VA: Mason-Dixon: Obama a single point ahead of Romney, leads Newt by 11

[Tender Branson]

New Poll: Virginia President by Mason-Dixon on 2012-01-25

Summary: D: 45%, R: 44%, U: 11%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

...

49% Obama
38% Gingrich

[Tender Branson]

Also:

Today, a new Mason-Dixon Florida poll will be released as well ...

[Bandit3 the Worker]

No way Obama wins Virginia by only 1%, considering he won by 6% last time.

You do realize that - with the Occupy stuff going on - the Republicans are going to get their clocks cleaned.

[© tweed]

Romney could play better in NoVA than McCain did, in relative terms at least.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Romney could play better in NoVA than McCain did, in relative terms at least.

Would anyone in 2004 believe that Bush would play better than McCain in NoVA? Hard to predict sort of thing.

[© tweed]

Romney could play better in NoVA than McCain did, in relative terms at least.

Would anyone in 2004 believe that Bush would play better than McCain in NoVA? Hard to predict sort of thing.

it was clear somewhat early in the 08 cycle that Obama had a distinct and even striking advantage in upper income suburban areas.  meanwhile this constitutes entirely what is or at least should be Romney's base.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Romney could play better in NoVA than McCain did, in relative terms at least.

Would anyone in 2004 believe that Bush would play better than McCain in NoVA? Hard to predict sort of thing.

it was clear somewhat early in the 08 cycle that Obama had a distinct and even striking advantage in upper income suburban areas.  meanwhile this constitutes entirely what is or at least should be Romney's base.

Once Romney's warmongering becomes common knowledge, areas like NOVA will turn against him. And no, DoD contractors and such will not be enough to save him: most people in NOVA don't work for the defense department, and even those who do have become war-weary.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Plus, the Occupy stuff is going to destroy him.

[Lief 🗽]

We might not have anyone voting in Southwest Virginia in a Black vs. Mormon match-up.

[Stranger in a strange land]

We might not have anyone voting in Southwest Virginia in a Black vs. Mormon match-up.

Nah, in SW VA, the percentage of voters who think Obama is a Muslim is probably higher than the percentage who know that Romney is Mormon.

[pbrower2a]

No way Obama wins Virginia by only 1%, considering he won by 6% last time.

You do realize that - with the Occupy stuff going on - the Republicans are going to get their clocks cleaned.

Mason-Dixon seems to lean R in results.

A statistical tie between the President and Mitt Romney implies roughly a 50% chance of either winning the state. Basically President Obama can feel safe about winning all states that Al Gore won in 2000, Colorado, and Nevada  (due to demographics). Six states -- Arizona, Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia -- are best described as 50-50 propositions. Romney must win every one of them; President Obama must win one of these to win re-election. It's now roughly one chance in 128 for Romney and 127 in 128 for President Obama.

There's no easy way for the Republicans to win the must-win states still available (they can forget Michigan and Pennsylvania  for now) without making major inroads into Obama support. The states in question are diverse enough and scattered enough that no campaign blitz can effectively win them all at once and no appeal can be made that tailors itself to every one of those states.

[CaDan]

BWWHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Paulie and his fellow lefties don't seem to get the fact that when an incumbent polls below 50% they are in BIG BIG trouble.

Obama is under 50% against both Newt and Romney.

Undecided voters do not break toward the incumbent. They break for the challenger.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

BWWHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Paulie and his fellow lefties don't seem to get the fact that when an incumbent polls below 50% they are in BIG BIG trouble.

Obama is under 50% against both Newt and Romney.

Undecided voters do not break toward the incumbent. They break for the challenger.

Please ban this guy.

[Niemeyerite]

BWWHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Paulie and his fellow lefties don't seem to get the fact that when an incumbent polls below 50% they are in BIG BIG trouble.

Obama is under 50% against both Newt and Romney.

Undecided voters do not break toward the incumbent. They break for the challenger.

Please ban this guy.

When I made a topic about it.. everybody wanted to keep him, soo...

