Skip to main content

A rash of new polling out today shows more good news for Mitt Romney than bad news. Quinnipiac has a big improvement for the GOP nominee in the key battleground states of Florida and Ohio, with Romney even moving into an incremental advantage in the Sunshine State.

Having said that, though, it still remains awfully difficult to see where, given current numbers, Mitt Romney cobbles together a coalition that can get him to the White House. That includes one new poll entry today that continues to give the president a solid edge in a state that was a reliably Republican state for decades.

Here are all the numbers from Thursday:


NATIONAL (Democracy Corps): Obama tied with Romney (47-47)

NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Obama d. Romney (47-46)

NATIONAL (Rasmussen Tracking): Obama d. Romney (47-45)

"CORE FOUR" STATES—FL/NC/OH/VA (Rasmussen): Obama d. Romney (46-43)

ARIZONA (Magellan Strategies): Romney d. Obama (52-43)

FLORIDA (Quinnipiac): Romney d. Obama (44-43)

OHIO (Quinnipiac): Obama d. Romney (44-42)

PENNSYLVANIA (Quinnipiac): Obama d. Romney (47-39)

VIRGINIA (Washington Post): Obama d. Romney (51-44)

AZ-SEN (Magellan Strategies): Jeff Flake (R) 44, Richard Carmona (D) 40

MT-GOV (PPP): Steve Bullock (D) 39, Rick Hill (R) 39; Bullock 41, Ken Miller (R) 35

MT-GOV—R (PPP): Rick Hill 33, Ken Miller 12, Corey Stapleton 7, Neil Livingstone 5, Jim Lynch 4, Jim O'Hara 4, Bob Fanning 1

MT-SEN (Rasmussen): Denny Rehberg (R) 53, Sen. Jon Tester (D) 43

A few thoughts, as always, await you just past the jump...

  • The new Quinnipiac polls were a giant sigh of relief for Republicans, who breathlessly touted the numbers, especially in Florida. And, without question, it is lights out for Mitt Romney if he cannot manage to keep Florida in the GOP column (which this poll has him doing, albeit by a single point). However, there is one data point from the Q poll that is a pleasant surprise for Democrats, which is the increased support for the president in Pennsylvania, where a number of polls have shown a surprisingly close race. And therein lies the problem for Mitt Romney. So many states are already locked down for the Democrats, they have to draw the inside straight. In the states that are not already ordained as red or blue, Mitt Romney has to win the lion's share of them just to have a shot. And if you take Pennsylvania off the boards, as well as Virginia (where WaPo confirms PPP's numbers from earlier in the week), it doesn't take much else to pull the president across the re-election finish line.
  • GOP polling firm Magellan Strategies offers a little pushback today on recent polling which had Arizona essentially tied between Obama and Romney. However, the banner headline in that one might be a Republican pollster actually confirming an internal poll last week for Democrat Richard Carmona, with Magellan showing just a four-point spread in the race. This is especially intriguing, given that the Romney lead here is far wider than what we saw in either of last week's polls, making it hard to dismiss this as a pro-Dem poll.
  • With PPP showing a marginal lead for Jon Tester for the first time earlier in the week, perhaps we should have set a timer to see how long it would take the House of Ras to blow in with contrary data. Right on schedule, it dropped today, giving Rehberg a double-digit lead for the first time in anyone's polling of the race. Remember, the House also gave Republican Dean Heller of Nevada his biggest lead by far as well, a lead that surpassed even what Heller's own pollsters were selling late in 2011. It looks like the Ras-sies are back to outsized GOP advantages in their Senate polling, a trait we noted about a month or so ago.
  • It will be interesting to see if Ras drops either presidential or gubernatorial numbers here. For what it's worth, PPP offered up their guv numbers in the Big Sky country today, and found a tie between Steve Bullock and leading GOPer Rick Hill. That's pretty consistent: PPP has had this race close throughout. That might be slightly disappointing news for Team Bullock, however—PPP had both Obama and Tester doing markedly better in this go-round of polling compared to their previous effort here. Still, a Democrat is right there in a nominally GOP state (though, worth noting, a state currently represented by a Democratic governor in Brian Schweitzer).

