Updates to the 2012 Big Map, Don't Believe the "Radical" Hype, In Defense of Cory Booker, Battleground Wisconsin

2012 Presidential Projection
Days Until Election: 163
Current National Vote Projection: Obama +2.1% (-1.2% from last projection)
Current Electoral Vote Projection: Obama 303, Romney 235 (unchanged from last projection)

State Projection Changes Since Last Publish:
Delaware - From Safe Obama to Strong Obama
California - From Safe Obama to Strong Obama
Georgia - From Likely Romney to Strong Romney

Not a ton of new news this week, as both candidates hold on to all their states from last week.  It was a modestly good week for Romney, who closed by a little over a point in the national polls and enjoyed the benefit of all three state status changes, although those status changes were in states that are unlikely to be competitive come November.

Intrade currently puts the odds of the President being re-elected at 57.5%, more or less stable with where it has been for several months (it has traded in a range between 55% to 62% since February.)

Next time around, I'll take a look at the down ticket battles for the House and Senate, which are mostly flying under the radar at the moment, but will be just as meaningful as the Presidential race in terms of how the next several years go.  Control of the Senate is very much within the competitive balance, so it bears some coverage.

No Radicals Here
While the presumptive Presidential nominees fire away accusations of radicalism at each other - Obama is a socialist who would have the government take over the economy, Romney would destroy Medicare and take from the poor and give to the rich, etc., lost in all of this is that there is probably less difference ideologically between these two candidates than there has been in any Presidential election since 1992, when a center-left Bill Clinton ran against a center-right George Hebert Walker Bush.

Think about it on the major issues of the day:
On taxes - the candidates are completely aligned on tax policy for everyone making less than $250K per year (98% of the population) - they want to extend the Bush tax cuts and ultimately lower rates and reduce loopholes.  They do disagree on extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250K, but that is a difference between a 35% top rate and a 39.6% top rate, hardly the difference between socialism and anarchy.  And lest we forget, President Obama already extended this cut he now opposes once.

On health care - President Obama's health care plan is essentially a carbon copy of the plan Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts.  Romney has defended the concept of an individual mandate, a key Republican talking point against the Obama plan.  Sure, Romney opposes Obama's plan on a national level, preferring to late individual states craft solutions, but this is a question of federalism, not of core philosophy.

On foreign policy - both back the now largely completed exit from Iraq, both want to stay the course in Afghanistan.  Both are strong advocates for free trade.  Romney fires off rhetorical attacks against Obama having diminished our standing in the world, but on issues that actually matter in the foreign arena, they are more aligned than different.

On gay marriage - Mitt Romney backs civil unions but not gay marriage.  This was Obama's position until a couple of weeks ago, when he came out for gay marriage.  And both favor each state's right to make that determination for itself.

On abortion - there is a clear difference here, with President Obama backing abortion rights and Mitt Romney largely holding a pro-life position.  But even here, the last time Romney held office, his views were essentially identical to Obama's and I have serious doubts on if he would put any energy behind pushing unpopular restrictions on abortion.

President Obama has framed this election as a "choice" election.  Unfortunately, in my eyes, there isn't that much of a choice on policy.  There is no true liberal or true conservative in the race.  We have a couple of moderates arguing about the margins with over heated rhetoric.

Cory Booker - Speaking Truth
Cory Booker is probably the best Mayor that Newark has ever had.  The turnaround that he has brought to the blighted city of Newark is a modern miracle, particularly in perilous economic times.  Booker has walked the talk and at times, seemed larger than life, rescuing neighbors from burning buildings, personally managing snow-removal and emergency services during crises, and, most critically, pulling business investment into a once-forgotten city.

Booker is the kind of honest broker that we should be thrilled to have on the political scene - an Ivy-League (and Oxford!) educated man who has eschewed far higher paying fields of work to do good in a place where his intelligence, grit and determination were sorely needed.

