Book of the Month

Articleman's picture

9 Days Left: Romney Draws Decent (But Old) Number in OH, Obama Up in NH, MN (Late OH Update)

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:

Cincinnati Enquirer's Poll Showing Ohio Even Is Sound, Not Cause For Concern

Today the Cincinnati Enquirer released the results of its Ohio Poll, showing Ohio all tied up at 49.  The poll drew from a very large sample, but has been criticized by some Obama supporters for the fact that it was drawn from interviews on October 18-23, before the final Presidential debate.  Nate Silver brushes that criticism off, because he suggests that Obama has seemed to him to be ahead by 2, and that when you are ahead by 2, you will draw some ties, and also because (Nate argues) the second debate only led to a half-point or so national drift back to Obama.

I agree with the first half of Nate's response to The Ohio Poll -- you should draw some results a point or two away from your lead if you lead.  But I differ with his second point, and draw some comfort from seeing The Ohio Poll as of a piece from a slightly different period in the Ohio race.  To understand why this is so, it is helpful to look at the recent chronology of polls in Ohio in several phases.

First, from the Democratic National Convention through the day of the Denver debate, there were 16 polls of Ohio.  President Obama led all 16.  Second, in the week after Denver, there were 8 polls.  President Obama led 5 of them (by 1, 1, 4, 6, and 1), while Governor Romney led in three (by 1, 1, and 1).  Third, in the next full week, there were three polls, with President Obama again leading all of them (by 5, 3, and 1).  Fourth, you get into the period of time in which The Ohio Poll was taken -- October 18-23.  During that period of time, there were seven polls.  The majority -- four -- were ties, with the other three coming from right-leaning pollsters (Gravis, Rasmussen, and Suffolk), with The Ohio Poll agreeing with them.  The other three were Obama leads of 1 (PPP), 3 (SurveyUSA), and Time (5).  Fifth, since that stretch, there have been three polls conducted entirely after the third Presidential debate, and President Obama has led all of them:  ARG (by 2), CNN/Opinion Research (by 4), and Purple Strategies (by 2).  ARG's is notable, because ARG was one of the three pollsters that showed Romney +1 just after Denver (and has also given Romney good numbers in Colorado and New Hampshire).

Thus, at one level, this week's polling represents a movement back to the time when the President clearly led, even if The Ohio Poll accurately reflected the week before.  I would point to two corroborative trends.  PPP, the Democratic-leaning pollster (whose numbers lean a bit blue, much as Rasmussen leans a bit red), polled into Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia before and after the third debate.  Consistently, Obama moved a few points positive in the wake of it.  Additionally, IBD/TIPP, which doesn't release its daily samples but is one of the two national tracking pollsters with results that can be squared with the states (WaPo being the other), noted that President Obama rose after the second debate (which he also won, but more narrowly), and that his numbers reverted essentially to Mitt Romney's post-Denver landing point late in that week.  The time-space of The Ohio Poll and the three polls by Republican-leaning pollsters finding ties in Ohio all fell then -- late in the week after the second debate and before the third.  I think Nate's model, which smooths differences day to day and draws on longer timeframes to estimate November 6 vote share, lulls one into thinking Obama will win by 2.5% or so in Ohio, and thus has always led by 2%.  I tend to think Obama's lead was narrower in Ohio during the range in which 4 of 7 polls were tied, and is either largely or more clearly in existence this week.

The numbers this week in Ohio also corroborate the idea that Obama is really ahead now, when you consider where they come from.  ARG's new number represents a three point move since the aftermath of Denver (from -1 to +2).  Likewise, the CNN/Opinion Research poll finds the same margin (+4) in favor of Obama as it found the week after Denver, a week when Obama led Ohio in the polling consensus.  Finally, Purple Strategies' +2 is down from +4 in the heart of Obama's midSeptember bounce, when the range of polling suggested a 6 point or so Obama lead.