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Thu May 03, 2012 at 05:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't see a Romney path to victory. (10+ / 0-)

    Markos has shown us the Electoral College side of things, but there's just a message side when you get down to it.  Obama isn't meaningfully susceptible to new attacks; the Republican critique has been known to everyone for three years and it's won over just about anyone who's susceptible to being won over.  Romney, on the other hand, has barely started his career as piñata: sure, in a handful of states he's been subject to attacks in the Republican primaries, but the nature of those attacks is totally unlike (in fact, almost the opposite of) what's in store for him.  It's much harder to imagine Obama losing support in the face of a barrage of negative ads than Romney.  And in terms of actual events and trends that could harm Obama, it's equally hard to imagine: precisely because we have such a desultory economy, it's not likely to get a lot worse except in arcane statistical ways that don't get much traction.  

    Romney '12: The Power of Crass Commands You!

    by Rich in PA on Thu May 03, 2012 at 05:14:43 PM PDT

    •  Too early to say that. (8+ / 0-)

      Obama right now is slightly favored, but it's too early to say Romney has no path to victory. One could easily see Romney close the gap, and Obama is in a rather weak position as an incumbent president running for reelection. There is still several months for the economy to take a sudden nosedive, or some other major event. I will say that Romney is rather weak as a GOP nominee, especially since his wealthy background will make it harder to capitalize on Obama's weakness with blue collar workers.

      •  You had a typo (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Obama is "overwhelmingly favored".

        Calling him slightly favored, now, is just way beyond logical.

        He has leads by 8%+ in states with enough delegates to give him the nomination.

        Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

        by tommypaine on Thu May 03, 2012 at 07:20:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He needs either Ohio or VA (0+ / 0-)

          Polls in both have been mixed, esp in VA, and the margin in Ohio is still <5%.  I am nervous about VA.  Ohio is once again essential.  I don't call that overwhelming.  He can win by 8%+ in all those 'safe" states but if he loses Ohio and VA by 50 votes each we are screwed.

          This assumes of course that if he loses VA he will likely have also lost FL and almost certainly NC.  A win in PS is assumed.

          •  Obama has been up in 3 polls in Virginia where (6+ / 0-)

            he gets 51% and Romney can't win if Obama is getting 51% of the votes.

            President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

            by Drdemocrat on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:25:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Last 4 polls in VA are mixed (0+ / 0-)

              all since 4/20

              Wash Post:  O-51  R-44
              PPP               O- 51   R - 43
              Rasmussen    O - 44  R - 45
              Purple Strategies  O-48  R - 46

              It looks good, but not a +8 avg.  And though Rasmussen always seems suspect, they called the last election very, very close.

              •  If by (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                "very, very close" you mean "consistently off in the Republicans' direction," then yes. I've also never heard of Purple Strategies before, so not sure if they have a track record to speak of.

                22, male, RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), moving to Japan in July, hopeless Swingnut

                by sapelcovits on Fri May 04, 2012 at 06:30:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  2008 Pres election (0+ / 0-)

                  final poll from  Rasmussen:   Obama - 52%  McCain 46%

                  Actual result:  Obama 52.9%  McCain  45.6%

                  This was better than Gallup, CBS, Marist, Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby, IBD, Fox, NBC, Diageo, and ABC/Wash Post.

                  Only CNN and Pew were as close.

                  I think generally they lean Rep, but they certainly should not be discounted.  Putting them as a data point in a summary assessment is best

                  •  His swing state polls were awful (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Over-inflated McCain almost everywhere. Then doubled-down in 2010. He seems to be getting even worse now. But I agree not to throw it out completely.

                    "There are a lot of reasons not to elect me." Mitt Romney (R-All Over The Map)

                    by conspiracy on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:27:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Rasmussen (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    askew, MichaelNY

                    The final result doesn't tell the story about this firm. The issue is they skew republican until the election nears and then they change their voter screens to match reality.

                    No one says they don't know how to poll, just that they use polling to prop up GOP candidate and help the right wing media fashion a narrative prior to the election cycle.

                    I would trust their polling within about 30 days of the election. Beyond that its almost complete BS.

