Margins -- Perry vs. Obama, Romney vs. Obama

[pbrower2a]

I see a big problem with some of the maps that show how the President does against certain Republicans.  Here I start a new set (no surprise) that no longer treats a 49-41 margin (which really is huge) and a virtual tie with the same level of shading.

An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps will show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are almost moot.

Because it is hard to take seriously anyone who has formally resigned,  whose campaign is bankrupt, or whose campaign shows signs of insignificance I am not showing margins for President Obama against Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin, Cain, Santorum, Trump, Paul, or Bachmann here. I am also beginning with polls that start on 8-28. For all practical purposes we are seeing some candidacies winnowed out and Rick Perry treated seriously. 

The latest poll prevails, but no poll may be commissioned by trade associations, unions or professional groups, ethnic or advocacy groups, clearly left or right news organizations (examples: Daily Kos or Newsmax). Internal polls, interactive polls, and push polls are to be rejected.   
 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

Comments?

[pbrower2a]

You know I thought this forum was filled with people that actually knew something about election analysis.

Ask any professional poster, this far out head to head match ups are near useless, but what is a little more telling is:

A's approval/disapproval vs. B's approval/disapproval...the polls always converge on that anyway.

Yet, it seems like everybody would rather just use the head to heads.

So do I. Head-to-head matchups night show how people react at the polls when they perceived a flawed President meeting a weak challenger, which so far seems what awaits us in November of next year.

Of course -- but they can show trends and the effects of events even as seemingly trivial as major speeches.

1. Raw approvals differ from pollster to pollster because of the methodologies of pollsters. Some may be more persistent than others in getting people on the edge to make an opinion while on the phone, and those more persistent may get fewer undecided respondents (and higher levels of approval and disapproval). Margins in matchups are more consistent.

2. The polls used for getting matchups can have polls of favorability (which do not compare to approval) and the infamous excellent-good-fair-poor split (what does "fair" mean?) if they have matchups. With margins of matchups we can see how someone does against someone else.

3. Speeches might not be so trivial as they seem; they can show significant changes of economic or foreign policy or the impending implementation of a military decision (let us say "We have just invaded Cuba" if such is ever so)*.

4. Much can change and will. It is highly unlikely that Republicans will find a "knight in shining armor" who inspires independent voters as an attractive alternative to the President. It's probably too late for that.

5. If Americans have become more fussy about whom they vote for in the polls, then that may depress the approval of both sides in an election for now. Barring the entry of a strong third-party alternative (Perot 1992, Wallace 1968), the winner of the 2012 election isn't going to win 42-38. Head-to-head matchups are what is most available and reliable now.

6. Personalities matter greatly. We do not elect robots.  Maybe IBM's "Watson" would be a good ruler; as a computer it is not available under the strictures of our Constitution.   

We are trying to predict the future and have some credibility. At worst one can act like an astrologer or try to read one of Nostradamus' quatrains into the 2012 election (I am not sure that one exists, and all of the quatrains are ambiguous in interpretation even if they are  valid).   At best one merges historical precedents and current measurements.

*Not something that I advocate. Military aggression is a horrible crime. 

[pbrower2a]

Quinnipiac shows approval for the President tied 48-48, but with huge margins against both Perry and Romney :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1646

Quinnipiac shows no other matchups involving the President and any Republican challenger.

When I made the first map I missed polls for matchups involving the President in West Virginia. He would lose by 11% to Romney and 12% to Perry, or is it the other way around? The coding doesn't matter. 

An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps will show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

Connecticut is out of the question for any Republican nominee for President in 2012.

[pbrower2a]

You know I thought this forum was filled with people that actually knew something about election analysis.

Ask any professional poster, this far out head to head match ups are near useless, but what is a little more telling is:

A's approval/disapproval vs. B's approval/disapproval...the polls always converge on that anyway.

Yet, it seems like everybody would rather just use the head to heads.

I think pbrower often overreacts to the current polls. I think he undervalues past election results and take his analysis with a grain of salt but that's just me. Still, while it may not be the best measure it shouldn't be discounted entirely.