"When an incumbent is below 50 blah blah blah". Tell that to Sherrod Brown, Bill Nelson and Bob Casey after november.

[NVGonzalez]

BWWHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Paulie and his fellow lefties don't seem to get the fact that when an incumbent polls below 50% they are in BIG BIG trouble.

Obama is under 50% against both Newt and Romney.

Undecided voters do not break toward the incumbent. They break for the challenger.

Please ban this guy.

[King]

Please, keep him around.  The more GOP hacks we have around here the more fun it will be on election day.

[pbrower2a]

Unless all precedents are shot in November 2012, I see President Obama winning between 50% and 55% of the popular vote that isn't wasted on third-party candidates, spoiled ballots, or jokes ("Darth Vader for President").

http://observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com/2010/03/nate-silver-debunks-another-polling.html

This is Nate Silver before he went to the New York Times and had to modulate his opinion to fit the news narrative. Incumbent Senators and Representatives who are above 50% approval are nearly impossible to beat. The one recent counter-example was Senator George Allen, and so much went wrong for him -- an unusually-strong challenger, collapse of support for his Party due to a faltering economy, an incredible blunder (his infamous "Macaca moment"), and his staffers beating a heckler.  Incumbents who go down to defeat usually have trouble long before the election. George Allen created his own problems.

The average gain for an incumbent between the start of spring (which is now two months away) and Election Day for an incumbent is 6% to 7%.  Incumbents usually gain something, whether they start with 35% approval or 60%. (Those below 35% usually choose not to run for re-election). Such is the same whether the incumbent is Blanche Lincoln in 2010 or Carl Levin in 2008.

Incumbent Senators legislate; incumbent Governors govern. Because they have to make decisions that will dissatisfy some while satisfying others they can't please everyone Challengers can take all the cheap shots that they can at the incumbent... but those often backfire once the campaign begins in earnest. With relatively few exceptions (politicians appointed to the position) they have as a rule won the office to begin with and show themselves as adept campaigners.  

Barack Obama is as adept a campaigner as there is -- if 2008 is any guide. He makes few mistakes  that one can't dismiss as partisan 'mistakes'. He has as scandal-free an administration as any. It's probably too late for a scandal to break, and time is running out for an economic meltdown. He has been a horrible President, to be sure -- for terrorists, kidnappers, pirates, and tyrants.    

[Vosem]

Plus, the Occupy stuff is going to destroy him.

No. First off, it got taken apart and is no longer going on. Second off, outside of a few urban areas, while it was going on it was seen pretty negatively. I live in a swing/tilt-Republican suburb of Cleveland, and even avowed Democrats had a strange distaste for the movement. (In actual Cleveland, I did meet people who viewed it positively, but they were all enthusiastic Democrats who would have turned out for Obama anyway). Seriously, I would love to see the Occupy movement be the key Democratic 'thing' next year -- they would get crushed.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Plus, the Occupy stuff is going to destroy him.

No. First off, it got taken apart and is no longer going on.

Then what was that event I just went to today?

[Frodo]

Please, keep him around.  The more GOP hacks we have around here the more fun it will be on election day.

I don't mind hacks, but CaDan is swiftly approaching Libertas and Einzige territory.  He needs to go. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

BWWHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Paulie and his fellow lefties don't seem to get the fact that when an incumbent polls below 50% they are in BIG BIG trouble.

Obama is under 50% against both Newt and Romney.

Undecided voters do not break toward the incumbent. They break for the challenger.

Illinois Governor Quinn must have gone down in flames in 2010. Oh wait.

[Gustaf]

BWWHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Paulie and his fellow lefties don't seem to get the fact that when an incumbent polls below 50% they are in BIG BIG trouble.

Obama is under 50% against both Newt and Romney.

Undecided voters do not break toward the incumbent. They break for the challenger.

Illinois Governor Quinn must have gone down in flames in 2010. Oh wait.

Yes, Quinn certainly was in no trouble, but cruised safely to a landslide reelection.

