Election Race Analysis: 9 Days Out

Here's the promised "horse race" analysis 9 days before the election.  The fallout from the three presidential and one vice presidential debates has had its effect and the race has stabilized into its final contours.  In a nutshell, President Obama retains has the electoral college advantage and the inside track for re-election, but Mitt Romney remains close and still has a reasonable chance to win.

We start with the states where one candidate has a big and likely insurmountable lead.  For Obama that's 18 states and the District of Columbia for 237 electoral votes (EVs).  Romney has 23 states worth 191 EVs securely in his column.  That leaves 9 states worth 110 EVs still up for grabs.  With 538 total EVs at stake, it takes 270 to win the White House.  So Obama needs 33 of those still-to-be-won 110 EVs while Romney would need 79 of them.  You can easily see that is a steeper hill for the challenger.  So let's look more closely at those remaining nine states.  

Three of the tossup states are leaning fairly strongly to one side.  These are North Carolina, Nevada and Wisconsin.  Recent polls give Romney a consistent 3.8% average margin in the race for North Carolina's 15 EVs.  Obama has twin 2.3% leads in Wisconsin (10 EV) and Nevada (6), and observers rate the Obama turnout operations strong in those states as well.  So let's put these three states in their respective columns.  That brings Obama to 253 and Romney to 206.

That leaves us, barring major unforeseen news developments or surprising statewide election upsets, with 6 states totalling 79 EVs that will decide the next president.  Obama needs 17 EVs out of this group and Romney needs 64.  From most to least EVs they are:

Florida, 29 EV.  Romney has to have Florida.  If Obama wins the Sunshine State it's game over.  Recent polls give Romney an average of a 1.8% edge.  It was nip and tuck until the first debate, after which Romney took the small lead he still holds.  The subsequent debates stalled Romney's surge, but Obama has not been able to reverse it.  It's still close but Florida is a big state, and the bigger they are the harder they are to turn around.  Romney has a pretty strong chance to win here, probably over 60%.

Ohio, 18 EV.  Romney has to have Ohio, too.  But it doesn't look good for him.  Obama holds a 1.9% average lead in the state both campaigns are visiting the most and spending more money in than any other.  The Buckeye State is Obama's firewall.  As long as he stays ahead here he is assured of victory.  That's why both sides will spare no expense or effort in Ohio in the last nine days.  Watch this call closely on Election Night, because it may tell the story early.  

Virginia, 13 EV.  Obama had a narrow lead until the first debate, when Romney went ahead.  Since then it has been moving back Obama's way.  The average of recent polls shows Virginia as a dead even tie, though two of three recent polls give Obama the edge.  Expect this one to linger a long time before the networks call it on Election Night.  It's the Washington, D.C. suburbs in the Northern part of Virginia for the President against the more conservative Southern part of the Old Dominion for the GOP.  If Obama loses Ohio this is his next best line of defense.  If Romney takes Florida and Ohio, a win here starts to make his chances for the presidency look good.

Colorado, 9 EV.  Like Virginia, the latest polling average finds Colorado as a dead heat.  Also like Virginia, it's a state where Obama had a pre-debate advantage, Romney reversed that, and now it's back to even.  The most recent surveys are going Obama's way. 

Iowa, 6 EV.  Obama is up 2.3% in recent poll averages, and the latest surveys continue to show a narrow Obama lead.

New Hampshire, 4 EV.  The average has Obama in the lead by only 1.4% in a small state, so that's not many people.  The latest polls are on both sides, too, some showing Romney ahead and others Obama.  This one could really go either way. 

To sum up, Obama wins if he takes Florida or Ohio.  He can also win by prevailing in Virginia and any one of the smaller states of Colorado, Iowa or Hew Hampshire.  If Romney were to take Florida, Ohio and Virginia, Obama would have to win all three of the smaller states to hold his job.  To sum it all up statistically, as it currently stands Obama has better than a 70% likelihood of winning the election, and Romney a little less than 30%. 

For a look at some good sources, go to the FiveThirtyEight or Real Clear Politics web sites.




       

The End Game Begins

President Obama emerged as the clear winner in the third debate last night.  A synopsis of polls taken after the foreign policy discussion found the president besting the challenger by as much as a margin of 30 points, 53% to 23%. Obama was very much the seasoned commander in chief while Romney was strangely passive, agreeing with the President on the substance of important policies time and again.  Though strong performances in the second and third debates appear to have blunted the momentum Mitt Romney gained after the first debate, there is little evidence this latest face-off changed many votes. 