Polls so far show that patterns set as early as 1992 are largely so. Eighteen states and DC haven't voted for any Republican nominee since 1992, and the Democratic nominee will have to be an abject failure to lose any of those. Those states and DC comprise about 243 electoral votes, or a little more than 90% of the electoral votes that President Obama will need in winning re-election. He can't afford to lose any of them, and he won every one of them by a margin in excess of 10% in 2008. Three states (IA, NH, NM) have gone to the Democratic nominee in four of the last five Presidential elections; they comprise 17 electoral votes, and President Obama won every one of those by at least 9%.  It is going to take some shocking event for any state in either category for any of those states (let alone DC) to go for any Republican nominee.


Thirteen states comprising 101 electoral votes (NE-02 excluded) haven't gone for any Democratic nominee for President since 1992. President Obama won while losing every one of the states in that group by at least 8%. It's hard to see how President Obama wins any electoral votes in that group except NE-02 in 2012 because those states will all need major shifts in voting behavior or shocking events to make them go for the President. Add to those five states that Bill Clinton won twice (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) for which he was a very poor fit and will be again in 2012 -- 38 electoral votes, equal to Texas, and it now looks as if the President could win Texas before he wins any one of those, and Texas is arguably out of reach -- barring some shocking events that nobody can predict.

It looks as if the President is in a position in which he wins re-election if he wins one of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, or Virginia -- or the pair of Colorado and Nevada. Perry would win North Carolina but lose Virginia if the election were to be held today; Romney would win Virginia but lose North Carolina, so a choice between Perry and Romney looks like a choice between two forms of checkmate for now, and that is before I discuss Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada.

Of course political reality is never static. Such is the hope for any Republican candidate for the Presidency. The one aspect of life unlikely to change between now and November 2012 is unlikely to change -- that people are unhappy with the economic reality. Such was true in 2010, and such is unlikely to change in view of political gridlock -- except for the worse. Who gets the blame? Approval ratings for everyone involved -- the President and Congress -- are depressed. If approval for everything in politics is down, then who loses more?

Rules change some in hard times, but not that much.



 

[pbrower2a]

Quinnipiac shows approval for the President tied 48-48, but with huge margins against both Perry and Romney :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and you believe that?

Yeah no $hit. Some people really want to advertise they are a gullible retard.

Who am I to challenge Quinnipiac polling? It is usually are pretty good.

I think people are simply unhappy with every aspect of political life. With whom are they more unhappy? A RINO could probably defeat President Obama, but there aren't many of those left. Ed Brooke, William Milliken, John Warner, and Charles Percy are far too old. Lincoln Chaffee isn't a Republican anymore, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is constitutionally ineligible. Third-Party challenge? It may be too late.  

Have you ever been through a divorce? If you have (as an ex or a child), then you were unhappy with almost everything for some time. As a nation we have been through a sort of divorce with the sort of prosperity that we used to take for granted. Much like an ex, that sort of prosperity isn't going to come back.  It took nearly ten years for Americans to have become as prosperous as they had been at the brink of the Great Stock Market Crash. Such prosperity as Americans had in 1939 was very different from what it was in 1929, and it wasn't easy to achieve. We could be in for an analogous set of hardships, dislocations, and (often unsettling) reforms.

The Tea Party types have failed catastrophically, thank you, after winning one election.

But I can say this of 1939 -- many people who as adults  in 1929 didn't have cars, radios, or refrigerators  had them in 1939. Maybe nobody was confident enough to bid up stock prices or real estate values, but such was just as well. The 1930s were a good time in which to start a small business, unions began to protect the interests of working people, a minimum wage was in place, bank deposits were safe again, and old people were no longer consigned to destitution once they could no longer work. In 1928 Americans had the illusion of prosperity but did not know how shaky their prosperity was; in 1939 such prosperity as they had was genuine.  

[pbrower2a]

Two from PPP, 8-24

Iowa:

Barack Obama................................................ 49%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 39%

Barack Obama................................................ 51%
Rick Perry ....................................................... 38%


Wisconsin:



Barack Obama................................................ 47%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 42%

Barack Obama................................................ 50%
Rick Perry ....................................................... 40%

One slightly older and very significant:

Ohio

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

Approve .......................................................... 44%
Disapprove...................................................... 52%

...

Barack Obama................................................ 45%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 43%

Barack Obama................................................ 45%
Rick Perry ....................................................... 41%

An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps will show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

The President's  approval ratings were not very good in either state at the time.

[pbrower2a]

I'd been meaning to do something like this for some time.