Update:  Two New Ohio Polls Sunday Night Add Comfort That Obama Leads

With two additional polls released Sunday night, it remains clear that Obama leads, albeit narrowly, in Ohio.  PPP has released a poll showing Obama up 4 (51/47), and Gravis Marketing shows Obama up 1 (50/49).  This means all five polls postdating the third Presidential debate show an Obama lead in Ohio, with margins of 1, 2, 2, 4, and 4.  This averages to 2.6%, which is suspiciously close to the margin Nate Silver predicts Obama will win the state by.  There is an additional degree of comfort in seeing that PPP's last poll showed Obama +1 (during the same timeframe in which the Ohio Poll showed the race tied), and now has him +4.  Gravis showed a tie (during that same period), and now shows him +1.  The polls are consistent with my hypothesis, stated before I inserted this section into the blog at 925 pm ET, that Obama improved modestly from the time when The Ohio Poll was taken.

New Hampshire, Minnesota Tell Us What We Already Know

Meanwhile, some lower-relevance polls tended to confirm what we have been seeing in other states.  In tiny New Hampshire, President Obama leads by 2, per PPP (49/47).  That is perfectly consistent with the recent average of Granite State polls at +2.  Additionally, the polling in New Hampshire is consistent with the point I made about phases in Ohio polling:  during the period October 17-23, Romney led in three of four polls (+2, +2, +1) trailing by 9 in the other.  The two polls postdating October 23 entirely show Obama up 3 and 2.

We also saw a poll from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune showing Obama up only 3 in Minnesota.  This poll continues to suggest a roughly 5 point Obama lead there, as it comes the day after an 8 point Obama lead in Minnesota observed by St. Cloud State.  Given that Minnesota, like Wisconsin, Iowa,  Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, was a state Obama won by 10 in 2008, one would expect him to win it by considerably less, but the idea of Governor Romney making up the entire 10 there without advertising or organizing is not credible.  I continue to agree with Nate that Romney should have expanded his board by playing in Pennsylvania.  Minnesota, not so much.

National Polls Contribute No New Information Today

In national polling today, Gallup moved toward Obama by 1 (now Romney +4), Rasmussen moved to Obama by 1 (now Romney +3), while IBD/TIPP moved toward Romney by 1 (now Obama +1.3).  All of this is within the margin of noise, and as I have argued in prior posts, Gallup and Rasmussen' trackers -- because they seem inconsistent with basically all state polling, and in Rasmussen's case, seem inconsistent with Rasmussen's own state polling -- are so much noise themselves.

Conclusion:  OH, VA, WI, CO Polling Key; Prediction, Obama 298, Romney 240

As we head toward Election Day, it seems very likely that Barack Obama narrowly leads Ohio.  We should be watching the next week's polls to see if they remain consistent with that appearance.  Because almost 30% of Ohio's votes are cast, it will be hard for Romney to move that pile, and Obama's 120 campaign offices are continuing to push for every vote.  Virginia is a close question, though losing it would almost surely mean a Romney loss as well, so further polling there is key.  Wisconsin or Colorado, when added to Ohio, would put President Obama over the top, so the President's consistent but narrow lead in Wisconsin, and his seeming narrow lead in Colorado, remain key.

I would simply ignore the national polls.  We will have a better sense on November 6 which ones stunk and why (it is guaranteed that some have stunk), but the motion that matters is in those four states (unless Florida leaps into the Obama column, a possible turn of events that would make all of this moot).  The national polls give gentle trend information that correlates pretty well to state motion, but the states and their frequent polls are logically the place to look. 

Right now, in order from strongest to weakest states for President Obama, I see him winning with NV, CO, OH, WI, NH, and VA (298 EVs), losing IA, NC, and FL to Romney (240 EVs), a result very close to Bush-Kerry.  If I have the states in the right order, then Obama has three states to spare, as a cut line at Ohio would give him a 271-267 victory, precisely the margin of Bush-Gore.

There is a new PPP poll, Obama up 51-47, an improvement from their poll a week ago. Democrats apparently coming home.

Oxy, thanks.  I have now updated with that, and Gravis, which just went up with +1.  Since the Gravis and PPP polls showing tie and +1 were from the period when The Ohio Poll was taken, the increases in both (by 1 and by 3), tend to suggest mild Obama gains from the third debate, which was the hypothesis of my piece before having those data.  