I am therefore very saddened by the speed with which the Democratic establishment turned on Booker for - frankly - speaking a truth that wasn't a part of the Obama campaign narrative.

Booker's statement that the Obama campaign's attempt to paint Romney's association with Bain Capital in a negative light by showing clips of people who lost jobs in Bain acquired companies upset him was met with criticism and scorn.

On the substance of the issue, I find Booker to be right.  Private equity, on balance, is a good thing for our free market economy.  For those of you who don't know, what private equity essentially does is purchase public companies, take them private, attempt to improve the value of the companies, and then sell them.  This can involve lots of different strategies, from investing new capital to improve a companies operations to restructuring its operations.  Typically, companies that sell to private equity are highly troubled and at risk of going out of business.  This means that increasing their value can involve tough choices - closing factories, trimming staff, etc.  Yes, it stinks when that involves layoffs.  But a leaner company that thrives is far preferable to a company that dies.  As Mitt Romney has astutely pointed out - the role of private equity in general is identical to the role the government paid in restructuring GM - which also closed a lot of factories and trimmed staff to get back to a sustainable position.

Not that private equity is always a good force.  There have been many examples of private equity buying companies, loading them up with debt and repackaging them to investors, putting the company in a weaker position but making the private equity partners rich.  But that only works when there is a greater sucker willing to pay a higher price for a debt-laden company.  Simply put - if the markets respond rationally, it cuts that opportunity off at the pass.

Independent of your views of the merits of Booker's remarks, we should view our political discourse as being strengthened by varied points of views.  Booker should not be required to toe the party line when he disagrees.  He should be allowed to speak his mind without fear of reprisal from the Democratic Party, who should be holding Booker up as a role model.

Scott Walker Will Probably Survive
I realized today that I had not written at all about the emotional recall election taking place in Wisconsin.  Scott Walker, possibly the most conservative governor of Wisconsin in a generation, sparked a strong reaction on both sides when he moved to aggressively curtail the collective bargaining powers of public employee unions in an attempt to limit the growth of wage and benefit costs in the state.

Public employee benefit costs are a major issue facing just about every state and municipality.  The public sector has far lagged the private sector in terms of transitioning from traditional pensions to defined contribution plans like 401k's and in transferring the cost of retiree medical benefits to the retirees.

These debates invoke a lot of emotion on both sides with conservatives viewing public employees getting benefits far greater than the private sector as a betrayal of public trust and liberals viewing those benefits as core commitments that governments have made to workers.

In what may be an ominous sign for President Obama in November in Wisconsin, the people appear poised to decide, by a mid-single digit margin, that on balance, they come down on Walker's side.  He appears likely to survive a June 5 recall, up by an average of +5.7% in recent polls.

If you like this site, tell your friends.

Standing on the Right Side of History, New Battlegrounds Emerge on Our Electoral Map

How Do You Want to Be Remembered?
It is common belief today, in all but the most backward corners of bigotry, that interracial marriage is not only a thing that should be legal, but a perfectly normal, socially acceptable and equal form of marriage.  If you ask the average 25-year-old, they can't imagine an American society where interracial marriage would somehow be viewed as wrong or inferior.


But the issue was hardly settled in the 1950s.  As of 1948, only 11 states explicitly allowed interracial marriage.  As of June 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in the entire south and Delaware, 16 states in all.  In that month, the Supreme Court struck down the laws in those states, providing marriage equality across racial lines across the nation.  The decision, along with many other civil rights decisions in that era were widely unpopular in the south and across the country actual instances of interracial marriage were slow to happen, with interracial couples representing only 0.7% of marriages by 1970.

You might find a few people these days who would argue against interracial marriage, but only a very few.  And you don't find a lot of people these days who lived back then who would own up to being on the wrong side of history.