The Obama camp was apparently thinking along the same lines as my Saturday blog, "What Obama Needs to Do," for as both men opened tours of battleground states, Obama unveiled his own 5-point economic plan on the campaign trail today.  Titled "A Plan for Jobs & Middle Class Security" the "glossy new 20-page magazine" lays out a directly competing blueprint to Romney's.  The five points are education and training, manufacturing, energy, the deficit and "ending the war in Afghanistan to do some nation building here at home."  Click on the last link to examine the program in detail or see the President's latest 60-second ad introducing the initiative.

The economic plan contains focused versions of proposals Obama has already been advocating for some time.  What is novel (and more effective) is putting them together in a concise and pithy way in the manner Romney has done with his own plan.  Having this ready and printed with ads already recorded clearly shows the campaign had been planning this roll out to coincide with the end of the debates.  The timing for this to come out now, at this late date just two weeks before the election, can only be seen as intentional and carefully considered.  This was unquestionably the right thing to do.  

I'll get back to you with a "horse race" analysis piece at the end of the week once new tracking polls have digested the impact of the debate, the Obama economic roll out and the beginning of the two sides' closing appeals.

What Obama Needs to Do

We now head into the home stretch of the election campaign.  The last of three debates will be Monday and election day follows fifteen days later.  The election promises to be close, and could go either way.  At this late juncture, what can the Obama campaign do to regain its earlier edge, or at least enough of an edge to win?

The first debate legitimized the Romney candidacy.  His campaign was flagging and slowly falling farther behind.  The Obama strategy had been to make him unacceptable, and the strategy was working.  But then a weak debate performance by the President derailed that strategy.  Romney became an acceptable alternative to many people who hadn't thought so before.

The second debate seems to have arrested Romney's momentum.  Obama was prepared, back on his game, and in command.  Analyst Nate Silver, whose FiveThirtyEight site has an unblemished track record at this sort of thing, currently pegs Obama with an electoral lead of 289 to 249 and a 68% probability of winning the election.  Yet that margin is razor-thin.  A turnaround in closely-contested Ohio and any other single state Obama leads in and Romney would win.

Monday's debate will be on foreign policy.  In order to do well, Obama will need to offer a cogent explanation and defense of the Administration's handling of events in Libya, Syria and Iran, where Romney will surely be on the attack.  China policy will come up too, and will offer an opportunity for both candidates to give their pitches on the economy, which is what the American people most want to hear about.  And it is here, I believe, that Obama must change his strategy to make headway toward securing victory in this election.

It is valid to point out that Romney's economic plans are "sketchy" and "don't add up," as the President frequently says.  They are a combination of talking points and vagaries, justified by laughable inconsistencies in basic arithmetic.  But the likelihood that one candidate is trying to sell snake oil in and of itself may not beat him if the other candidate has nothing to replace it with.  Obama's pitch is mostly that Romney's plan is no good.  As for himself, Obama points to the mess he inherited, then talks about the Detroit bailout, green jobs, and that indicators such as unemployment, and that home starts, prices and foreclosures have been trending better of late.  What he lacks is a memorable vision of what he will do if elected to a second term.  Romney can recite his Five Point Plan.  It may mostly be smoke and mirrors but at least it is a plan.  In my view, the President needs one of his own if he is to make his re-election more than a fifty-fifty proposition.  Just today Paul Ryan said of Obama, "He's not even telling you what he plans on doing."

A winning plan ought to touch on manufacturing, preserving Social Security and Medicare, energy, infrastructure, education and comprehensive fiscal reform, i.e. something like Simpson-Bowles to attack the deficit problem.  Obama does have ideas and initiatives on all of these, but really needs to encapsulate them in an easy-to-remember six point plan.  You can't fight something with nothing, and without his own economic plan firmly fixed in the voters' minds a lot of people will opt for the guy with a sketchy plan over the guy seemingly without one.  The third debate will provide an audience of at least 50 million people, the largest viewership left for either campaign to make its last best appeal.  We'll see if the President and his team are on top of this one.  They need to be, and it's getting very late in the game. 

Is This the Best We Can Do?

Fellow Visalian Bill Osak did some research on the lamentable record of our local U.S. Representative, Devin Nunes, who has been our congressman since 2002.  Bill circulated the message below and I felt it interesting enough to secure his permission to post it on this blog.  I've done just a bit of light editing.

 

Former Republican Senator Alan K. Simpson wrote, in a criticism of fellow Republicans, "If you want to be a purist, go somewhere on a mountaintop and praise the east or something.  But if you want to be in politics, you learn to compromise.  And you learn to compromise on the issue without compromising yourself.  Show me a guy who won't compromise and I'll show you a guy with rock for brains."

 

It's election time and where does our representative, Devin Nunes stand?
 

