Obama Is Crumbling, Part 2: Polls and Stats
Romney is very likely win Ohio.
Yes, the polls are showing it tied or giving Obama a slight lead. But as the increasingly indispensable Josh Jordan points out in Why Romney Doesn’t Need a Poll Lead in Ohio, the polls are definitely understating Romney’s strength there. He provides several reasons, all of which are worth reading and disseminating. We cannot put Ohio in Romney’s column until the votes are counted, but currently, it looks a lot like the media-commissioned polls are skewing the situation significantly.
The polls keep showing Obama in the lead in Ohio, but can they be trusted?
Read Powerline’s “What’s Happening in Ohio” for more on this. Bottom line: The polls may be significantly understating how Romney and Republicans will perform on Election Day.
Romney is tied in Wisconsin.
Three months ago, if you had said that Obama would all but give up on Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, and that Wisconsin would be moving into a pure tossup status, you’d’ve been called an outlier. But that is where we are today. Mitt Romney is breaking out over 50% in poll after poll. Obama is stuck at 47%, a fatal number for an incumbent. Swing states are all moving Romney’s way, Virginia and New Hampshire being highly important among them. Wisconsin has gone from longshot swing state to a state that it can be argued Romney has a strong chance of taking.
Romney will almost certainly win the popular vote.
Though he still does have an Electoral College pathway, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that Barack Obama will win the popular vote. You simply cannot hover at 47% for this long, as an incumbent, and hope to crest 50% on election day. Now, Jim Geraghty has a post at Campaign Spot saying exactly that. Unless something weird happens, Romney is going to win the popular vote. And there have only been three cases in U.S. history where the winner of the popular vote did not also win the Electoral College.
Republicans outnumber Democrats.
You heard that right. The number is 36% to 35%, according to Gallup’s most recent survey. How rare is that? (emphasis added)
Two, to overcome losing independents by more than a few points, Obama needs to have a decisive advantage in Democratic turnout, roughly on the order of – or in some places exceeding – the advantage he enjoyed in 2008, when Democrats nationally had a 7-point advantage (39-32). Yet nearly every indicator we have of turnout suggests that, relative to Republicans, the Democrats are behind where they were in 2008. Surveys by the two largest professional pollsters, Rasmussen and Gallup, actually suggest that Republicans will have a turnout advantage, which has happened only once (in the 2002 midterms) in the history of exit polling and probably hasn’t happened in a presidential election year since the 1920s.
Republicans have won plenty of presidential elections since the 1920s even though they almost always have lower registration numbers than the Democrats. In 2002, Republicans did something that has only happened a few times in all of U.S. history: They won seats in the first midterm election after a member of their party won the White House. What do you think they might do with only the second registration advantage since the 1920s this year? John Hinderaker has an idea . . .
In 2008 the Democrats had a ten-point party ID advantage, 12 with leaners. If the data released today correctly reflect the voting population this year, you can throw away all of those polls that are D +9, D +7–or, for that matter, D +1. Substantially all polls show Mitt Romney with a wide lead over Barack Obama among independents. So if today’s party ID data are correct, not only will the presidential election not be close, but the Republicans will do better than currently expected in the Senate and House, too.
The GOP is dramatically overperforming in swing-state early voting.
In RNC: Check Out Our Early Votes in Swing States!, Jim Geraghty provides information from the GOP on their early voting efforts. It’s all good news. It doesn’t mean that things are in the bag, but things are definitely going well.
Romney is bringing back affluent suburban voters.
That tends to validate my alternative scenario that Mitt Romney would fare much better in affluent suburbs than Republican nominees since 1992, running more like George Bush did in 1988. The only way Pennsylvania and Michigan can be close is if Obama’s support in affluent Philadelphia and Detroit suburbs has melted away.
This also helps explain why Romney still narrowly trails in Ohio polls. Affluent suburban counties cast about one-quarter of the votes in Pennsylvania and Michigan but only one-eighth in Ohio.
A pro-Romney affluent swing is confirmed by the internals of some national polls. The 2008 exit poll showed Obama narrowly carrying voters with incomes over $75,000. Post-debate Pew Research and Battleground polls have shown affluent suburbanite Romney carrying them by statistically significant margins.
In particular, college-educated women seem to have swung toward Romney since Oct. 3. He surely had them in mind in the foreign policy debate when he kept emphasizing his hopes for peace and pledged no more wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama is in a catastrophic state with independent voters.
In Obama’s Independent Problem, Josh Jordan tells the tale:
This is no small feat — in 2008 President Obama took independents by 8 percent. Today Romney’s lead with independents is, on average, 8.3 percent. That’s based on ten current national polls that provide independent head-to-head numbers (Gallup and UPI are the only two that do not): The 8.3 percentage lead with independents helps to overcome the 4.5 percent sample advantage Democrats have in those same polls, which is the reason Romney is able to scratch out a razor thin .2 percent lead:
To give a bigger sense of why this is such an important number for Romney, consider this: In 2008 Obama won the national popular vote by 7.2 percent overall. If you assume equal turnout in 2012 as 2008 (39 percent Democrats, 32 percent Republicans, and 29 percent independents) but take Obama’s 8 percent win with independents and give it Romney, that 7.2 percent 2008 margin drops to 2.6 percent. If Romney can get Obama’s lead down to 2.6 percent before they even chip away at the giant turnout advantage Democrats had in 2008 (or win over some Democrats to Romney), it is going to be almost impossible for Obama to win.
Now, some fundamentals, courtesy of Karl Rove and Company:
Bush 43 was reelected in 2004, but not by a huge margin. Barack Obama is below him in every category (tied in one). And these stats are from September, before Obama’s disastrous debate and Mitt Romney’s climb.
It’s not over till the polls close—and then, it has to be outside the margin of fraud (something which comes easy to Obama and the Democrats)—but things are not looking good for a continuation of Obama’s presidency.
And finally, read every single word of, and examine every chart in, Why I Think Obama Is Toast. Then read it again.
This race isn’t over, but it also isn’t what the media and the pollsters are portraying.
Ardently devoted to the cause of human freedom, he has worked at the confluence of politics, activism, and public policy for more than a decade. He co-wrote a ten-part series of video shorts on economics, and has film credits as a researcher on 11 political documentaries, including Citizens United's notorious film on Hillary Clinton that became the subject of a landmark Supreme Court decision. He is the founder of several activist endeavors, including AnyStreet.org (now a part of Western Free Press) and Liberatchik.com. He is currently the managing editor of and principal contributor to WesternFreePress.com.
Latest posts by Christopher Cook (see all)
- BREAKING: Time Warner Cable Goes Down at the EXACT Moment When Trump Put His Hand on the Bible - January 20, 2017
- Anyone Who Asks You Why You Don’t Trust Polls . . . SHOW THEM THIS! - January 16, 2017
- Podcast: Why the Media Is Making You Miserable (And Risking the Progress We’ve Made) - January 15, 2017