That all five polls with samples entirely after the debate show Obama leads is probably the most significant datum, the concepts of trends and momentum being irrelevant.  Ahead is the concept that matters nine days out.

This is especially so, because Obama has banked his voting advantage through early voting, or largely so, forcing Romney to run up numbers on Election Day.  Late increases in Obama's vote-share should close the deal in Ohio, unless these polls are all wrong.

"Tiny New Hampshire ..."

You know how to hurt a guy.

The state with the highest recorded wind in the United States, Mt. Washington (elev. 6288), at 238 mph.  Its legendary undecided flinty windiness is undeniable.

Flatterer.

This so called Frankenstorm has me a bit concerned (beyond the obvious) with respect to election day. By all accounts it seems as serious as a heart attack. I can't imagine it won't be a factor, even nine days from now. And it isn't hard to leap to the conclusion that Obama voters, generally speaking, will suffer more and have a harder time getting to the polls in say Penn. Any chance this thing gets delayed? Has it ever? 

The forecast is for a few days of driving rain with the possibility of flooding.  Your concern is understandable, but I don't think postponement is under consideration or really possible.

I'm originally from PA and my experience is they take care of the more populated areas and work out from there. It just makes common sense. My rural family home was always one of the last. If it is a problem the cites, where there are more Obama voters, will get taken care of first.

As long as the federal response is appropriate, Obama gains an advantage simply because he can get out there doing the governing part of his job, while Mitt can only sit back and watch. 

Despite Des Moines Register endorsement, I think Iowa looks better for Obama than Virginia.  Otherwise, well-presented arguments. I hope they're correct.

That was a big disappointment for an Iowa boy like me--the first time the Register endorsed a Republican since Richard Nixon.

At least my hometown paper got it right: http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20121027/OPINION03/310270012/Our-View-Obama-will-keep-America-moving-forward.

I think of that endorsement as being worth a point or two.

My read is this.  Obama won Iowa by just under 10 in 2008, and won Virginia by just over 6.  Yet Obama is not running 3.5 points better in Iowa this year.  The reason is that Obama has swung far more with white voters, who were more available to Romney.  Virginia, 20% African-American in its voting population, has less swinginess.  Iowa behaves half like Minnesota and half like Missouri.  Missouri is getting redder where Minnesota is not getting bluer.

It would make some sense for Obama to lose either Iowa or New Hampshire in an election he wins by a point or a point and a half at most.

As predicted by A-Man, Rasmussen tries to save reputation by ticking Romney down two points.

Ooh, methinks perhaps the sampling frame moveth!

He's shifting to the psychotically engaged voter model.

I wrote about this a short while ago.

You are right on Oxy.

Just like 2008.

Look at Rasmussen polls the year before the elections and within a few days of THE DATE there were miraculous changes in its determinations.

Meanwhile Silver was fairly consistent throughout and ended the cycle with THE perfect score amongst all pollsters.

Oh, you betcha, Minnesota is in play! Please note the St. Cloud State University survey was conducted from October 15th through 21st . . . BEFORE the final debate. The poll the left-leaning Strib references showing Romney w/in the margin of error was conducted AFTER the final debate and as more and more Benghazi details were revealed. 

 

Romney dropped the Benghazi thing in the foreign policy debate, and it essentially disappeared.  Your comment would make more sense, except for the movement toward Obama after the debates (see today's Pew Poll), and the perception (56-33 in Gallup, for example) that Obama won the October 22 debate, which was an even greater margin among independents.  Minnesota is not in play.

Your analysis may well have too narrow a focus. Romney dropped the Benghazi thing but Fox News is pushing it very hard and the other outlets I have scanned are keeping it alive too.

The hypothesis that after pushing the nonissue of alleged minor inconsistencies in the administration's statements about Benghazi made some difference between mid-September and mid-October makes some sense to me.

However, the idea that it's suddenly a difference-maker (after the third debate, to be clear) because it's being pushed by a media outlet that is watched almost exclusively by Romney voters does not make sense to me.  Additionally, the trend in polling in the last week is modestly toward Obama, which doesn't comport with our anonymous guest placing way too much weight on one isolated poll.  Compounding that, the idea that Benghazi is driving it now is very speculative, and runs against the fact that the candidate not only dropped it, but spent the whole debate trying to agree with President Obama about everything.