I imagine 40 years from now, few people will admit to having been staunchly against gay marriage.  The push for marriage equality for gay Americans is an inevitable force of social progress.  In 40 years, marriage for gays will be legally equal in all 50 states.  It won't be an issue at all.  It won't even be thought about except for the few stragglers who cling to an outdated and backward view of the world (as is the case with interracial marriage today.)

President Obama has placed himself on the right side of history by supporting gay marriage.  Certainly he is far too late to the game, having not shown courage of his convictions in 2008, since he actually flip-flopped in the wrong direction when he ran for the Senate and for national office.  He was behind Dick Cheney, Alan Simpson and many others to the right of him politically have take courageous stands first.  Courageous Republican State Senators in New York took real political risk long before the President.

But, he is at least on the right side of history now.  And that's more than I can say about Mitt Romney.  In 40 years, in their old age, Barack Obama will be proud of the stand he took in May 2012.  I imagine Mitt Romney will be ashamed of the stand he didn't take.

A Shifting Map
This map will move a lot over the course of the next five and a half months.  But the swings and the entry of new states into competition and the removal of other states from contention is all part of the fun of the Presidential election season.

The latest numbers reveal the following shifts:
Florida - flips back from Lean Obama to Lean Romney - this state seems destined to be very close, so don't be surprised if it flips a bunch more times before November.
New Hampshire - moves from Lean Obama to Likely Obama - Obama's lead is strengthening in Mitt Romney's next door state, which has become increasingly less of a swing state the last 2 election cycles.
Wisconsin - moves from Likely Obama to Lean Obama - the badger state looks to be in play for the first time in several cycles.
Massachusetts and Illinois - move from Strong Obama to Safe Obama
Georgia and Tennessee - move from Strong Romney to Likely Romney - these two states in the solid south appear to be marginally in play this year...but I could really only see them going for Obama in a blow out.
Kentucky and Louisiana - move from Strong Romney to Safe Romney

All of which leaves us with the following.  Note that my maps are now constructed using realclearpolitics.com instead of 270towin.com since the realclearpolitics construction tool allows for various shades of support.  On the map, "Strong" and "Safe" states are lumped together in the darkest color, "Likely" states in the next lighter color and "Lean" states in the lightest color.

So we see President Obama holding a lead of 303-235, even with the flip of Florida, coinciding with an average national polling lead of 3.3%.  The intriguing thing about Wisconsin entering the competitive space is that it gives Romney more options.  He needs to pick up 35 electoral votes to swing to victory, and of the 4 lean states, he has 2 combinations that get him there:
(1) Virginia, Ohio and Iowa (37 electoral votes)
(2) Virginia, Ohio and Wisconsin (41 electoral votes)

Note that without Virginia the max Romney could get is the 34 electoral votes from the other 3 states, leaving him 1 vote short.  Also note that without Ohio, Romney's max is reduced to 29 electoral votes.

So, Ohio and Virginia are must haves for Romney still, along with Florida.

His electoral strategy is starting to look like North Carolina (home of the Democratic convention), Florida (home of the Republican convention), Ohio, Virginia plus "one", the one being either Wisconsin, Iowa or even Colorado (New Hampshire, by itself, would not get him to his total.)

On Obama's side, the strategy is still to hold serve on some of his 2008 states to prevent this strategy, plus open a couple of new fronts Romney will have to defend.  The best candidates for Obama to pick-up versus 2008 are Missouri (which he lost very closely) and Arizona (which does not have a native son running this time.)  Also, keep your eye on South Carolina - there is no recent polling available, but I have some inside insight that that state may be a lot closer than we are all thinking. 

If you like this site, tell your friends.

Obama Extends His Lead, Gingrich to Formally Drop Out, On Behalf of the 1%

Obama Extends His Lead
In my poll tracking, we have 4 new national polls and 5 state level polls this week and they show a distinct trend in the second week of the general election campaign - the Obama campaign is gaining steam.  Now, let's not overstate this case - this is week 2 of what will be a 29 week campaign, so we are sure to see lots of ups and downs.