                  •  Wow (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    he got one race right, therefore all of his other polling must be spot-on too! The man clearly has an agenda. I'd rather look at neutral polling sources or biased sources who at least aren't consistently biased in one direction (eg PPP).

                    22, male, RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), moving to Japan in July, hopeless Swingnut

                    by sapelcovits on Sun May 06, 2012 at 09:28:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  actually he doesn't (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            He can afford to lose both OH and VA if he holds NV, CO, IA, and NH. Of those 4 NH looks most vulnerable but he's up 9 in the 2 most recent polls there.

            SSP poster. 42, CA-5, -0.25/-3.90

            by sacman701 on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:08:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I also don't like this thing with China and the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Be Skeptical, Micheline, Supavash

        dissident. Could turn out to be bad PR...or could turn out to be very good, if Clinton arranges for him and family to come to US.

        Looks messy now.

        Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive. And... It’s the Supreme Court, stupid!

        by auapplemac on Thu May 03, 2012 at 08:09:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So far it's looking good for Obama, even Gallup (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Supavash, Sherri in TX, PorridgeGun, askew

        has Obama at 51% approval, 43% disapproval, numbers you haven't seen at Gallup since back in January 2010 according to my friend Tom.  

        In the 2008 elections there were 15 million less people who identified themselves as "liberals" than as "conservatives" (L/C ratio: 65%). Face it, this country is center-right. Moving it to the left is up to us!

        by healthy on Thu May 03, 2012 at 08:32:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  One actual event that could harm Obama: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Micheline, MichaelNY, JGibson

      Health reform being struck down by the Supreme Court.

      Remains to be seen how it plays out, but there's a danger there.

      •  That might harm him, or it might help him (6+ / 0-)

        politically, but if they strike down the entire law, it will be bad for the country, and though that's not on-topic for DKE, it's actually more important.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:16:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that will harm Obama (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, Sherri in TX, askew

        It may even take the wind out of the sales of the Republican party.

        President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

        by Drdemocrat on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:26:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How so? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, nimh

          If the Supreme Court goes full radical and strikes down the whole law, the Republican narrative will be: "We've been telling you for three years that Obama hates the Constitution; now the totally not-political Supreme Court agrees! Case closed."

          Over the long term, I think it'll be bad for Republicans once the public realizes that there will never be another large scale attempt at healthcare reform, ever, due to the issue's political toxicity.  Particularly as the market failure that is our heathcare system continues to fail spectacularly.  And it will certainly diminish the reputation of the Supreme Court for decades, just as every controversial decision has.

          But in the short term, I do worry the public will buy into thenarrative that Obama has a reckless disregard for the Constitution, and that this Fox News talking point has been validated by a Court that the public still wants to believe is not influenced by Fox News.  I don't see an upside here for Obama, besides a broad decision infuriating and energizing the liberal base (whose votes Obama locked down sometime in the late 1960's).

          •  The decision will put in sharp relief (0+ / 0-)

            the fact that the Republicans have no alternative plan, whereas President Obama will vow to craft a new plan that works within the bounds of the ruling.

            There's also another possibility, which is that the Court might invalidate the individual mandate, and it could be replaced by a tax or some other means.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:07:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They've had no plan for decades! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              We kind of know what that would look like (deregulate, allow the sale of health insurance across state lines, deregulate, voucherize Medicaid, etc), and this message won them over 60 House seats in 2010.  As with all health reform ideas, it's easy to get people to nod along to vague ideas before an election, and much more difficult to prevent hysterical outcry once concrete proposals start to circulate.  The public wouldn't turn against Freepercare until long after the election, when real legislation was proposed.

              If the Court invalidates the mandate, how would we ever get the votes to replace it with something?  The Republicans will just block everything.

    •  I don't either (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, camlbacker, Supavash, askew

      He would have to pull an inside straight.

      But it doesn't look like he will be able to do that for I would argue that Virginia isn't a swing state if Obama is getting 51%.

      President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

      by Drdemocrat on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:23:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My view has always been (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That Mitt Romney can't beat President Obama. Outside events, though, can beat Obama. If we have a double dip recession, if some of the European economies that are teetering right now worsen it could have ramifications for the president's chances.

