wednesday night’s first presidential debate has thrown calculations about the presidential contest into some disarray, though it probably won’t be until after the weekend that sufficient public opinion surveys will have appeared to get a sense of whether Mitt Romney’s undisputed (if perhaps disputed in its extent or implications) win over the president will have any impact on the actual race, which has been remarkably stable for a very long time.

Political Scientist John Sides is one of the few to make a specific prediction: that Romney would likely enjoy a 1.25% “bump” in national polls, at least temporarily.  Some observers who had earlier thought Romney’s prospects for victory were evaporating viewed his debate performance as crucial in keeping donors from cutting their losses and focusing on downballot races.

In terms of the strategic impact of the first debate, the general view is that Romney sought and to some extent succeeded in repositioning himself to “the political center,” via his hedging on his earlier tax cut proposal, his passionate declaration of interest in public education and the protection of Medicare, his claims of possessing a viable alternative to Obamacare that would protect those with pre-existing conditions, and his assertion that he’d been more open to bipartisan cooperation than Obama.  It appears this tack by Romney threw the Obama campaign off-balance, contributing to a low-key and not terribly responsive performance by the president (who had allegedly decided against too many sharp attacks on his struggling opponent). Interestingly, after months and months of demands by conservatives that Romney run a sharply ideological “choice” campaign based on his running-mate’s budget, his very different tack in the debate drew virtually no criticism, presumably because conservatives were so delighted by Obama’s discomfiture and “defeat.”  The framing of the debate by moderator Jim Lehrer made it very difficult for Obama to bring up Romney’s vulnerabilities on cultural issues, though it’s surprising he didn’t find a way to bring up Mitt’s recently revealed remarks about “the 47%.” Continue reading “Election Watch: Muddy Political Landscape after Romney’s Debate Performance and New Jobs Report” →