Over the last several days, there has been an observable shift in right-wing attitude from one of cautious optimism and enthusiasm after the first debate to one of celebration over what they see as certain victory. This transition is observable today in recent pieces that are making their way around right-wing circles--proclaiming President Obama to be “toast.”
Redstate hinges its conclusion that Romney will win the election on two points. First, in their view Romney is leading in national polls, and more specifically with independent voters. Second, they believe that in order to win, the President will need turnout to be equal to the 2008 election or greater.
In talking to some Republican friends plugged into the right wing media network, the consensus on the first point is that if the national polls are against the President, then that larger popular vote will sweep the swing states along with it, brushing aside state polling showing a tighter race. On the second point, many right wing media outlets note that the President is losing ground in liberal strongholds like California, where recent polling shows support for the President to be lower than it was in 2008. They claim this is evidence of an “expanding” battleground, and point to polling in states like Minnesota which show that the President is unable to maintain a clear lead in what should be a secure state. The tide, in other words, is running against the President, and although he, the liberal media, and liberal polling outfits don’t know it yet, he will be swept out of office.
There are many different ways to look at trends. For my part, in looking at historical trends, I continue to believe that 2004 is instructive.
There are of course the narrative parallels: a president that alienated about half the public; a north eastern-type challenger labeled a flip-flopper; a president seeking a second term in uncertain economic times; a first debate performance in which the president failed to perform decisively, and where the challenger appeared poised, collected, and motivated; and a young upstart from Congress, with an ideology that is hated by the other side, picked as the challenger’s running mate.
Then there is the polling. In 2004, the race tightened significantly as election day neared, and just before the election, Bush maintained only a 1.5% advantage in national polls. On election night, however, Bush’s advantage was higher than what the polls predicted, and he beat Kerry 50.7% to 48.27% (or by 2.43%). This year, Republicans believe that since President Obama is either losing to Romney or tied with Romney in national polls, the President will lose because turnout will be even higher for Romney on election night than as predicted. 2004, however, proves that the incumbent can actually widen a polling lead on election night and outperform what the polls predict. This is the exact opposite of the result that Republicans anticipate.
Reviewing the 2004 battleground state polls is even more instructive. In Iowa, Bush’s aggregate polling lead according to Real Clear Politics (RCP), was at .3%, but on election night Bush the incumbent beat Kerry the challenger by .94%, outperforming the aggregate. Colorado was a swing state in 2004 as it is today, and the RCP average favored Bush with a 5.2% aggregate lead. On election night, Bush won the state by 6.45%, outperforming the aggregate. Bush also outperformed in Ohio, with a polling aggregate lead before the election of 2.1%, and an actual win by 2.39%. In Florida, RCP showed Bush with an average lead of just .6%, but on election night, he obliterated that number, and won Florida by 5.26%.
This is again the opposite of what confident Republicans are now claiming to be certain this time around, which is that the challenger outperforms what the polls predict on election night, even in states where the incumbent maintains a lead. The polling from 2004, however, was stunningly accurate if not overly conservative in its results, and utterly refutes this line of reasoning. Despite tight national polling, and very slim margins in the states, Bush nonetheless claimed victory in key states where the averages suggested he would, and often times by a larger margin than predicted. If President Obama does the same, he wins the election.
Republicans also conclude that any state where President Obama maintains a slight lead will actually be won by Romney. In 2004, however, the opposite was true. In states where polling average showed a slight lead, the candidate in the lead took the state by a margin that typically met or exceeded the polling aggregate’s margin. RCP showed Kerry ahead in Pennsylvania by an average of .9%, and on election night, Kerry took the state by 2.17%. In Michigan, RCP showed Kerry with an average lead of 3.5%, and on election night Kerry took the state by 3.45%. In New Hampshire, RCP showed an aggregate polling lead to Kerry of 1%, and on election night, Kerry took the state by 1.38%. In states like Colorado, Missouri, Nevada, the election also ultimately went how the polling aggregates predicted.
The outlier in the 2004 race was Wisconsin, where the RCP average showed a Bush aggregate lead of .9%, but on election night, Kerry took the state by .46%, which constituted a 1.36% swing. Even if there is that big of a swing this time around in states like Wisconsin or Ohio, it would not be enough to erase the 2% average lead that President Obama has maintained.
Indeed, there were may late polls in 2004 which showed wild swings in states where the polling-predicted winner was nonetheless victorious. Florida, for example, had two very late polls showing a Kerry lead by 5% and 2% respectively, but the aggregate predicted a Bush victory of .6%, and voting showed an actual Bush victory that was massively larger in scale than the .6% prediction. A late Ohio poll put Kerry ahead 4%, but the aggregate correctly predicted the Bush victory. A late poll in Pennsylvania showed Bush ahead 4%, and yet Kerry still secured a victory as the average had predicted.
Polling averages and methodical polling, whether Republicans like it or not, do usually yield reliable results. The hurricane and other unforseen factors may play a roll in this election, and nothing is certain. But as of now, the available evidence continues to make Obama the safest bet this election. The President is still leading in key swing states and the polling supports the conclusion that he will be able to carry those states on election night. Romney has of course closed the gap and is leading in other swing states, but where it counts, in states like Iowa, Ohio, and Nevada, the President maintains a superior position.
On the narrative front, there seems to be one more similarity between 2004 and 2012. Before the results were all in on election night in 2004, Bob Shrum, relying on the same reasoning the right wing media machine is relying on today (and skewed exit poll results), famously said to Kerry, “May I be the first to say ‘Mr. President’?” We all know how that turned out.
