The blizzard of polls that emerged yesterday afternoon had morphed into an Obama avalanche by the time dinnertime rolled around. Surveys at the national and state level disagreed with the results of the two daily tracking polls, Gallup and Rasmussen, which show a tied race around 47 percent. Every other survey, with the exception of one in New Hampshire, showed Barack Obama ahead, and in most cases ahead outside the margin of error. That includes polls of the swing states Mitt Romney has to win if he is to prevail in November.
I said yesterday afternoon that the polls suggested Obama was ahead, but by a little, not a lot. How does that conclusion stand after the data onslaught?
Look, when every poll but two points in the same direction, it would be madness to say signs point to the opposite. Clearly, Obama is leading, and maybe by more than a little. More damaging for Romney’s prospects is the fact that the lead is either stable or strengthening in those battleground states.
Or is it?
The only reason to think it isn’t strengthening goes to one common feature these Obama-friendly polls share—a surge in the number of Democrats ready or likely to vote over the past month. Take Wisconsin, where two polls gave Obama great comfort. The Quinnipiac survey showed Obama gaining 4 percentage points over its survey last month. But that gain was the direct result of the fact that the number of Democrats polled was also up by 4 percentage points.
Even more telling was the Marquette University poll in Wisconsin, which showed Obama up a staggering 11 points since its last take—as a result of including 10 percent more Democrats in the survey.
Quinnipiac’s survey of Virginia featured a Democratic advantage of 11 points—a vast increase in the number of Democrats surveyed in previous tallies.
Some political observers would ask: What’s the issue? Democrats have outnumbered Republicans in every presidential year but one (2004) from time immemorial. That advantage has typically been around 4 percent. But exit polls in 2008 showed a Democratic advantage of a staggering 8 points. So why aren’t these 2012 poll results simply to be accepted?
Simple. We have solid, data-driven reasons to think 2008 was an unprecedented moment that will not be replicated this year. Put Bush fatigue, the Wall Street meltdown, the Obama novelty phenomenon, and a terrible GOP candidate in a blender and you get the 2008 Obama froth.
What would cause such a surge this year? Two thirds of the country says we’re on the wrong track.
That’s a wipeout-for-Obama number, not a number suggesting that Obama will match or better his result in 2008.
And bettering his result is what many of these surveys anticipate. In ’08, Democratic voters outnumbered Republicans by 6 percent—not 11, as the Marquette poll would have it in its present survey. Or 9, as Pew would have it.
But why would his result even remain close to the same? Just two years ago, there was a GOP surge leading to a 63 seat gain in the House of Representatives. Nationwide, the vote percentages from 2008 flipped. In ’08. Obama won 53-46; the GOP nationally won 53 percent of the vote in ’10. The 8-point Democratic advantage of ’08 declined into an even split—from 39D-32R to 35-35.
How could Obama get back to 2008 levels only two years later when conditions are not much improved, if at all, for him or the country?
The obvious riposte is that the presidential-year electorate is much larger and more varied than a midterm electorate. In 2010, 90 million people voted. In 2012, we can expect somewhere between 130-140 million. That’s a big difference, but it’s not a colossal difference.
Let’s assume every one of those 90 million people votes this year—a proper assumption, as midterm voters are extremely engaged politically. That would constitute something like 60 percent of the 2012 electorate. Imagine that they all were to vote the same partisan way in 2012. This would be like saying it’s election night and Bret Baier is already intoning, “With 60 percent of the vote counted, Mitt Romney leads Barack Obama by seven points.”
If that were to happen, it would be time to call the election for Romney. Almost certainly, it won’t. All the evidence suggests a measurable number of people who voted GOP in 2010 will vote for Obama in 2012. None of them, pretty much, will be Republicans, more than nine of ten of whom will vote for Romney. Nine of ten Democrats will vote for Obama.
So everyone who switches will be an independent. Independent voters swung harder and faster in 2010 than at any time in the nation’s history—from supporting Obama by 18 percent to supporting Republican candidates by 8 percent, a shift of an astonishing 25 percent. Obviously, people that fickle will bounce around some. But are they really going to swing back in numbers sufficient to hand Obama the kind of victory the polls are presaging? For what reason?