[Oakvale]

BWWHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Paulie and his fellow lefties don't seem to get the fact that when an incumbent polls below 50% they are in BIG BIG trouble.

Obama is under 50% against both Newt and Romney.

Undecided voters do not break toward the incumbent. They break for the challenger.

Illinois Governor Quinn must have gone down in flames in 2010. Oh wait.

Yes, Quinn certainly was in no trouble, but cruised safely to a landslide reelection.

I think you missed his point. In the weeks and months coming up to the election, Quinn consistently trailed Brady by at least five points, but ended up winning narrowly. Why? Because virtually all the undecideds broke for the incumbent, Quinn.

The idea that undecideds always break for the challenger is weakly supported at best, anyway. Hell, there's even another example from the 2010 elections to the contrary - Harry Reid trailed in almost every poll except for PPP giving him an insignificant one point lead, but ended up winning surprisingly comfortably.

[pbrower2a]

(inanity deleted)

Paulie and his fellow lefties don't seem to get the fact that when an incumbent polls below 50% they are in BIG BIG trouble.

Obama is under 50% against both Newt and Romney.

Undecided voters do not break toward the incumbent. They break for the challenger.

Lefties? At this stage I am dealing with random chance. Random chance has no partisan bias.

The undecided either split or don't vote.

If an incumbent is ahead 49-45 with 6 undecided, then there isn't much leeway for a challenger. The challenger then has the difficult task of showing that the incumbent is inadequate, which means that he must prove to some already convinced that the incumbent is OK that those people are wrong. Unless something goes catastrophically wrong for the incumbent (like an economic meltdown, a breaking scandal, or a diplomatic or military debacle, or an incumbent doing something incredibly stupid) that is unlikely. That has nothing to do with the challenger.

For a challenger behind 49-45 with no looming catastrophe, winning implies that 5 of 6 'undecided' votes go to the challenger. Of course it is possible that 5 of 6 undecided voters go to the challenger -- perhaps if the incumbent is up 59-35 and the 'undecided' are in ideological agreement with the challenger. The 1936, 1964, and 1972 elections may have been like that --  elections in which the eventual winner won so much of the "moderate" vote that the undecided were all ideologically on the Other Side.  When the split is roughly even, random chance suggests a near 50-50 split of the undecided who actually vote.

Recognize this: very rarely do incumbents now have approval ratings well above 50%, an d then only in ultra-safe seats. Governors must govern, and they are going to make decisions that the Other Side just does not like. Many issues have no middle ground.  Senators have voting records, and with perhaps 90% of votes falling along party lines, approval of most Senators breaks along party lines.  Presidents rarely get the chance to do something that satisfies people across the political spectrum -- like capturing Saddam Hussein or whacking Osama bin Laden. They advocate, sign, and veto legislation.

All in all the challengers usually start defining the quality of the campaign. As a rule they begin as harsh critics of the incumbent. They take plenty of cheap shots. That may be the only way in which to win the game, but that can fail catastrophically. Just take a look at the chances of Sarah Palin.  

If you saw the President's State of the Union Address, then you are going to recognize that the President called for much that will ultimately offend Republican sensibilities. He has asked for a larger role in the Federal Government for rectifying the disappearance of manufacturing jobs and 'failed' to call for changes in the tax code that would squeeze the lower-income groups more on behalf of the 'job creators' -- as the money-grabbers love to call themselves.  

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

BWWHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Paulie and his fellow lefties don't seem to get the fact that when an incumbent polls below 50% they are in BIG BIG trouble.

Obama is under 50% against both Newt and Romney.

Undecided voters do not break toward the incumbent. They break for the challenger.

Illinois Governor Quinn must have gone down in flames in 2010. Oh wait.

Yes, Quinn certainly was in no trouble, but cruised safely to a landslide reelection.

Umm, that wasn't the point. The point was that he was trailing something like 46-40, with 14% undecided, which means he should have lost in a landslide according to the undecideds break for the challenger rule.