But in the scheme of a week that saw disappointing economic growth (2.2% GDP growth in Q1 versus an expectation of 2.5% growth), disappointing unemployment claims (388,000 new claims versus an expectation of 365,000) and no real positive news for the President, his gaining ground against Romney is certainly a good thing.

Here are our latest changes:
National Poll Average of Averages: Obama +2.9% (up 2.0% from last week)
State Changes:

Louisiana - moves from Safe Romney to Strong Romney
West Virginia - moves from Safe Romney to Strong Romney
South Carolina - moves from Strong Romney to Likely Romney
South Dakota - moves from Strong Romney to Likely Romney
Arizona - moves from Strong Romney to Likely Romney

Florida - flips from Lean Romney to Lean Obama

Michigan - moves from Likely Obama to Strong Obama
Wisconsin - moves from Likely Obama to Strong Obama
Rhode Island - moves from Strong Obama to Safe Obama
Delaware - moves from Strong Obama to Safe Obama
Maryland - moves from Strong Obama to Safe Obama

Electoral Count: Obama 331, Romney 207 (Obama +28 versus last week)

 

Gingrich to (Finally) Drop Out

Newt Gingrich is set to formally drop out of the Presidential race this Tuesday, leaving Mitt Romney and Ron Paul as the only official candidate for the Republican nomination.  Gingrich's status as a serious candidate for the Republican nomination has been gone for quite some time now.  Since winning an upset victory in South Carolina, his only victory was in his home state of Georgia and Gingrich came in third in states like Mississippi, where a serious GOP Southern candidate should win.

We've all sort of moved on to the general election, so Gingrich's departure will be to very little fanfare.

In the most technical sense, Romney is still yet to clinch the nomination.  My current delegate count puts his total at 865 delegates out of 1,144 needed to clinch the nomination.  But with only Ron Paul to deal with, Romney should make short work of gaining the remaining 279 he needs.  132 delegates are allocated in the three races on May 8th, 63 on May 15th, 81 on May 22nd, 155 in the Texas Primary on May 29th, 299 on June 5th and 40 in the closing Utah primary on June 26th.

Assuming Romney gets at least 65% of the delegates from here on, he should clinch by May 29th.

 Game on to the general.

In Defense of the 1%

I am not a member of the 1%, as defined by the (now dwindling) Occupy Wall Street protesters.  I have been successful enough in life that my household income is in the top 5% of all households, but not in the top 1%.  I hope to join the 1% as soon as possible, however.

The 1% have been much maligned by the left as of late.  They profit at the expense of the working class.  They don't pay their fair share of taxes.  They looted our economy and gave themselves golden parachutes.

There are certainly members of the 1% for whom there can be no defense.  Bernie Madoff is a criminal.  The actions of the leaders of financial institutions to take massive risks on high-risk loans that ultimately led both to the housing bubble and the financial collapse are incompetent and best and criminal at worst.  Hedge fund managers being taxed at a lower rate than working Americans is inexplicably bad policy.

But there are plenty of things that the 99% does that are as bad or worse.  Medicaid fraud is rampant.  So is Social Security Disability fraud.  There are scores of people taking public handouts who aren't even attempting to find work or go to school.  Alexandra Pelosi's documentary video (featured on Bill Maher's show Real Time) around a New York City welfare office that showed able-bodied people who had decided they didn't want to work asking for a hand-out turned my stomache.

In 2011, I paid a total federal income tax rate of 20.0%.  I additionally paid 4.4% of my income to New Jersey state income tax.  Payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare and New Jersey unemployment taxes) added another 3.2%.  Property taxes on my home (a fairly modest one in the Philadelphia suburbs) amounted to another 3.1% of my income.

So, even excluding state sales taxes, gas taxes, tag fees, etc., my total tax bill amounted to 30.7% of my income.

47% of the country pays no income tax.