I agree that it's fairly useless to use head-to-head-polls at this point in the race, but it's still fun, and this thread will at least provide a record of what the margins were at this point in time, regardless of however the race ends up. Good on you for starting it, pbrower.

True -- but we have the head-to-head polls and some confusing and often contradictory polls on approval or favorability. But "Obama or Romney?" or "Obama or Perry" can be said with little variation.  

Many questions remain unanswered? Are people now paying politics to an unusual extent more than a year before an election? Are they getting ideas about the positions and rhetoric of major candidates? How will the economy do? Will there be scandals?

I can think of many ways in which the President loses his re-election bid. I can see more ways in which he wins. About all that anyone can now say based on existing polls is that before the President does any serious campaigning for re-election, before the primaries, and before negative ads begin.  About all that I can conclude is that I project the Presidential election of 2012 to look enough like that of 2008 that the President will win in much the same way as he did against John McCain -- maybe a couple states fewer against Romney but probably as many against Perry.

...I have replaced the PPP poll of North Carolina with the one from Magellan. Magellan is an R-leaning pollster, but its poll comes later and shows an apparent move in favor of the President that I might not expect from that pollster. 

[pbrower2a]

Pennsylvania, Washington.

Pennsylvania, Magellan (R)

OBAMA 50%, ROMNEY 40%, UNDECIDED 10%
OBAMA 52%, PERRY 37%, UNDECIDED 11%

http://www.magellanstrategies.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Magellan-Pennsylvania-2012-General-Election-Survey-Release-0919111.pdf

People are very unhappy with American politics at the federal level, at the least, but the GOP has shown little ability to take advantage of this. The President's approval rating is 44% but with a 47% disapproval in Pennsylvania.

Washington State, Strategies 360

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/avantgo/2016249660.html


An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps will show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

At this point I see no cause to believe that Rick Perry would do even as well as John McCain did in 2008, and that Mitt Romney would do enough better against President Obama to have a chance to win. Perry does far worse than Romney in the North (including the swing states of Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia) 

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But take a look at this crosstab:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are Texas' demographics changing that quickly? McCain won the state by roughly 12%. A Republican nominee really needs to win Texas by about 15% to win nationwide.

With this sort of approval rating for a sitting Governor,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the President's campaign for re-election will surely have copious material for negative ads to play in states seen on the edge of voting for or against him. Such ads will feature photogenic people with backdrops of places like Dallas and San Antonio saying unflattering things about "their" Governor...

Even with the favorite son advantage Texas is closer to flipping toward President Obama than any of the states reliable for Clinton (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) that President Obama got clobbered in in 2008.   


Barack Obama, as an exotic, cosmopolitan, intellectual city-slicker is a horrible match for Arkansas:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.talkbusiness.net/article/ARKANSANS-RATE-OBAMA-JOB-PERFORMANCE-2-TO-1-NEGATIVE/2503/

Oddly, Democrats show reasonable prospects of picking off a Congressional seat or two in Arkansas. As a liberal I prefer that the Blue Dog Democrats capable of compromise wield the balance of power than that the Tea Party extremists do. Arkansas Democrats  will need to show that they can stand up to President Obama, though, when such is good for the sensibilities of their districts. Such may be more valuable to the President than the six electoral votes of Arkansas.     


An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

At this point I see no cause to believe that Rick Perry would do even as well as John McCain did in 2008, and that Mitt Romney would do enough better against President Obama to have a chance to win. Perry does far worse than Romney in the North (including the swing states of Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia)  

[pbrower2a]

You knew that someone would poll Florida, even if it is someone that few of us know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://warroomlogistics.com/library/wrl092011-topline_all.pdf

A bit over-precise. President Obama would have a far better chance of winning Florida against Romney (he'd have to pick up 6.5 of the 11.8 "undecided") than does Perry have of winning against President Obama (Perry would have to pick up 11.2 of 12.5 undecided). Republicans can't win without Florida, but President Obama can win without it -- not that anyone can trust Rick Scott with the electoral process.

Other Republican challengers all lose by at least 10%.

Does anyone have a problem with me rounding 7.85% to 8%? It's the integer that counts here, either way.

