Today’s WSJ/NBC/Marist poll shows President Obama with a six-point lead in Iowa, but Mitt Romney within striking distance in New Hampshire and Wisconsin:
In Iowa, Obama is ahead by six points among likely voters, 50 percent to 44 percent, which is down from his eight-point lead earlier this month.
In Wisconsin, the president edges Romney by three points, 49 percent to 46 percent, which is within the survey’s margin of error. That’s also down from Obama’s six-point lead earlier this month.
And in New Hampshire, Obama gets support from 49 percent of likely voters, while Romney gets 47 percent. In September, before the debates began, Obama held a seven-point advantage in the state, 51 percent to 44 percent.
Ed Morrissey looks at how the the party identification breakdown in this poll compares to 2008 and 2010, and writes that they’re probably a little overly-favorable for Obama, but not too atrocious:
Overall, I’d say that while the toplines look decent for Obama and the samples look arguably solid, those numbers for independents should be a big, big worry. Obama has lost most of his double-digit edges among indies in all three states, and is in a virtual tie in Wisconsin and New Hampshire with Romney in those demos. With Republican enthusiasm waxing and Democratic enthusiasm waning, these second-tier swing states could break Obama’s hopes of winning a second term.
The bottom line is that the polls are still close, and the race will come down to whether Obama’s turnout operation is as effective as we’re told it will be on election day. If the party identification breakdown is similar to the WSJ/NBC/Marist poll, then Obama will be in a good position, as you can see from the above numbers. As long as Romney wins Ohio, he doesn’t necessarily need Wisconsin, Iowa or New Hampshire to win (assuming he takes all the swing states where he has a slight lead). But Obama is still ahead in the Ohio polls, and if that’s the case Romney will need either those smaller states, or a surprise victory in Pennsylvania — which is getting closer, but still leaning blue at this point.
ah, down to turnout: the bottom line is that Romney decided to play it safe starting with the second debate, avoid sharpening of issues, ignore foreign affairs except generically and thematically, and run on the internal strengths of a plausible-alternative run–he avoided a clean, decisive, and potentially alienating contrast and assumed that the momentum of existing trends would carry him over the electoral bar given the depths of his money, organization and get-out-the-vote ground game–fine, and if it turns out to have been the correct strategy, he's a genius. n nif it doesn't…
No one posting here over the last few months has been as pessimistic about the likelihood of a Romney win, and, unfortunately, I still believe he will not make it. The electoral map, as implied in Alana's post, is just too narrow. If my forecast is correct, I''ll be posting often why Romney lost. But…..I strongly disagree with any implication that over the last month Romney has not run an excellent campaign. He has been a candidate we conservatives can be proud of. He has achieved the tone necessary to make inroads into unfriendly demographics without abandoning principle. His debate performances, even those where polls showed him the loser, were well executed and beneficial to his campaign. Sometimes other factors can overtake a good candidate and campaign. I'm afraid this is that time.
Actually, I'm more pessimistic than you. I think the country went off the rails in 2006 when it elected an all Dem congress and essentially voted for defeat in Iraq. Then, if there was any doubt about 2006, it proved it again in 2008 by electing a radical community organizer over a moderate Republican maverick war hero. 2010 was a blip–the last gasps of a twitching body. Romney has been merely so-so. He had one good debate performance. That was the highlight of the entire campaign. He had to deal with his own nature, which is not to clearly explain Obama's deceit and corruption, an absurdly hostile media, and sadly, several wholly unforced errors, starting with Rush Limbaugh's entirely correct but politically stupid statement about Sandra Fluke, the slut, and then then his own 47% comment. I'm praying for a miracle, but he will need one.
way too cautious for my taste-marketing and branding campaign on a high strategic level but not enough scrappiness–but hey, hes the candidate
I'm not really in the mood to say much, but I will say this. If Obama wins it will be because Americans are ignorant, apathetic fools. His second term will be a disaster. The economy will tank as reality sets in that we are doomed to deal with the fallout of Obamacare, the scandals he has avoided this time around will catch up with him, his listlessness will become worse because there is no other election for him to win. A guy who has shown so little interest in being president in his first term is not suddenly going to show up for his second. nTo blame Romney for the apathy of the population might be tempting, but is, I think, unfair. Like ATT, I think we can be proud of him. No campaign can be perfect, and a campaign facing the cultural headwinds his has faced is going to be tripped up by the most stupid things. nWe'll see what happens, but regardless of the outcome, I have lost considerable faith in my fellow Americans. Obama's defeat should be a certainty. The fact that this race might be close, even if Romney wins, is a real bummer. n n
When Ken Starr became the villain for his investigation of Clinton, it was clear a significant segment of the country had changed. To be sure, the media led the charge, but that just supports my point: before the Clinton episode, who could have imagined even the media defending a reprobate and attacking an honorable man like Starr? Moreover, as many of us have posted here, too many–and not just the stereotypical welfare types–have become wedded to government largess. Other communicative institutions than the media–educational, foundations, religious–tilt strongly left. Then factor in the liberalism that is conveyed by the entertainment industry as mainstream and other forms of relativism, we have, voila, Romney's base of 47% that Obama and the Democrats start with. And I write the last sentence as someone who swears, appreciates ribald stories and humor and is squishy soft on an issue like gay marriage.
I don't think we are, collectively, any more intelligent or stupid than ever before. Rather, our over-liberally influenced culture is killing us, which is what I read into comments re Starr. In the past people could go about their daily lives and still manage to be aware of the most important issues confronting the nation. Now, our culture rallies around a failed president, so the typical low information voter begins to actually believe there really isn't that much of a difference between the two men. I hear that more often than I care to admit – just heard it 10 minutes ago from a Republican registered colleague who isn't sure if she'll vote for either guy. That depresses me, beyond my ability to communicate. Words fail. nI do remain cautiously optimistic, though. At this point I'm trying to avoid too much pre-analysis – we're so close to the finish line it seems pointless.
Little Lord Barry Obumbler doesn't lead in any poll, anywhere in the country. All these pollsters are owned and operated by Demotards and/or elitist snobbery in the GOP like Kountry Klub Karl Rove. Obumbler and most other Demotards are going to lose in the biggest state and popular vote landslide in US History. It will be a TsuRomney.