Should my taxes be higher?

You could argue that they should - I could certainly live off less than 69.3% of my income.

But the truth of the matter is that raising my taxes won't solve our current economic situation.  I'm in favor of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making over $250K, as President Obama has advocated.  But those cuts are a mere 10% of the cost of the Bush Tax cuts.  The other 90%?  The reductions in middle class taxes and the increased deductions that dropped many lower income tax payers from the roles.

You may think it's wise or unwise to tax the rich more.  But to be intellectually honest, it really doesn't matter.  If you are going to raise a meaningful amount of revenue for the government, you are going to have to tackle higher middle class taxes.

I don't deny that I have been lucky in life - good genes, being raised in a strong household, having access to an excellent public school system and the right opportunities have aided me in my path to being in the top 5%.  There is no doubt that a kid in rural Mississippi or Compton will not in general start life with the same advantages that I did.  That's why I don't mind paying a little more to try to help even the playing field.

But don't be mad at me for my success...I got there through the combination of luck (above), hard work and discipline.  I don't make my money firing people or raiding old ladies bank accounts (although firing people, on occasion, is a part of most management jobs.)  I do an honest days work and think that shareholders in my company get a good deal at the amount I'm paid.

I don't mind contributing, but I think my story, and most of the 1%ers too, are stories to be studied in how to succeed in America, not stories to be lambasted as greedy and arrogant.

If you like this site, tell your friends.

The 2012 Presidential Map: Structural Advantage - Obama, Why Did Americans Elect Fizzle?

Almost Two Weeks Into the General, Obama Holds an Electoral College Lead

As we have now effectively entered the general election phase of the 2012 contest, we are getting real red meat for those of us who love analyzing polls and trends.  We have 9 new national polls within the past week and state-level polling in 42 of the 50 states, including virtually all of the states that could reasonably be considered contestable (North Dakota being the only state that is conceivably contestable where there isn't a poll and even North Dakota isn't likely to be close unless Obama wins by quite a hefty margin.)

Crunching through the numbers, I see two trends emerging:

(1) Abnormally Large Poll Divergance
The CNN/Opinion Research poll had President Obama leading Mitt Romney nationally by 9%.  The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had the race at 6% lead for Obama.  Both the Rasmussen and Gallup Tracking Polls have Romney in the lead, albeit by only 1%.

What explains this large poll divergence?  There could be multiple reasons.

The first obvious reason would be the sample the pollsters are attempting to represent.  Rasmussen targets Likely Voters, using a voter screen to determine who among the polled is likely to actually show up on election day, whereas all of the other polls are targeted Registered Voters, a self-selected group that may or may not vote.  Virtually all polls move to a Likely Voter model close to election day, but most start with Registered Voters early in the season when it is typically very hard to project turnout.  But Rasmussen had it at Romney +1%, the same total as Gallup, who is using Registered Voters.

The second possible reason is that the race isn't very well decided at this early stage.  Despite the long primary season, the truth is that most general election swing voters haven't been closely watching the Republican primaries and debates and probably don't know that much about Mitt Romney yet.  In this situation, small changes in the news cycle and poll timing can have outsized effects on the results.

The third is sample size.  The Rasmussen, Gallup and Quinnipiac polls have large sample sizes (1500, 2200 and 2577 respectively) and have a much tighter clustering of poll data at Romney +1, Romney +1 and Obama +4, where all of the other polls have sample sizes of 910 or less.

At any rate, utilizing my weighting methodology, which considers sample size in the weighting of the polls, at this point I have Obama at +0.9% in the aggregate of all the polling, a lead, but certainly a very small one (for reference, in the two closest elections in recent history, Al Gore's popular vote margin over George W. Bush in 2000 was 0.5% and Bush's margin over John Kerry was 2.4%.)