Lulu, I think there is much more concern about Atlantic City right now than Benghazi!

A big part of that concern among the republican operatives is anticipating every way they might be able to blame any outcome on Obama as being something worse than if good leadership had been in place. There are certainly problems coming from Sandy. It is a certainty that the Republicans will use them politically.

 We are all speculating about what caused Romney's surge in the polls. I wouldn't put Obama's handling of the Benghazi attack as a likely major cause, but at the same time I don't hear anyone saying Obama's actions there brought in any new votes for him. 

 [I am not criticizing how Obama handled it, I don't see any obvious way he could have done better except politically. The measure of handling it poorly in the political realm is a loss of votes. ]

I agree with your assessment.

The repubs would spend (and probably already are spending tens of millions on this subject) a lot of time on Libya...but they are screwed right now.

And if the repubs decide to go ahead....

They are idiots!

Who would have guessed.

Not even mega-storms can stop right-wing hacks from spewing their venom

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/the_most_obnoxious_responses_to_hurrican...

Pretty much every analysis I've seen attributes Romney's rise to the first debate.  I guess that could just boil down to post hoc ergo propter hoc, but I'm not sure I know of a better causal explanation.

There is no question that the immediate cause of the rise was the October 3 debate, but there is a deep truth in the idea that part of the "rise" was caused by Romney's own misstep on Benghazi on September 11, by the 47% comments, and by the Democratic National Convention.

That is, rises are changes, or gradients.  There was one good event for Romney -- his excellent performance in Denver, paired with the President's bad performance -- but it followed events that had depressed Romney's performance as a candidate and which had given Obama a loose temporary hold on a certain swath of independents, some of whom were easily reclaimed by something other than a gaffe.

I think the explanation of him regaining ground that he lost by looking incompetent on a series of issues throughout September makes much more sense than does the notion that he suddenly just gained a bunch of support with one debate performance.

I do think he gained much from the performance.  If he had campaigned flawlessly to that moment, and was near the upper end of his range, the gap between them was sufficient (in affect more than quality of argument, but at times, there a bit too), that Romney would have gained some ground in any scenario.  

Were he not underperforming through repeated gaffes and a lackluster convention, while the incumbent's convention was as good as it could have been, I think he would have gained less and ended up somewhere very similar.

72/20 is the most one-sided assessment of "who won" a Presidential debate ever.  I think is was about like Reagan-Mondale I, but no way was it as clear as Kerry-Bush I.  Bush was always held to an artificially low standard in presentation and knowledge of facts.

The latest poll in Canada:

Obama 66%, Romney 9%.

Ahem.

Thank God the Canucks have seen the light.

I mean, you do represent the 51st State, right?

Oh damn, I have to get back to my Google Map!

I mean you must have fought the Brits at sometime, right?

I get so confused.

No need, I can explain. A few years after we threw off the British we sent troops to Canada, sure that we would be welcomed as liberators. Well they didn't love freedom like we did, in fact, they hated us for our freedoms! The Canadians fought back and our feelings were hurt so we withdrew. No, they didn't beat us, we are the greatest nation on earth and have the greatest military. Its just that after they rejected our selfless service to free them from their oppressive ruler our feelings were hurt.

So they had the opportunity to be a part of the USA but rejected our generous offer.

hahahahahaahahahahahahah

I am speechless!

hahahahahaahahahahah

I shall certainly change my notes with regard to this historical analysis.

hahahahahahah

Honest to God.

This is hilarious.

When I was a kid I could not understand how the Brits could have been that bad and we so very very good and Canada seemed to have skipped the entire episode. hahahahah

Any experiment that starts with a buncha clowns picking THIRTEEN states is pretty sure to go well, right? HA! 13! What a buncha morons. 

Ultramaroons. 

That's excellent news for Operation Maple Ballot.  Let's proceed as planned.