A less than average voting record shows that our representative voted against the Home Affordable mortgage program and voted against anti-recession stimulus funding. At the same time he voted against monitoring the TARP funds to ensure mortgage relief. Our representative voted against the auto bailout and against regulating the subprime mortgage industry responsible for the biggest equity loss in American history. Yet he expends political capital by strongly supporting an unlikely constitutional amendment to ensure marriage is between one man and one woman. He did not support funding for green public schools or federal funding for education. So where does he stand on energy issues that impact our wallet? Well, he voted against tax credits or incentives for renewable energy production and conservation efforts. He also voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC that “fix” prices. It is interesting, though, he would not remove oil and gas exploration subsidies to companies having huge profits. His vision includes more off-shore drilling and more nuclear plants. Supporting Amtrak is not his style as well. He consistently votes against Amtrak funding for improvements and operation. While he has voted against education funding, he also has voted against assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization. This is an odd position since he has favored several open trade treaties in South America that allow cheap goods to be imported and jobs exported. He is against “police state” union organizing, increasing the minimum wage, and any extension of unemployment benefits.

 

So what has he done to court favor here in the heartland of the valley? Depending on your station in life, different opinions will arise regarding his continued support of the Ryan budget plan, changing Medicare to a voucher program, and continuing the Bush tax and spending cuts that benefit the wealthy. One might think that since his district suffers economically, he would support expanding the Children Health Insurance Program and increase eligibility of the children in his district. But alas, his votes did not reflect that. Though the Medicare population here has similar economic issues, our representative has sided instead with corporate profit by voting against “negotiated Rx prices”while reducing Medicare prescription drug benefits.
 

It is a surprising fact that he voted NO to increasing the funds for waterway infrastructure from $4.9 billion to $23 billion. Apparently, water issues are not all that important to him.
 

Supporters often cite his strength in foreign affairs. After all, he has voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan, NO on getting out of Iraq, YES on declaring Iraq part of the war on terror, (thus starting 2 wars that can demonstrate American superiority.) He voted NO on supporting democratic institutions in Pakistan but supported foreign arms transfers to China. More worrisome is his YES vote on supporting Israel unconditionally. He votes consistently to stop funding for National Public Radio, is against gun registration, but supports photo IDs in federal elections.
 

So do YOU have a representative that reflects the wants and needs here in the valley? The “fiscal cliff” in January is looming and our representative played a role in the last downgrade of the US dollar.
 

I suggest that you look at Otto Lee , successful businessman and Iraq veteran as the alternative choice. Mr. Nunes, who has missed more votes than the average congressman, does not represent us nor has he been successful as a congressman. The above represents the votes that Nunes has taken since 2006. If you are happy with his inability to be effective, vote. If you do not like his positions, vote for Lee. We need to have a voice at the table and not someone who fits Alan Simpson's description. See the website http://ottoforcongress.org/about.html for more information.
 

Devin Nunes has a $2 million fund and is so confident of his re-election that little effort is being made here in his district. The only way to rock the boat and let him know change is needed is to get the word out and let people know there really is a good choice this time around. Circulate this email if you agree.

 

Joe Biden Comes Through in Debate

Joe Biden definitely got the job done in a spirited performance against Paul Ryan in their debate last night, winning the debate50% to 31% among undecided voters, according to CBS News.  In doing so, Biden did much to blunt GOP momentum and set things up for the crucial Obama-Romney rematch coming next Tuesday.  The Vice President was extremely good on foreign policy topics and highly effective on domestic policy.  For his part, Congressman Ryan was able to get his message out and avoid any big mistakes, though the Republican representative was short on specifics and outdebated on several issues.  You can watch the debate here. 

Biden was at his best on foreign policy.  He deftly handled Ryan's criticisms on Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and defense spending, turning the issues back against Ryan's contentions.  Ryan's best criticism was on Libya, the first item brought up by on-the-ball moderator Martha Raddatz.  Biden's answer that intelligence was slow to come in may be true but lacked strength.  After that Biden asserted mastery over his younger rival.  Ryan was for American troops spearheading major new operations in eastern Afghanistan.  Biden countered that after ten years it's time for the Afghans to take the lead.  Ryan seemed to want to leave U.S. troops there indefinitely, based on conditions.  Biden assured a war-weary American public that we will leave the country on schedule at the end of 2014.  Ryan finally threw in the towel and agreed his ticket would pull out by then, too.  Ryan attacked again on Iran, accusing the Administration of weakness.  Biden said the "toughest sanctions in the history of sanctions" were wrecking the Iranian economy and that in the final analysis, in a clear threat of force if necessary, we would not allow Iran to build a nuclear bomb.  He asked Ryan if he wanted war and what he would do differently.  Ryan had no answer.  Ryan again attacked on Syria, saying the Administration was wasting time going through the U.N., should be arming the opposition to dictator Bashir Assad, and hinted about military action.  Biden countered that we are not only using the U.N., that weapons are reaching the opposition and that we are working closely with Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  The implication that America is making sure weapons are getting in through these other nations rather took the wind out of Ryan's sails.  Asked again whether he wanted another American land war in the Middle East, Ryan beat a hasty retreat.