(2) Structural Advantage - Obama
It is very early to make this kind of projection, but the state-level polling data indicate that the way the demographics are breaking, President Obama has a structural advantage in the electoral college in a close race.  With a less than 1% lead nationally, the President leads in many of the key swing states, including New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota and Michigan.

As things stand today, I project a 303-235 electoral college lead for President Obama, in spite of being narrowly behind in the State of Florida.

The map is below (created with the help of our friends at 270towin.com)

For the state-by-state numbers, I have utilized a combination of state-level and national polling data, depending on the number of state-level polls available.  For states where no polling is available, I've used the 2008 election results as a baseline, modified for the difference between current national polls and the 2008 national results.

In terms of the contested states, here is where we stand:
Safe Romney (51 Electoral Votes)
Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Idaho, Alaska, Alabama,  Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia

Strong Romney (116 Electoral Votes)
Mississippi, Nebraska, Kentucky, North Dakota, Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota, Arizona

Likely Romney (14 Electoral Votes)
Montana, Indiana

Lean Romney (54 Electoral Votes)
North Carolina, Missouri, Florida

Lean Obama (41 Electoral Votes)
New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa

Likely Obama (70 Electoral Votes)
Pennsylvania, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin

Strong Obama (97 Electoral Votes)
New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Connecticut, Maine, Illinois, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island

Safe Obama (95 Electoral Votes)
California, New York, Vermont, Hawaii, District of Columbia

Of worthy note, there are presently no states that John McCain won in 2008 that are meaningfully in play for 2012.  Missouri is the closest at a 4.1% lead for Romney, which makes sense, if you recall that John McCain won it by the narrowest of margins in 2008.  Montana and Arizona are the next closest at 9.2% and 10.2% leads for Romney respectively, which puts them only on the fringe of being contestable.

Meanwhile, Romney, as things stand today, would pick up 3 Obama states from 2008: Indiana, North Carolina and Florida.  Obama won Indiana and North Carolina by very narrow margins in 2008 and Florida, while he won decisively, he won by significantly less than his national margin, making it a logical flip in a close race.

But Romney would need to do much more to pick up the Presidency.  The easiest path for the winning 270 Electoral Vote total for him to win both Virginia and Ohio (both presently lean Obama states) and 1 of either New Hampshire or Iowa (winning just New Hampshire would give him 270, winning just Iowa would give him 272, winning both would boost his total to 276.)

Alternatively, he could take John McCain's (unsuccessful) strategy from 2008 and swing for the fences in Pennsylvania.  If he won his current states plus PA, he would have 255 electoral votes as a base, meaning that just winning Ohio would put him over the top (at 273) or combining a win in Virginia with a smaller state such as New Hampshire (Pennsylvania, Virginia plus New Hampshire would give him 272 electoral votes.)

Clearly, Florida, where Romney leads by 0.1% as things stand today, is critically important to his election bid.  It's virtually impossible to draw a feasible map for Romney that doesn't include Florida's 28 electoral votes.  Give him Florida and he has all those options in the mid-west.  Take Florida away and you could give Romney New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa AND Pennsylvania and he still falls short with only 268 Electoral Votes.

So, in my rank order of importance to the race, considering the closeness of states, their electoral vote contribution and their relative impact on the possible scenarios, I think the most hotly contested states will be as follows:
1. Florida
2. Ohio
3. Virginia
4. Pennsylvania
5. North Carolina

If Obama wins Florida (a toss-up) or North Carolina (a tougher haul, but he did it in 2008), it is virtually impossible for Romney to win.  If Romney takes both, the other three states become huge in deciding the outcome.

Below is the state-by-state spread as things stand today.

Third Parties Falter Again in America
American's Elect sounded like such a great concept.  A well-funded organization with the mission of bringing a qualified third party candidate to the American voters, using a web-based, democratic process to bring a true choice to America.  American's Elect was well-enough backed that they appear likely to get on the ballot in all 50 states and constructed a slick website and good marketing campaign, attracting press from major national news organizations such as CNN.