      If these things happen and Mitt Romney can portray himself as a steady steward of the economy he can win. But if things remain as they are for the next 6 months, Obama will win.

      And if that happens, I'm guessing electorally it won't be particularly close. Because the Prez's GOTV operation is superior and he'll win states like Ohio, New Hampshire, Colorado and maybe North Carolina and Florida that are going to be basically tied on election day.

  •  Quinnipiac FLA post has a very high undecided (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    The basic rule of thumb for understanding where VA, FLA, and NC will go is to work off the VA numbers.  Whatever lead or trailing number Obama has in VA, take 3 or 4 points off for that margin in FLA, and then take about another 2 more for NC.  

    So if according to PPP and Wash Post Obama is ahead in VA by 7 or 8 points, then he would be ahead in FLA by approx. 4 and ahead in NC by 2.

    •  Not sure where you're getting that (4+ / 0-)

      Just because that may reflect relative performance at one point does not mean it will hold true for this election.

    •  Hard to say if that will apply this time (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog, MichaelNY, IT Professional, nimh

      state demographics change, that is why VA and NC are competitive to begin with. That is certainly why states out west are becoming less competitive in the dems favor. The continuum you describe above closely reflects what happened in 08, but this year I expect some differences.

      I expect OH and PA to be closer in their results, though PA will still be more dem-leaning.

      I expect Obama to improve slightly in NC but decline slightly in FL.

      And I expect a markedly different result in AZ, though at this point I don't expect an Obama win.

      •  I agree with David. I think VA's rank order (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DCCyclone, MichaelNY

        has improved significantly for Dems for some reason, maybe backlash to the ultra-sound governer?  

        What follows is a replication of a previous comment based on the margins kos showed day before yesterday.


        If we get a couple more polls like this we may have to move VA up the "rank order" of Democratic Leaning States.  

        A few days ago, I rank order kos' battleground table in order of margin, to see if I could get a more precise take on the "swing state," by Nate Silver's definition and was surprised to see VA higher than some other traditionally "more Democratic states,"  such as MI, PA, NH, and even OH.  If our advantages hold up in NV, NM, and CO, it looks like we can win with any two of OH, PA, VA, NC, or just FL, or just one of OH, and PA, if we were to take IA, and NW.

        Here's the way it looked based then:

        NM  + 14.0
         CO     13.0
         NV     7.6
         WI     7.0
         VA     6.9
         MI     6.1
         OH    5.0  
         PA     4.6
         NH    3.9
         NC    3.1
         FL     0.3
         AZ  - 1.6
         IA   - 2.0
         MO - 5.0

        How wierd will it be to say "well, we can count on Democratic base state NV, CO, and VA,  if we can only pick up those "iffy" state like PA, NH, MI, and

        The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by HoundDog on Thu May 03, 2012 at 06:11:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The tandem movement (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Be Skeptical, MichaelNY, Sherri in TX

          Between VA, FLA, and NC has been noted by political pros in the South for some time; and can roughly be seen in Pres election results for the past 3 cycles.  I understand David's tweaks but still the paradigm remains: VA sets the ceiling and FLA and then NC follow.

        •  Yeah (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, dufffbeer, savvyspy, askew

          At this point I don't even expect Colorado to be that competitive.

          Virginia and North Carolina are very interesting in that John Kerry managed to hold even with Gore's numbers in those states, despite Kerry getting creamed elsewhere in the South.  Specifically, if you look into the details, Kerry actually improved upon Gore's numbers in the cities of Virginia and North Carolina, setting the stage for Obama's blowout numbers in the urban areas and his victories in both states.

          Demographic changes are definitely working to our favor in both of those states, and in Virginia it is so drastic that Romney might still lose the state even if he wins the national popular vote, meaning Virginia would actually be more Dem-leaning than the country as a whole.

          As for the last part of your post, I'm not quite ready to buy that PA and MI are going to be less Democratic than former red states CO and VA, but the polls have been weird.  I still suspect that whether Obama wins or loses re-election, he will still perform at least slightly better in PA and MI than in CO and VA.

          That may change in the future.

