Politico: Obama’s Performance Sinking Dem House Races – Warren (D-MA) Candidate – Fewer Ads In MA – Latest Warning Brown Might Turn Senate!

Final Polling before the election 1980 - note: polls were weighted for the 1976 election image GuardianUK

From Politico: headlines: “Obama's bad October hurts House Dems” suggests that the President is having a George W. Bush effect on his party’s incumbents – apparently there is a loss of confidence in Democrats in general by the public. It is entirely possible, as those casting votes (both early voting and through the election cycle) may choose not only to choose Presidential Candidate, Governor Mitt Romney, over Obama, but will also take a chance on voting against any Democrat on the ticket – similar to what happened in the 2006 and 2008 elections. If history repeats itself, and one takes a look at the 2010 election with a projection of more than less identifying themselves as either Republican or Independent leaning Republican, one can suggest that the 2012 general will look quite a bit like the house trumping of 2010 in a broader sense.

What of the polls? One has to take a strong look at any polling data at this point and basically throw the baby out with the bath water – for example, in 1981, after the landslide victory of Ronald Reagan over former President Jimmy Carter, the head of Gallup explained what had happened and why poll models showed a tight race up to the bitter end. It is suggested that the polling organizations had based their models on the last General election, which had shown an increase in those voting Democrat. That increase percentage was added to the 1980 polls, which gave several points to James Carter that simply did not exist. What was missing from the models, as it was explained by Gallup, the fact that the voter identification had taken a turn to the Republican Party in the two years prior to the 1980 General election. Thus rendering models basically useless. Understanding that models today, for the Presidency, as well as those House and Senate races, are using the 2008 statistics to project winners and losers in the 2012 General. All polls are weighted by a minimum of eight points or more in some cases.

Of course turnout will also have an effect, one cannot dispute simple math. Those identifying themselves as Republican or leaning Republican are significantly more enthusiastic about voting, and there are simply more of them. That said more individuals vote in a General election than a Mid-term, which, using the 2010 model would then skew the poll without compensating for population. The only way, at this point, would be to project using as current as possible voter identification models from each of the fifty states to get a more accurate projection. The fact that Gallup has gone to a “likely voter” model suggests that the polling firm is concerned about using the “weighted” method, as it has, along with the rest of the polling firms, been burnt before (1980 for example).

It is, however, more probable that the 2012 midterm election pattern will be more likely pattern to follow, in part, when one looks at the swing states, or any state to get at least an idea of what might be occurring on a national basis. Although one might find the media “hyping” a certain state, while others have automatically been dubbed “safe Democrat” or “safe Republican” one might want to take a look at what happened in that state during the period of 2009-2010.

Looking at Massachusetts for a moment, one finds that in 2009 special election, the polls and pundits, suggested that then candidate Martha Coakley would best Republican Scott Brown by up to 15 points. The fact that Brown won with 5 points (and the dead and missing voting), suggests that Massachusetts voters changed preference for that election. Going into the 2010 election, all house seats in Massachusetts with one exception saw Republican challengers, the general consensus from the Pundits, was an automatic “safe Democrat” with wide margins of wins projected at 75% of the vote. That was not the case how-ever, as those Democrats, many for the first time, were facing challengers who appeared to have a wind at their backs. In other words, they had to stay home, fight and use their war chests – which kept that extra cash in MA, while it was badly needed for Democrats elsewhere. The final results, although the Democrats held their seats, Massachusetts voters sent a message, as the spread was not a 75% margin, but a 2% to 10% margin.

Therefore it is not without some wonderment, that while Elizabeth Warren the Democrat now running against incumbent Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown, is polling a 5 points – looking at the marginals of some polls taken in the Bay State, the most interesting aspect is the geography – pollsters are using a sample of voters from very low population and very Democrat – Left Ideology, while the sample dismisses (10-25%) the larger populated and more right leaning Worcester County. This also artificially gives Warren a non-existent boost. The Warren Campaign has been running back to back advertisements up until last week, when those ads began to thin out a bit, while Brown’s hammering the airwaves. More over the latest ad is a “hoot” to say the least. In menacing terms, the ad suggests that should Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, he might vote with the Republican Party, and in addition, he might be the one who gives the Republicans a majority in the Senate!

Therefore, what Warren ad is saying, there is nothing essentially wrong with Scott Brown now, except he might be the Republican that takes the Senate away from the Democrats! It smacks of desperation.

The video clip of the ad appears below.

If a Democrat is having problems, regardless of inflated polls, in Massachusetts, where it is suggested that he state is hopeless for Republican’s, what one might suggest is that MA may not be automatically “Safe Democrat” for the General election. It was a state that was certainly a surprise in 1980 to both former President Carter, and President Elect Ronald Reagan.