This one has all the excitement of the wildlife reel "Hungry Hawk vs. Rabbit with Nowhere to Go":

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MA_0921424.pdf


An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

At this point I see no cause to believe that Rick Perry would do even as well as John McCain did in 2008, or that Mitt Romney would do enough better against President Obama to have a chance to win. Perry does far worse than Romney in the North (including the swing states of Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia)  -- and now Florida.

[pbrower2a]

Michigan could be close for Obama against Romney... it usually looks close a year before the election, as in 2008. Having ties to the state helps, although he has about as many ties to Michigan as Al Gore had to Tennessee in 1999.  He begins with much good will because of early connections with the state, but if he loses touch with Michigan, then he loses the state -- much as Al Gore lost Tennessee in  2000. Just take a good look at neighboring Ohio; he has to pick up one of the two to have a meaningful chance to win, and he has little room for error.


Vote Romney……………………………………………………….42%
Lean Romney……………………………………………………….2%

Vote Obama………………………………………………………..42%
Lean Obama………………………………………………………..3%

Perry would be trounced:

Vote Perry…………………………………………………………..35%
Lean Perry…………………………………………………………..4%

Vote Obama………………………………………………………..47%
Lean Obama………………………………………………………..3%

http://www.mrgmi.com/MRG_IMP_09_21_11_FINAL.pdf

If anyone wants to see what the Favorite Son effect is, then here it is.

Quinnipiac just polled Florida, but largely concurs with the other pollster. The later poll supplants an earlier one:

Obama             44%  
Perry                42  

Obama                40%
Romney               47  

The good news for President Obama is that Perry leads among registered Republicans against Mitt Romney in a state that can easily make or break a primary race.

An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

At this point I see no cause to believe that Rick Perry would do even as well as John McCain did in 2008, or that Mitt Romney would do enough better against President Obama to have a chance to win. Perry does far worse than Romney in the North (including the swing states of Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia)  -- and now Florida.

[pbrower2a]

Big one here!

56-36 Obama vs. Romney
56-33 Obama vs. Perry

(Siena College)

I didn't say that it would be interesting or surprising. I love New York... politics! 

The President has apparently been slipping in Virginia:

http://roanoke.edu/Documents/rcpoll/RC%20Poll%20Sept.%202011.pdf


Suppose the Republican Party nominated Mitt Romney for President. Would you vote for

Obama 36.9
Romney 44.7

If Rick Perry were the Republican nominee, would you vote for

Obama 39.0
Perry    41.8


An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

At this point I see no cause to believe that Rick Perry would do even as well as John McCain did in 2008, or that Mitt Romney would do enough better against President Obama to have a chance to win. Perry does far worse than Romney in the North (including the swing states of Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia)  -- and now Florida.

[pbrower2a]

Two Q polls from big states in electoral votes:

A. Pennsylvania

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also,
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1653

1. I don't know whether Pennsylvania would get such a change through simple majority votes of the two houses of the state legislature and the signature of the Governor... or through a referendum.

2. Even with such a low approval number for the President, he apparently wins against both Perry and Romney, according to Quinnipiac. Such bodes ill for any Republican nominee unless the President utterly collapses (which he has not yet done).

3. I ignore Rick Santorum.

4. President Obama probably can't win re-election without Pennsylvania.

B. Ohio

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. The Republican nominee must win Ohio to have a chance to win. The state has voted with the winner every time for since at least 1972.

2. The approval rate for the President is poor -- but he still has a very good chance of winning the state. Such shows a huge problem for the Republican nominee of 2012 unless things change dramatically by November of next year -- and of course to the benefit of the Republican nominee. That is asking for a lot.

3. Nothing changes from the PPP poll of last month.  

$. Quinnippiac apparently ignores Santorum in Ohio.
  


An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

At this point I see no cause to believe that Rick Perry would do even as well as John McCain did in 2008, or that Mitt Romney would do enough better against President Obama to have a chance to win. Perry does far worse than Romney in the North (including the swing states of Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia)  -- and now Florida.

[pbrower2a]

PPP released results for Florida. Bad news for Republicans who want Florida to be a sure thing for their nominee:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The President can win the state with such an approval rating now  when news is mostly bleak. His approval at this stage has to be about 44% as an incumbent if he is to have a 50-50 chance of winning it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

President Obama would win Florida decisively against Rick Perry and is in a virtual tie with Mitt Romney. The political mix looks much like what President Obama won with in 2008, and President Obama is in a virtual tie with Mitt Romney. Q13 demonstrates where Rick Perry has ensured that he will not be the next President if the United States.