And talk about independents in this way doesn’t explain why it would be that Democrats would suddenly awaken from a three-year slumber and begin to feel like it was 2008 all over again. It could be happening. But shouldn’t something other than a good speech by Bill Clinton be responsible for such a thing? Romney’s inability to score any higher than 47 percent in any poll is certainly a sign he’s not making the sale—but whatever his weaknesses, it seems unlikely he’s the cause of a mad rush to ensure he doesn’t get the White House.
These are the reasons to be reasonably skeptical—not dismissive, not conspiratorial about motive, but reasonably skeptical—about the margins by which these polls are bolstering and boosting Obama. They appear to anticipate an electorate on November 6 that is more Democratic and Obama-friendly than is likely to be the case.
The Romney people should not be skeptical, though. They ought to believe it. They ought to think they’re behind, because they are; and they ought to think they’re farther behind than they are, because that is the only way they will experience the urgency they need to show to change the trajectory of this race.
Perhaps they, like their excessively calm candidate, haven’t quite reckoned with the degree of public humiliation and outright scorn that will be hurled in their faces and the damage that will be done to their professional reputations if Romney loses a race he should have won.
They, like Romney, have every reason to fear such a result and to act dramatically to prevent it. And they have an obligation to the 60-million-plus people who will vote for them, and who believe the country’s future is at stake, not to let this all dribble away.
> We have solid, data-driven reasons to think 2008 was n> an unprecedented moment that will not be replicated this year. Put n n> Bush fatigue, n> the Wall Street meltdown, n> the Obama novelty phenomenon, and n> a terrible GOP candidate n n> in a blender and you get the 2008 Obama froth. n n nAdd a fifth point to the list: demographic changes that favor Democrats. n nIn 2012, the GOP candidate remains terrible (don't forget Romney actually lost to McCain despite being the establishment favorite) and opinion polls clearly show a majority of voters think Obama inherited a bad situation from George W. Bush (voters still do not trust Republicans). So that's three remaining Obama advantages out of five. Is it any wonder he is currently in the lead? n nRomney still has a shot if he comes across as more convincing / likable than Obama in the debates. In 2000, Bush regained the lead following the debates while Kerry almost caught up in the polls after the 2004 debates. Obama and Reagan (in 1980) cruised to landslide victories after convincing performances against their embattled but more experienced opponents. And in 1988, the debates pretty much sealed Dukakis' fate. Historically, there have been few game changers after the final debate, though (the famous "undecideds always break for the challengers" rule is largely a myth in presidential elections)
Romney's biggest external problem right now is that the press is acting in a coordinated fashion to keep him off message. His biggest internal problem is that his campain has not adopted a simple, clear message that resonates. All of his communication seems to be in reaction to something. Jay Cost wrote a good piece today that basically says that he should pick a few simple topics and keep repeating them until the country can repeat them, and then repeat them again. As I said yesterday, Romney needs to take control of his message by making an example of someone in the press (like kick someone out of a briefing). He needs to show strength to the press; the more he lets them roll him, the weaker he appears. Obama's support is soft enough that Romney should be able to close the deal if he can control his message the the media.
Well, when a Commentary contributor expresses concern, as John has, some of us realistic folks, aka pessimists, can say "it's about time." John laid out a great deal, but I want to highlight just one point. He believes it's unlikely that the Democratic turnout will equal 2008 and thus pollsters are weighing in too many Democrats, thus inflating Obama's numbers. It''s a valid point and made by many. But, it is very possible that Democratic turnout will indeed be close to 2008—why not? Critics of polls in 2008 thought it couldn't happen. It did and could do so again. And that is exactly why Democratic responses are so high in these polls: more Democrats show up in the random selections, so naturally, the poll will have higher Democratic numbers and properly so.
dear friend- I have come to the conclusion that-contrary to the image you project here of being a republican- you are a Democrat troll. Have you EVER brought us any good news on this website? You always find something to wring your hands about- this is not good, that is not good. the candidate is bad…the message is mixed..blah.blah.blah…you have a very sober column by Jonathan and a logical approach (2008 was a very special year) and you still find fault with it…in spite of the column basically accepting your premise that Romneyy is behind now.. nWell, I will not engage in your constant pessimism and negativity- especially when the truth is staring you in the face. 2008 was indeed special and I will bet you a nickel to your dollar that the turnout (percentage wise) will be less than in 2008. This does not mean that Romney will win or that he is ahead now, but it does mean that the vast majority of polls are skewed.