  •  Democracy Corps (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Interesting that national polls, even by a dem friendly like Democracy Corps pollster are still even, or close to it, while the state polls seem to show Romney with a difficult road to get to 270.  Any thoughts on the divergence from Kossack land.  This could be an election with a cl0ose popular vote and a landslide in the EC

  •  Can we have a discussion of AZ-Sen? (7+ / 0-)

    I think this may the largest sleeper race in this cycle.  Polls have showed it being as wide as a 13 point lead for Flake, to as slim as a 4 point lead for Flake.

    Now, I personally think it would have been much better if Terry Goddard jumped into this race, but unfortunately, that hasn't happened, but the Primary is in September, so he could jump in I guess.

    Flake's old district is 7 points more republican than the state is as a whole, which leads to a potential opening for a Moderate Democrat to jump in there, especially in a presidential year when the state's native son isn't on the ballot.

    I just hope Obama tries to make a legitimate run at this state, because any help we can get when it comes to this senate race, which I believe is quite winnable, would be welcome.

    I have a few relatives who live in AZ and I will be lobbying them hard to vote for Carmona (my grandfather comes from Canada, so it shouldn't be that hard).

    What does everyone else think?  Am I off in looney land thinking this could be a legit seat flip, or does this race have some potential?

    Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-14 (college) Join r/elections on reddit! Support Sukhee Kang for CA-45!

    by Daman09 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 06:23:17 PM PDT

    •  Team Obama is indeed planning to seriously target (10+ / 0-)

      the state and if successful with the registration drive that will entail, it would undoubtedly help the chances of the Dem Senate candidate as well.

    •  Goddard got creamed (0+ / 0-)

      in 2010. Now granted, that was 2010, but why do you think he would have been a better candidate than former Surgeon General to GW Bush, Carmona?

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:22:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because nobody here (0+ / 0-)

        has heard of Carmona and everyone knows Goddard - and at one point Goddard was pretty popular here.

      •  Goddard (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        He polled very competitively against Flake several months ago and still has decent favorables. He easily won 2 terms as attorney general and lost in 2010 mainly because he was up against a fairly popular (like it or not) GOP incumbent in a very red year. Carmona may have a higher ceiling than Goddard, but a few months ago he was completely unproven as a candidate. So far he has done better than expected, but there is still a long way to go.

        SSP poster. 42, CA-5, -0.25/-3.90

        by sacman701 on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:13:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She wasn't very popular (0+ / 0-)

          until that anti-immigration law was passed, and they voted for her in spite of her demonstrating that she was an idiot who totally blanked at a debate and made up shit. I'm supposed to give Goddard a pass for losing to that kind of terrible opponent, even in 2010? I sure hope the people of Arizona are less stupid in 2012 than they were in 2010, because they - collectively, not as individuals - deserve to be insulted for having reelected Ms. Stupid.

          But I have to admit that Floridians, having elected an actual criminal as Governor, stand perhaps a bit more than an even chance of reelecting President Obama and probably at least a 60% chance of reelecting Senator Nelson, so maybe even some of the (re)elections of complete jokes in 2010 should be considered flukes, to some extent.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:49:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  He only did about 4 points worse than state's PVI (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        And, you would have to come up with some pretty good evidence if you want to contend that 2010 wasn't anything less than a +6 R election (looking at house numbers nationally, the GOP won by a 6.6 margin in 2010).

        He did better than he should have, especially when John McCain, someone not loved by many these days, won with a 24 point margin, basically, ten points better than Brewer.

        Swingnut since 2009, 21, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-14 (college) Join r/elections on reddit! Support Sukhee Kang for CA-45!

        by Daman09 on Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:54:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I live in AZ (0+ / 0-)

      Flake is very well known here. Carmona is not. Here's another down side of a Flake win - he's relatively young - 49. He would be in the Senate for a long, long time - like McCain.

  •  PPP tweets that Obama doing well (18+ / 0-)

    in their first night of Iowa polling. So maybe that last Selzer poll was an outlier. But it's just one night so we'll see.

  •  That Q poll in Ohio... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, MichaelNY, Delilah, Quege

    Actually doesn't have me worrying.  Q had it at +6 last time, but it was at +2 before that in February.  I still see him as having a mid single digits lead in Ohio, and I think we win it.

    No... Florida is the tossup here, and was always going to be.