To further add to the debate: Take Wisconsin’s, where the recent recall of Governor Scott Walker, was a blowout for the incumbent and a resounding defeat of his Democrat Challenger. It is why, at this point, the State of Wisconsin appears “up for grabs” even using the automatic 8 points for Democrats.

In Ohio, the same sample is used, as it is nationwide, therefore, the current tie in Ohio, complete with a new Republican State House and Republican Governor courtesy of the Mid-Terms, may not be an actual battleground – the actual battleground may be elsewhere, in states that are not even under consideration, and holding combined electoral votes to rival Ohio.

Of most interest is the Real Clear Politics electoral college map – take into account this is based on polling data, some overly generous toward the incumbent (specifically those university polls that over-sample low population, heavy Democrat areas, while under sampling, high population, more Republican areas, and then weight an additional 8 points on top. What one finds in the individual polls I that there has been a definitive shift in the voter preferences over that time, and even adding those polls into a combined poll method that Real Clear Politics uses, shows a growing trend towards candidate Mitt Romney. (See Map here at realclearpolticis.com - it is an interactive map, which shows the two candidates with states granted by virtue of having been heavily Democrat or Republican in 2008 – those states are automatically added (MA in the mix), then states considered solid in the polls for either candidate, those leaning towards a candidate and those listed as “toss ups”. (Using polling data, both weighted and over an extended period of time.)

Although a fan of historical data, one must consider in projections that it is best to consider historical trends as well. Understanding that there may be some explaining to do by pollsters on the Wed. following the 2012 elections.

Elizabeth Warren Ad re: Brown Vote may Give Republican's the Senate

2012 Election: Gallup Economy #1 Issue, Historical Polling Trends - Not Indicative of a Second Obama Administration: Wisconsin: Obama Romney Tied

Obama Vs. Romney, Tied in Wisconsin - Democrat Stronghold - image forward.com


Gallup Polling’s, “National Mood” poll suggests that the general election will be based on the economy as the pollsters historical patters indicate that the percentage of mentions of the economy as the number one issue are higher than any general election since May of 1980. In the pollsters report, the comparison of the economy as the top concern among voters began with Lyndon Johnson in 1964 – in May of each general election where the economy was weighed in an incumbents reelection prospects: 1964, Johnson: 0%, 1972: Nixon, 17%, 1976: Ford, 0%, 1980: Carter, 73%, 1984: Reagan, 55%, 1992: Bush, 56%, 1996: Clinton, 44%, 2004: Bush, 39% and May 2012: Obama, 66%. The trend is indicative of an uphill battle for President Obama, with, as Gallup indicates, 6 months to go before the November elections.

Perhaps the best campaign slogan to date, based on economic indicators was Bill Clinton’s in his run against Gerald Ford: “It’s the Economy, Stupid” – which is in use world-wide today, from from Canada’s Ottawa Citizen in regards to the economic downturn being “good” for the current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to the Daily Beast’s, “It’s Still the Economy Stupid”, article outlining Bill Clinton’s 2011, 14 point plan to put America “back to work”.

The Gallup Poll also includes May Job approval ratings, the highest incumbents were Johnson in 1964 (75%), and Richard Nixon in 1972 (62%), with the lowest, George H Bush (40%), and Carter (43%) and Gerald Ford, (43%) – tied. 2 points separate the May job approval ratings of George W. Bush (49%) in 2004, and Barack Obama (47%) in 2012. This data, included with the economic indicators give the pollster the sense that currently, the President’s prospects of reelection are “uncertain”.

The latest state poll out of Wisconsin, from Marquette Law School shows a dead heat between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both at 46% In this most recent poll it was noted that Republican’s are more enthusiastic about voting (91%), compared to Democrats and Independents (83%). In addition, the pollster has found that the Presidents lead of 9% in April has evaporated, his likability has also fallen, while Romney’s has risen slightly – bringing both the incumbent and challenger to the “toss-up” category. The number one issue Democrats: Jobs and the Economy.

Although is it still early in political terms, as far as any election is concerned, the consistency with Gallup polling and Obama’s reelection prospects has remained largely unchanged for the past two years. Should this polling remain the same, going into September and October, it is highly probable that the President would not be re-elected. In addition, branding should be considered as a factor – in 2008, the Republican “brand” had taken a toll, in general, both George W. Bush combined with Congressional rankings made it nearly impossible for a GOP candidate to succeed. Given the fact that John McCain was not the most formidable candidate, it was the Democrat’s election year. In May of that year, it was Hillary Clinton who topped the charts, only losing to Obama at the Democrat Convention – not by popular vote, but by “super-delegate vote” or, in other words, a body of both Clinton’s and Obama’s peers. Super-delegates are generally made up of high profile political party members, as well as current members of the House and Senate. Clinton campaigned heavily on experience, while Obama campaigned on bringing the nation together, politically and more specifically the war in Iraq – at that time (May of 2008) the economy was not a central issue.