Well, I'm not surprised my pessimism is found grating, but since Commentary generously allows free and open discussion, I take advantage of it and express myself as honestly as I can. I hope I do it with respect, and if that does not come across, I sincerely apologize. What about the accusation that I'm a Democratic troll? We hide behind anonymity here–something which I did not do several years ago when Commentary first ran Contentions. I don't like it, but someone recommended that I do not use my name, so, of course, you can't Google me. Let me just say, in all due modesty, my bona fides as a conservative Republican believer and activist will match and exceed most who are on this site. The moment I believe something warrants some optimism, I'll be among the first to respond, and will be more than happy–indeed gleeful–to admit how wrong I have been. But until then, unless I'm censored by the parties in charge, I'll speak my mind, pessimistic though it may be.
Well, I am happy ot hear that you are indeed a genuine and energetic Republican- and I'll take back my troll accusation and apologize for it. as far as your pessimism, it does indeed grate ,especially as it is on continually. I prefer to be cautious and look at facts- most probably Obama ahs a slight lesd but it is slight. Everything is still up for grabs, and coming after avery difficutl week for Romeny ,it is almost miraculous. there is an iteresting article in the nytimes by nate silvdr- their poll guru- and the conclusion seesm to be that the reason why gallup and rasmussen have such different results than some other polls is because they do not poll cell phones-in contrast to the others. Hence, all these cell phone owners are young and will vote for Obama. we shall see. rasmussen and Gallup will have a lot of egg on their faces if they misread the elctorate so badly.
I agree. Romney isn't behind. In fact he is ahead by 4 to 5 points.____Why do you suppose Obama who has a smaller campaign chest is blanketing the airwaves and can not move the needle at all. If anything, it has hurt him because he went so negative. Obama's internal polling is showing him behind, otherwise he wouldn't be shooting his entire wad in June-September trying to move the needle. If Obama was really ahead, his campaign buys would be sporatic, here and there, and in between, instead the Obama campaign is in a pure panic, with the media CONSTANTLY circling the wagons for his failed regime….. which brings us to the Romney camp____Romney, he's only doing small buys here and there. He appears confident and cool and not freaking out. He's acting like zen master Phil Jackson. Obviously the internal polling is showing him ahead, otherwise he would be blanketing the airwaves in a panic like Obama is currently doing.. But don't get complacent, you still need to vote.__
I will suggest the perverse hypothesis that the apparent surge for Obama is actually a stage in the public's eventual embrace of Romney. As the election draws closer voters are beginning to make up their minds. Voters who have been open to Romney but have not yet been persuaded return to Obama for what is now a closer look. What do they see? The same failure they saw before, only worse. A second look at Obama will make Romney-Ryan look better and lead to closure of the deal. nAnother thing to bear in mind: if Romney were ahead in the polls, how would the media spin it? "Romney peaks too soon". There's a right time for everything. The election isn't today.
PART1 n nIf you want to see if Democrats are surging, all you need to do is look at party identification. You can look at month-to-month polling, and see that the party identification polling done in November pretty much matches the turnout for a given year. n nExample the party identification polling for November 2008 showed a 7.6% Democrat advantage. Obama won in 2008 by 7.3%. The party id polling typically leans towards Democrats, example the poll showed a 1.6% Democrat advantage in 2004, yet Bush won the general election. This is because more people tend to be local Democrats, and yet vote Republican on the Presidential, than the other way around. n nSo, in 2010, the big year for Republicans the party identification showed a 1.3% Republican advantage. n n
No n nThe answer to your question is simply, "no". n nNo n nGot it?
Mr Podhoretz, nThough I haven't read it, I know you've written about your experiences 20 years ago. Do you feel that the Romney campaign resembles the Bush 41 re-election campaign? nMy impression of Romney is that he's much different from McCain. It's an odd characterization, but in a sense I didn't feel that McCain wanted to win. I don't get the impression that Romney is the same way. Romney wants to win. He apparently has a bigger war chest than the President; I assume that he won't just husband his resources until it's too late. nI believe that he's waiting for a time when he believes he can maximize the effects of his attacks. Maybe he's waiting for the debates. nMaybe I'm being too optimistic or naive, but I suspect that Romney has a plan and knows what he's doing.