The Republican nominee can't win without Florida. President Obama could lose the state (especially if Governor Rick Scott does some political chicanery) and still win nationwide.  


An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

At this point I see no cause to believe that Rick Perry would do even as well as John McCain did in 2008, or that Mitt Romney would do enough better against President Obama to have a chance to win. Perry does far worse than Romney in the North (including the swing states of Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia)  -- and now Florida.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

I don't see the President winning by the gaudy numbers by which he won in some states that he won in 2008 if the opponent is Mitt Romney. He doesn't need to. He needs to keep a hold of some legitimate swing states.

Rick Perry would lose catastrophically.

[pbrower2a]

Big one -- Virginia, and from a pollster that used to give lots of statewide polls and may be warming up. It's a virtual tie between Obama and Romney, and Perry seems to be falling apart.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/virginia/election_2012_virginia_presidential_election

(You will have to pay Rasmussen to see more). 


An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

I don't see the President winning by the gaudy numbers by which he won in some states that he won in 2008 if the opponent is Mitt Romney. He doesn't need to. He needs to keep a hold of some legitimate swing states.

[pbrower2a]

re: Virginia

This summer I have rarely seen any state swing as wildly as Virginia. The state's political orientation may be more volatile than that of any other State; after all, it has huge numbers of civilian and military government employees and employees of government contractors. Virginians may pay more attention than residents of any other State to politics. The state had about a 60% approval rating for the President in the aftermath of the whacking of Osama bin Laden, which is about one would expect in Massachusetts; that has long abated.

Results in the Obama-Romney matchup are consistent with an approval rating around 45% for the President. Of course it is a virtual tie, and virtual ties in most of the swing states of 2008 in late October 2012 suggest big trouble for a Republican in that the chance of stringing together five must-win scenarios for the Republican nominee (Colorado and Nevada together, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia) best described as 50-50 propositions would give the Republican nominee about one chance in 32 of winning. In statistical parlance that is five independent events. "Indiana" would not count as an  independent event because President Obama has no way of winning Indiana without winning Ohio; "Arizona" implies that the President has won Colorado and Nevada and won; "Georgia" implies that the President has won Florida and North Carolina and won, so that's one way of explaining what an "independent event" isn't. I'm not going to discuss Missouri, which is within the range of a virtual tie. 

Now as for Perry... a Republican candidate can lose Virginia in a close election, but by 10%? Such suggests an utter collapse. Virginia is at least R+2, so such projects to about a 57-43 split nationwide. At such a point I see the President winning everything that he won in 2008 while picking up Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona at the least.       

[pbrower2a]

Did anyone expect the President to be in trouble in his own state?


http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/politics/illinois-obama-approval-rating-poll-romney-home-state-perry-cain-presidential-2012-reelection-20111003

Obama: 52.35%
Perry: 30.20%

Obama: 50.26%
Romney: 34.79%

Nope.


An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

I don't see the President winning by the gaudy numbers by which he won in some states that he won in 2008 if the opponent is Mitt Romney. He doesn't need to. He needs to keep a hold of some legitimate swing states.

[pbrower2a]

This is from a Republican pollster, War Room Logistics:

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/files/wrl093011-writeup.pdf

Unless you see a reason for a Republican pollster to inflate the chances of President Obama or these results represent some huge error (tell me if you see such), I see a big gain for President Obama against Mitt Romney  in Florida. The Republican nominee basically must win some large northern state to offset Florida. 

A collapse mode for Rick Perry is not to be ruled out in view of a recent poll in Virginia.  I may have to drop him.


Obama 53.30%  Perry 36.30%

Obama 47.50%  Romney 42.30%



under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

I don't see the President winning by the gaudy numbers by which he won in some states that he won in 2008 if the opponent is Mitt Romney. He doesn't need to. He needs to keep a hold of at least one legitimate swing state (Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia) or the combination of Colorado and Nevada.

[pbrower2a]

A poll from Michigan shows the President 47-44 ahead of Romney and nothing on him against Perry. Only the Obama/Romney split is shown, so the one for Obama/Perry doesn't change.  It looks good for Mitt Romney; his father was a well-respected governor of Michigan.