  •  Why keep saying Pennsylvania is a swing state? (9+ / 0-)

    It's a Democratic state. The last time a Republican presidential candidate won it was 1988.  Sure it has Republican parts, but so do lots of Democratic states (like New York, California, Maryland, etc).  A Republican picked up its Senate seat in the 2010 wave election, but the same happened in Wisconsin and Illinois.
    For Republicans to take Pennsylvania they would need to win a national 2008 sized victory in the opposite direction.  If it's a close national election then Pennsylvania is not in play.  If Pennsylvania is in play then it's not a close election, Obama already lost bigtime.

    •  Pennsylvania and Texas are peers (0+ / 0-)

      Once Texas gets called a swing state, then PA can be called one (on a presidential level).

      Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

      by tommypaine on Thu May 03, 2012 at 07:24:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  TX has been more Republican for President (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nimh, terjeanderson, sacman701

        than PA has been Democratic, per PVI.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:25:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Texas will never be a swing state (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        In order for Texas to be a true swing state, it would have to affect the outcome of the presidential race.  Barring some radical electoral realignment, it's not possible for there to even be a close national contest if Texas is up for grabs -- this scenario would suggest double-digit wins for the Democrat in FL, PA, OH, VA, NC, GA, MO, and so on and so forth.  Texas could only be competitive in a Democratic landslide.

        In the modern era, no political party has lost four elections in a row.  Parties course correct to remain competitive.  If there's ever an election where Texas is in play, the Republicans will move sharply to the left Eisenhower style to make up the lost ground.

        •  Definition (5+ / 0-)
          In order for Texas to be a true swing state, it would have to affect the outcome of the presidential race.
          Unless you're Nate Silver, you just defined a tipping point state. A swing state is one that has a realistic chance, in a close election, of going either way.

          And in that respect, TX has not been a swing state in several cycles and is unlikely to be this time, either. But I'd caution you that there are demographic trends in the Democrats' favor, and that few Americans really thought Obama would win IN or NC last time, either, so though I really don't think Obama can win TX, I won't be flabbergasted if the margin is a lot closer than it was last time.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:11:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  TX could absolutely be a swing state someday, IF (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, JGibson, terjeanderson

            it continues to blue-shift AND some of the old-industrial eastern and midwest states continue to red-shift.    Or, as eg suggests, if the GOP completely realigns and thus scrambles the board.  

            "Texas has been a solid Silly-Party state for many years, but now all bets are off with the rapid rise of the Slightly Silly Party..."

        •  Wrong on all points (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, terjeanderson

          TX is inevitably headed to blue territory. Democraphics is destiny and voting age citizens in Texas will sport a latino majority in well under a generation. The 2032 election will be competitive in Texas only if it's a national Republican landslide.

          TX won't be a swing state this year, but it will be soon, probably in 2020. Then for an election or two it'll be swingy before settling into the D column. In any of those races, TX could be a swing state.

          Also, unless the 'modern era' somehow doesn't start until many years after the Second World War ended, the Dems did indeed win five elections in a row from 1932 to 1948. If you're waiting until long after the war, there hasn't really been enough time to measure if any party will win four or more in a row. There have been three in a row twice very recently (1980-1988, 1992-2000). One could easily say that three or more in a row is more common than not.

          •  You're ignoring another possibility (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            which is that the Republican Party will moderate itself before we get close to 2032.

            The Republican Party has since the days of Reaganism been the party of low taxes for the rich and low benefits for the non-rich. Everything else is for the moment and can be dropped if necessary.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:13:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Relevant, but actually in a different way (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, Newt, Sherri in TX

              If the GOP moderates, it will help attract white moderate suburbanites in places like Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, etc.

              Whereas the blue trend in Texas will not be stopped by GOP moderation because minority groups will not start supporting the GOP any time soon. Demographics here really is destiny.

              A moderation by the GOP actually speeds Texas's trip to tipping point status because it would place Texas to the left of places like Pennsylvania (assuming their moderation re-attracted suburbanites).

              Not that I think the GOP will moderate itself any time soon, nor do I think that such a moderation will place those states in play.