When you have the likes of the usually 'in the tank' CBS taking issue with the White House over their insistence that the Libyan U.S consulate attack was 'spontaneous' and not pre-planned, it makes me suspect something is shifting; the Obama administration's lies and obfuscations are reaching critical mass. Maybe the public will start to notice too … especially the independents and small d democrats. Here's hoping!
About time that we had this type of article. n nIf Obama polls anything like the numbers he got in 2008 it will be nothing short of a miracle and ample reason for Obama to consider calling himself "The Annointed" (as opposed to merely acting like it, that is). Recall just what a series of incredibly fortuitous events led to Obama's election numbers: 1) First black* candidate for president; 2) 8 years of hysterical, Bush-Derangement-Syndrome non-stop media vitriol; 3) the worst financial crisis breaking out on the eve of the election in 08; 4) a completely blank slate for voters to project their every hope and feeling upon; 5) an inspired campaign message, no matter how cynical we know it was, about "Hope and Change" ; 6) perfect appeal to young voters who had not yet suffered the slings and arrows outside of their College bubbles; 7) unprecedented Media cover-up and pandering; 8) a GOP candidate who was hapless,erratic and alienated his base unnecessarily. Probably missing other factors as well. n nPoint is that the only factor that is present in 2012 is # 7 and possibly #8 (although the Ryan pick for VP has gone a long way with the base). All one has to do is look at the still significant enthusiasm gap between GOP likely voters and Dem likely voters as well as those who self describe as conservative vs. liberal. Obama does not have anything like the level of enthusiasm that he had in 2008 and nothing like what Romney will have on 11/6. n nThe only way Obama gets elected is to depress the GOP base of voters (something he seems to be accomplishing with these infernally biased polls) and to get 100% of his own base out to vote. I just don't see either of these happening on 11/6.
actually only -7- is real and probably even worse. you did forgt one thing: incumbency. It is a very strong part of the election.
Mark my words: This will be the year that predictive polling goes the way exit polling did in 04.
The elephant in the room that nobody ever seems to mention is the fact that John McCain appeared to be a used up and physically troubled old man in 2008, no matter how hard he tried to portray himself as vital and active. I recall a cousin, and not one who is a reflexive Democrat, referring to him as "the Mummy" immediately after he won the nomination. Romney may not arouse excitement, but he's vital and will obviously be physically up to the job.
The polls are bogus. Period. Obama is not ahead by any substantial margin. It is a very tight race. On the other hand, I agree that Romney's campaign needs to act as if they are getting clobbered. There needs to be a sense of urgency that is currently missing. But not because the polls are accurate; rather, because the times demand it.
The press is acting in a morally repugnant fashion. A large part of our population is focused on this election only through headlines and sound bytes… n nMy hope (and belief) is that many of these recently "likely" voters are not passionate about it, that more and more people on Romney's side are becoming alarmed about his inability to move the needle and the turnout will be overwhelming in Romney's favor. n nSimply stated, although the media is a powerful enemy, they don't bring people to the polls. n nI also am hopeful that the debates will demonstrate Romney's seriousness and decency, but also I am hopeful that the Romney camp relentlessly drives home just how empty this president is.
I for one would hate if Mr Obama should lose and doesnt get the chance to show us what's in store for us when he DOESNT have to run for re-election again. n nBut on the other hand it might be someething more than just more golf.
Only the liberals in the media would consider Romney's gaffe at the Miami speech way back in May to be more important to people than the utter failure that is the recent loss of four State Department employees in Libya. nNot only did the White House (including the cabinet-rank UN Ambassador) miss-characterize (i.e. lie about) the terrorist attack…..for over week, but it is now clear from the Ambassador's diary that he (i.e. the Obama administration) knew well in advance of the likelihood of such an attack and the likelihood of it's link to Al Qaeda. nThis incident – and the rash of riots at our embassies and consulates around the Muslim and wider worlds – expose the rank incompetence not only of this President but also his Secretary of State. nWhen Romney wins this, I hope his White House remembers who his enemies are. nWhether of not he wins, the media will not recover it's reputation for decades.