It should be noted, that in the Gallup polling data, one understands that factoring the economy alone as the primary focus of the public, those President’s who followed an incumbent who’s handling of the economy was seen as sub-standard by the public, only won re-election by taking steps to improve the economy, in second terms (Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush) the economy was not a factor.

CNN-Opinion Research Polling Obama Believed Unlikely to Win Second Term – Compares Obama to Clinton in Polling Data Release - Analysis

Trouble in River City – No matter how one slices it, 51% of American’s polled in a CNN-Opinion Research Poll believe that Obama will be replaced in 2012. The poll (PDF here) taken the last week of January 2011, compares 1995 Gallup Trends polling on Bill Clinton’s presidency to the results of their poll on Obama in order to draw the conclusion that Clinton was polling in similar numbers to Obama now, and went on to win re-election.

In looking at potential two-term Presidents and polling, in January of 2003, George W. Bush was polling at approximately the same numbers as both Clinton and Obama, however, he was expected to win, not lose the Presidency. What one has to consider when viewing polls on individual Presidents, is the key word “individual”. Each President had an individual approach to leadership, which either appealed or, in some cases did not appeal to American voters a year before the general election campaigns began. In comparing the results of Bill Clintons poll numbers to Obama’s poll numbers is akin to comparing apples to oranges. Clinton was viewed as a moderate, the polling was taken in January of 1993, following the news of personal scandals involving President Clinton – it was, in a word, an approval or disapproval of a personal nature, not based on the man’s ability to govern. The Republican’s nomination of Bob Dole in 1995, a weak candidate, gave Clinton the help needed to gain a second term. In addition, Clinton transitioned as a moderate, and with apparent sincerity. Consider Welfare Reform, for instance, and a solid economy, an appearance of working closely with both sides of the aisle, since he took the office in his first term lent to his reelection in 1996.

There are several reasons that Barak Obama may not realize a second term, regardless of an apparent move to the center, and his recent epiphany regarding Ronald Reagan’s policies, the chief among them, his polarizing effect on the electorate, his administrations performance on the Health Care Reform and the Economy will also continue to play a factor. At this stage in the game, regardless of the fact that there are, according to CNN, no clear frontrunners in the GOP field (as no one has clearly announced an intent to run), Obama’s job approval continues to remain stagnant, and sinking on his handling of the economy (latest Gallup).

Although not one of us has a crystal ball to predict a future, it is, based on historical trends and reactions in comparing Obama to a similarly ideological U.S. President, Jimmy Carter, where one finds a basis to realistically anticipate the probability is high that Obama will not gain a second term. Carter not only faced dismal poll numbers, and a challenger from within his own party, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. Carter did go on to win the nomination, but lost the Presidency to Ronald Reagan in what can only be termed as a total repudiation of Carters’ policies.

When one reviews, the economies under both presidencies (Carter/Obama), their handling of the respective situations in a similar manner, and subsequent failure, the advancement of the government roll and entitlement programs under both administrations, and finally, foreign policy as regards the Middle East, would appear to data worth reviewing. Perhaps CNN should have compared a similar president, ideologically speaking, in their polling on Obama, say Carter, rather than Clinton to draw an accurate conclusion. However, as badly as the media (CNN) wants Obama in a second term, the use of Clinton as an example, does nothing to support the theory that Obama, like Clinton will overcome this deficit.

On the Republican potential nominees, Mike Huckabee receives the highest approval and favorability, with Mitt Romney and Palin both at his heels in the same poll. What was of interest in this particular portion of the poll, the question on the import of a candidates’ views matching one’s own, or the ability of a candidate to best Obama – Republicans and Republican Leaning Independents overwhelming chose the latter. Therefore, one might overlook Romney’s involvement in Massachusetts Care, or Huckabee’s “liberal” ability to govern across the aisle (not to mention his Christian Credentials), or even Sarah Palin’s “polarizing personality” if it was though that individual would beat the current President.


Note: Although by now, readers of this blog understand that Public Policy Polling is a favorite pollster, (based on two facts: 1) accuracy of their polling data) and 2) They are a Democrat Leaning firm which, if one finds Republican’s with gains in a firm that skews Democrat, then one cannot question their integrity, or the integrity of the polling data. This firm has been polling both the GOP field (as it is seen now), along with matchups between those GOP potentials and the President since 2010 – the results are telling: To follow the trends visit http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/surveys.