              22, Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (Taught; B.A. in Political Philosophy/Science), TX-17 (Lived); Left, right, back to the middle... Taste my skittles?

              by wwmiv on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:40:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Modern Era (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The modern era in presidential politics is from 1952 onward. We define it this way in political science for two reasons: 1) polling becomes much more accurate at this time, so we're able to accurately forecast winners and losers using such methods and 2) economic data becomes much more thorough in the middle of the depression (indeed as a result of), which leads to a better political understanding (we exclude the first few elections due to FDR's overwhelming popularity as a wartime president. I.E. a "fresh" start).

            22, Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (Taught; B.A. in Political Philosophy/Science), TX-17 (Lived); Left, right, back to the middle... Taste my skittles?

            by wwmiv on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:44:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  TX (0+ / 0-)

            The democrats haven't been competitive in Texas since Ann Richards was governor. The democratic party in Texas was routed in 2010 and the party is barely a minority party.

            I'm not buying a state that hasn't voted for a democrat for President in decades, has has GOP Senators for 20 years, has no democratic statewide office holders, and is the minority to a GOP supermajority in both state houses is a "swing state"

            I not even going to get into that POS governor they keep electing by landslides that is as dumb as rusty hammer.

            Texas is about as much of a swing state as Utah is.

    •  Not to mention Romney isn't the kind of Repub (8+ / 0-)

      That will sell well in Pennsylvania.  Most of the votes he will get will be "Anti-Obama" rather than "Pro-Romney".

    •  Republican war on women will hurt them in se PA. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      majcmb1, MichaelNY, Sherri in TX, lina

      especially, and two statewide northeastern candidates (ag and senate) will help Democrats there. It's hard to see Willard winning Pa. Perhaps most interesting will be Democratic chances at taking the Pa. House (forget about the state senate).

    •  It was very marginally dem in 00 & 04 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, terjeanderson

      and nationally the race was close both those years, so it isn't so strongly dem as all that. It's been about D+3 in the last three presidentials.

  •  I don't buy the Q polls in OH and FL (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madmojo, Supavash

    Too many undecided.  No real movement or Rmoney; conflicts with other state polling.

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 07:30:02 PM PDT

  •  This is good news for Ron Paul. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Speaking of polls, Obama is 51% on Gallup. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, Supavash, Sherri in TX, askew

    Reagan was 52% at this time in his reelection timeline.

    I was seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his creation - the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence. --The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley

    by Wildthumb on Thu May 03, 2012 at 08:21:26 PM PDT

  •  Obama opend his 25th FL office (12+ / 0-)

    Obama has 600 campaign people in FL. Mittens has 93.

    Mittens is going to shift his primary campaign to the general election.

    Him primary campaign was to get out there an try to look like a business man savior while is friends drop a shit ton of negative ads in hopes of burying Obama in negativity.

  •  Tester is (D), not (R). (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, sapelcovits, camlbacker, askew

    Up-to-date weather forecasts and information at State of the Skies.

    by weatherdude on Thu May 03, 2012 at 08:41:24 PM PDT

  •  Romney's path to 270? (7+ / 0-)

    It's quite simple, actually: a uniform national swing in opinion that pushes blue-leaning states into the red column.

    It's borderline tautological to say that, if the numbers stay as they are, Obama will win. Well, duh. But pre-convention polls have very little predictive power, so we have no good guidance as to whether they will.

    You are reading my signature line. #hashtag

    by cardinal on Thu May 03, 2012 at 08:42:58 PM PDT

  •  If April jobs come in below 100k tomorrow, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, Supavash

    the media narrative instantly becomes extremely negative for Obama and the Presidential #s flip overnight.  All the right wingers are gleefully awaiting bad job numbers tomorrow, gloating that tomorrow marks the beginning of the end of the Obama Presidency.

    Trust-Fund Kids of America Unite... save the Bush tax cuts!

    by JCPOK on Thu May 03, 2012 at 08:47:30 PM PDT

  •  Romney is a very passive candidate so far (8+ / 0-)

    He doesn't seem able to make headlines or dominate the news cycle. His attacks on Obama come off as very canned and artificial.

    Even Republicans seem to be noticing this:

    Then again, maybe he's counting on gazillions of negative ads to win it for him like in the primary.