In domestic affairs, Biden brought up Mitt Romney's 47 percent comment and sharply defended against the spurious Romney critique that Obamacare takes money from Medicare and against Romney-Ryan plans to voucherize Medicare.  He tellingly looked right into the camera and asked the American people whether they trusted the party--the Democrats--that created and has fought for Medicare and Social Security since their inception to protect them, or would they rather turn that job over to the other party--the GOP--who has never liked these programs and has always tried to cut them.  "Use your common sense," he advised the American people.  Biden's defense of choice was also effective and should resonate with a lot of women.  After Ryan delivered his ticket's position of a ban on abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother, Biden said he accepted his Catholic Church's teachings on the subject but felt he would not impose that view on others.  He also held Ryan's feet to the fire on the Romney-Ryan tax plan, pointing out that the numbers don't add up unless they take away the home mortgage, health, and charitable deductions, or higher taxes on the middle class, and demanded specifics.  When Ryan provided none, the moderator finally pointed that out and cut him off, moving on to another topic.

The bottom line of this debate is that Biden delivered the strong game the Democrats needed to stop the impetus Republicans gained after last week's presidential debate, which many perceived as a lackluster showing by President Obama.  It should encourage the Democratic base and reset the small undecided middle for presidential round two next Tuesday.  Tune in then for what I expect to be the crucial showdown of the campaign.

Debate Recap and What's to Come

In the debate on Wednesday Mitt Romney came with his A game and Barack Obama brought his C game.  The result was, as most viewers saw it, a definite win for Romney.  The average of flash surveys of viewers showed that about 50% saw Romney as the victor while 25% thought Obama outduelled his challenger. 

Romney was clearly the better prepared, the most animated and the most focused.  His points were sharp, and often surprising.  Time and again, he appeared to flummox Obama by asserting and sticking to outright fabrications.  A few of these included such statements as these: that his tax cuts were revenue-neutral, that his health plan covers people with pre-existing conditions, that Obama's stimulus package spent $90 billion a year on green energy, and that Obama's health plan took $716 billion away from Medicare recipients but that his own plan did not.  (The truth on these Health Plan numbers is that first, these numbers are over 10 years.  Second, the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, got insurers to agree to cut that much from the cost of their services in exchange for all the extra customers they are going to get when the plan's provisions activate in 2014.  So it is pure savings for the program.  The Romney-Ryan Plan, in contrast, simply reduces Medicare by that much to the recipients as they take their vouchers out to try to buy insurance. So it is all taken from the consumers.) The President tried to rebut some of these points, though not all, and often with reasonable and factual but lengthy and complicated explanations that no doubt often confused or bored debate viewers.

I feel the Obama team planned to try to run out the clock on an opponent who has been trailing in the race and causing most of his own problems.  They did not want Obama to seem "unpresidential" by too harshly attacking his opponent.  They committed the dangerous mistake of underestimating their foe and taking the match for granted.  They did not spend nearly as much time in preparation as did Romney and his team, and it showed.  While Obama was more "cool" and delivered some humor, which Romney did little of, these small personality advantages were likely at least offset by Romney's earnestness and superior sense of engagement in the process.

For the president, the first debate represents a huge lost opportunity.  He was clearly pulling ahead and had nearly locked up an electoral vote stranglehold on the election.  Republican Party supporters were vocally berating the Romney campaign.  There were murmurings that big money donors were going to start pulling their support from a losing proposition to concentrate on down ballot candidates and issues.  With a strong debate Obama could have effectively ended the Romney candidacy.  Instead, it is now game on. 

You can expect to see a very different Barack Obama on October 16 when the two meet again in Hempstead, New York.  Expect Obama to have ready and devastating ammunition when Romney talks about his budget, health plan or how much he cares about the average American.  Expect him also to have winning defenses of the Administration's accomplishments, along the lines so successfully laid out in Bill Clinton's Convention speech.  If this doesn't happen the President will find himself in serious trouble down the stretch.  You can also expect to see this counteroffensive start with Joe Biden coming at Paul Ryan very hard this Thursday in the Vice Presidential debate in much the same way Dick Cheney blasted away at and largely flattened John Edwards in 2004 after John Kerry got the better of George W. Bush in their first debate of that year.  It should get plenty lively from here on in.