There are a million American ex-pats up here. Many have absorbed the Canadian ethos and are as pro-Obama as we are. If all of them were to cast absentee ballots, that's a potential 1-per-cent nationwide swing Obama's way that nobody -- not even Saint Nate -- has factored into the mix. They could swing, say, Michigan. No joke.

Shhhhhhhhh...... they don't even have the faintest sniff that it's coming. 

Stick to the plan.

That is all.

(And hey, this time let's DOUBLE-BURN the White House.)

Hey hey, let's fight the Battle of New Orleans again!!!

Thanks, you just made this song play in my head for the first time since grade school:

 

That cartwheel battle is unreal.

 

Eight Days Left:  I am too tired and recovering from being sick to write a new blog.  Today's polling strikes me this way:

Rasmussen showed Obama -2 in Ohio, Romney's first lead in a few weeks, and first lead of two since the campaign really started.  The other polling is not consistent with a move to Romney, with PPP and Gravis showing movement toward Obama.  Rasmussen sure is magically finding samples that show the Romney surge narrative no one else is seeing in Wisconsin and Ohio.  Where to begin?  The Ras daily "swing state" poll that shows the average of all swing states not only off those states' poll averages, but not consistent with Rasmussen's own polling of those states singly?  Nate knocking them as more biased than most?  How they called it for Sharron Angle?  How they overstated McCain's position before he lost Ohio by 4.6%?  Don't freak out about Rasmussen.  Sum it with the last five polls, which now average Obama +1.9 and not 2.3%.

The Pew Poll strikes me as monitoring the moves in the race as well as anything has.  It suggests Obama was +8 in September, fell to -4 after Denver, and is now tied.  I think that overstates the peaks on both sides by a point or two, and may understate Obama's voteshare by 1, but it seems remarkably on point.  WaPo shows Obama up 1 to even.  Politico/Battleground has Obama +1.  The silly polls, Gallup, RAND, and Rasmussen, have different numbers that we should not trouble ourselves with.

The Romney +1 in Florida (from CNN/Opinion Research, which has run a bit positive for Obama in Ohio polling) seems consistent with the thin Romney edge other polls have generally suggested.

The ARG Romney +1 in Colorado is an improvement of 3 points since Denver for Obama -- note the rough consistency with Pew.  Colorado is likely a jump ball, but something in 2010 led pollsters to see Ken Buck edging Michael Bennet instead of the reverse, which actually happened.  I continue to see this state as an Obama state.

The Elon poll of North Carolina showing the state at 45/45 is the third tie-or-essentially so in several days, after PPP showed a 48/48, and Civitas, a Republican pollster that had shown many of Romney's best numbers in North Carolina showed Romney up 48/47.  These three are to be contrasted with a Romney +6 from Rasmussen, and a Romney +8 from Gravis Marketing.

In short, the state polls show Obama where he should be in Ohio -- narrowly ahead on average.  If there are more polls this week either suggesting motion to Romney there, or a Romney lead, this will be more worth revisiting.  Senator McCain has more polls leading Ohio after Lehman than Romney has had since Denver, and was defeated by a solid margin.  Meanwhile, North Carolina remains in play, though a likely narrow Romney win.  Florida, the same, with a modestly bigger chance that Obama breaks through, and either North Carolina or Florida would cost Romney the election.  The national polls are just fine.  This election is roughly tied, and is about the distribution of that tie across a tiny subset of states.  That is no cause for concern.

Hopefully, back tomorrow.  I will also do one Senate post this week.  Night, John Boy.

I don't know if this factoid has come up yet but it seems that no candidate ever won presidency while losing his home state, state of birth and the home state of his running mate.

Polk was the only one to win without his birth or home state but he did win the home state of his running mate.

I am pretty sure the President has the Kenyan vote wrapped up.. Wait a minute. smiley

Sidney Kenyan from Milwaukee has gone on record as voting for Obama if that is what you referring to.

I bet Romney has a house in Utah.  When he was at Bain, I think he jiggered his residency for tax advantages to be Utah or ambiguous and maybe Utah.  So he can always claim Utah as one of his homes, and win that.  

1/5 not bad?

Latest Comments