Here's one for Maryland, but it has two quirks. Like the Michigan poll,  it doesn't show an Obama-Perry matchup, so Maryland appears blank for such. (Anyone who expects Rick Perry to fare better in Maryland than in Virginia is a fool, but I don't show what isn't put in print. Second, it suggests a VP nominee -- Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, who is one of the most effective Governors in America.  I can't imagine anyone who would fare better as a running mate.

http://www.gonzalesresearch.com/polls/Maryland%20Poll%20October%202011.pdf



under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

I don't see the President winning by the gaudy numbers by which he won in some states that he won in 2008 if the opponent is Mitt Romney. He doesn't need to. He needs to keep a hold of at least one legitimate swing state (Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia) or the combination of Colorado and Nevada.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_1006925.pdf

Within the margin of error, and eminently winnable for the President.  If North Carolina is within the margin of error, then the Republicans are going to lose anyway as in 1992 and 2008.


under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

I don't see the President winning by the gaudy numbers by which he won in some states that he won in 2008 if the opponent is Mitt Romney. He doesn't need to. He needs to keep a hold of at least one legitimate swing state (Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia) or the combination of Colorado and Nevada.

[pbrower2a]

Probably the state with the most complicated role in national politics -- Nebraska. Redistricting makes it even more complicated now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No chance for the President at all in Nebraska? Not quite. The state isn't so politically-homogeneous as it looks.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NE_1006.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really, at least statewide.  This isn't spectacular for Mitt Romney, but for a state this Red, it suggests a collapse for Rick Perry in a state that the President lost in 2008 by a margin in the teens.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The best-laid plans of mice and men, let alone state legislators, can backfire. This is in new districts.  It is safe to assume that NE-03 (central and western Nebraska, from roughly Grand Island westward) will go for the Republican nominee by a wider margin than any State -- even Wyoming. You may have been accustomed to seeing the middle square (NE-02) in Nebraska look as if it projects to be a winner for President Obama and the ones on the left and right (NE-01 and NE-03) as losers for the President. That is one of the few assumptions that I can make.

If the Republicans lose even one district in Nebraska, then they have lost nationwide.I would say the inverse of Maine.


under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

I don't see the President winning by the gaudy numbers by which he won in some states that he won in 2008 if the opponent is Mitt Romney. He doesn't need to; he needs win only win  all of those that he won by at least 9%. He needs to keep a hold of at least one legitimate swing state (Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia) or pick up Missouri and one  of the three districts of Nebraska.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No real change. The Ohio economy is still in the tank.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1652

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

I don't see the President winning by the gaudy numbers by which he won in some states that he won in 2008 if the opponent is Mitt Romney. He doesn't need to; he needs win only win  all of those that he won by at least 9%. He needs to keep a hold of at least one legitimate swing state (Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia) or pick up Missouri and one  of the three districts of Nebraska.

[pbrower2a]

I am a bit slow to get this one, but I eventually found it... and I got more than some others did and may have gotten it best.

It looks as if New Hampshire voters are nostalgic about Mitt Romney even if he was Governor of a neighboring State:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

but Rick Perry rubs them the wrong way:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/gsp2011_fall_primary100711.pdf

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

I don't see the President winning by the gaudy numbers by which he won in some states that he won in 2008 if the opponent is Mitt Romney. The President seems to have his work cut out for him in New Hampshire, and if he loses that state he must win either Florida, North Carolina, Ohio or some combination of Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia.  

[pbrower2a]

Virginia, Quinnipiac:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x5822.xml?ReleaseID=1658

Statistical tie, Obama vs. Romney, when the President's approval rating nationwide is still in the tank.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good news for the President: he is up 54-32 among the 18-34 age group against Romney, which means that if the President's campaign apparatus has an effective GOTV effort in 2012, he wins Virginia against even Romney. People as old as 21 (born late in 1991) did not vote in 2008, and nothing indicates that Republicans are reaching that demographic with desired results.  The youngest voters of 2008 were born in 1990; the youngest voters of 2012 will have been born in 1994.



under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

I don't see the President winning by the gaudy numbers by which he won in some states that he won in 2008 if the opponent is Mitt Romney. The President seems to have his work cut out for him in New Hampshire, and if he loses that state he must win either Florida, North Carolina, Ohio or some combination of Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia.  
[/quote]