  •  Mitt will rise in the pools because Economy will (0+ / 0-)

    weaken. We had a warm winter and the seasonal adjusting was all nonsense this year - basically the summer jobs started earlier. There was not as much growth I am afraid. Something will have to happen. We need an infrastructure bill - something before November.

  •  Mixing "horse race" and Ramones (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zack from the SFV

    "Carmona not Glue"?

    The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges. ~ Anatole France

    by ActivistGuy on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:38:04 PM PDT

  •  which would you rather have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    a more liberal supreme court or a more liberal congress?

    Although its tempting to want to take back congress in 2014, I'd rather Obama wins re-election so that the dems get fresh blood on the court so that the next time the democrats do get a trifecta, they don't have to worry about the courts getting in there way.

    also known as "AquarianLeft" on RedRacingHorses

    by demographicarmageddon on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:01:38 PM PDT

    •  If the Republicans win the Senate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wwmiv, nimh

      who do you think they'd vote for for Supreme Court, if anyone? The Democrats have to have control of the Senate, and may have to abolish or alter the Filibuster Rule, in order for President Obama to have a chance to make the Supreme Court more liberal, and that depends on one of the radical right-wing Justices retiring or dying, which is certainly possible but far from a sure thing. I think the most likely retirement in the near term is Justice Ginsburg.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:15:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  true (0+ / 0-)

        but they can't nix a pick more than twice. They have to settle with somebody. My guess is Obama would pick a dem equivalent to Anthony Kennedy.

        Fortunately, there's still a good possibility that the democrats keep the senate in 2012 and if they don't it will only be a narrow GOP minority, which means that there will be at least a few republicans (maybe Kirk or Collins) who would vote for the nominee.

        also known as "AquarianLeft" on RedRacingHorses

        by demographicarmageddon on Fri May 04, 2012 at 06:39:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, nimh, JGibson

      We need the Senate to make that happen. Even now, the most likely retirees in the next four years are liberals on the court, and they're likely to be replaced not by liberals but by compromise moderate to maybe even slightly conservative picks, which will have the effect of moving the court to the right. Unfortunately.

      22, Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (Taught; B.A. in Political Philosophy/Science), TX-17 (Lived); Left, right, back to the middle... Taste my skittles?

      by wwmiv on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:15:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Also, I assume 2014 is a typo. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:15:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  AZ Flake v. Carmona (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    are interesting numbers. I think everyone here knows who Flake is - and he's relatively popular. Carmona on the other hand is not well known.

    •  And yet he's only 4 points behind (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      in a couple of polls already. You seem pessimistic. I'm not. I think the big voter registration drive OFA is conducting in AZ might bring with it a Carmona victory. I consider this a Lean-R race, but definitely not close to safe for Flake.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:46:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Alarming media pattern in all this (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash, MHB, savvyspy, askew

    Though not at all unexpected.

    I'm sure I'm not the only one around here to notice even at this early stage that whenever His Mittens gets a poll that even falls within the realm of "encouraging" the media is all over it like white on rice.

    Grrr...His Mittens gets a point ahead of Obama in FL and is still remains two points behind in OH and this is news???

    We need to be very vigilant, my friends, this is going to be a bumpy election!

    What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

    by equern on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:37:00 AM PDT

  •  Most useless polls? (0+ / 0-)

    I don't see where national polls do any good since we all know that the popular vote doesn't decide elections.  The state polls are the ones we need to watch and, even then, we should wait a few months before worrying.  I worry that we're watching the horse race and not focusing on the issues.

  •  OK, Arizona? (0+ / 0-)

    I haven't had any coffee yet, and I may be hallucinating. I copied and pasted that into word and blew it way up to read it a few times.

    Does that have Obama winning AZ (according to polling) 52-43? Arizona? I love Arizona, and travel there multiple times a year, but 52-43? Even if our guy is up, could he really be up that much?

    I would think R-money would be doing very well with the large Mormon population in the north, which means Obama must be winning the latino vote by mega-margins.

    "Nach dem Spiel ist vor dem Spiel." ~Sepp Herberger

    by surfbird007 on Fri May 04, 2012 at 06:47:40 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site