You'd think with the seeming hatred most American hold for both our major political parties that 2012 would be fertile ground for such an effort.  Gridlock, partisanship and public disapproval for elected officials are at generational highs.

Yet, American's Elect is flopping big time.  A check of their website shows that two weeks from their online convention, no declared candidate has even reached 4,000 supporters, FAR less than the 50,000 spread over 10 states that the site had originally set as a bar for candidates.  And the candidates are less than enthralling, with the leaders being Buddy Roemer (3,639 supporters), an ex-Governor who couldn't even get on the stage when he tried to run as a Republican and Rocky Anderson (2,073 supporters), a former liberal mayor who has never even been a Congressman, Senator or Governor.  Hardly the resumes of highly-qualified centrist candidates that Americans Elect had hoped to recruit, such as Michael Bloomberg or Jon Huntsman. 

It strikes me that while we all talk of the need for a third-party, we aren't particularly serious.

If you like this site, tell your friends.

The Long Road to November

Just like that, the Republican nomination process effectively ended this week with Rick Santorum's withdrawal from the race.  Sure, Mitt Romney technically is yet to secure the necessary delegates to win the nomination, but with just the chronic 10%er Ron Paul and the near-broke Newt Gingrich to contend with, he should very easily make short work of wrapping up the nod.  I'd expect there won't even be much coverage of the primaries a week from Tuesday in Pennsylvania, New York and Delaware, which Mitt will easily win.  It is certainly possible that as a protest, Newt Gingrich might carry one or more of the very conservative states voting in May, but it won't matter.  Romney is the guy.

So it's game on to the national election in November.  Mitt Romney - who is either a Massachusetts moderate, a severe conservative or perhaps both depending on who you believe versus Barack Obama who is either a center-left Democrat or a raging socialist, again depending on who you believe.

Interestingly, as much as both candidates will try to draw a stark contrast - in Romney's case highlighting President Obama's economic record, in the President's case, it appears, Romney's more socially conservative views towards women's issues, among other things, the contrast in how both would govern is, perhaps, the smallest that it has been in any cycle that I can recall since 1992.

Obama has Obamacare, which, whether Mitt Romney likes it or not, is more or less a carbon copy of Romney's plan in Massachusetts.  Obama has his foreign policy record which, let's face it, looks a lot like the last GOP President.  Romney's tax policy when he was governor looks a heck of a lot like Obama's tax policy as President, even if Romney tries to draw contrast now.  President Obama and Mitt Romney are both in favor of civil unions and against gay marriage.  They both supported the bailouts.  They both are for the payroll tax cut.  It goes on and on.

So we may have a very emotional election over very limited differences.  But don't think that there won't be big passion involved on both sides.  Republicans have been dying for a chance at "anybody but Obama" virtually since the day he took office.  And Democrats are still loyal, even though some are upset at the timid pace of change the President has pursued.

Romney has seen a bump in the polls since effectively wrapping up the race, so I'll do a complete rundown on the now-tighter battleground in my next post.

But, rest assured, over the almost 7 month general election campaign that we are about to embark on that may include up to $2 billion spent, probably 3 or 4 debates and hundreds of daily cable news cycles, whatever I post next will change a lot before the actual voting begins.

So game on and here's to the greatest game in global politics.

Circling the Wagons for Romney, A Preview of the Downticket Races

Romney Looks to Seal the Deal
As I discussed last week, the Illinois really did change the conversation in the Republican Party.  I can't say exactly why - certainly it was a state that Romney should have won and Santorum won Louisiana the next Saturday decisively, continuing his pattern of winning in the deep south and the center of the country.

But I think, for whatever reason, the conservative parts of the establishment woke up to the fact that Santorum probably isn't going to have a break through outside of the regions he has been winning and that absent such a breakthrough, he cannot win.

Also contributing to the need to circle the wagons is the fact that they have seen President Obama look stronger and stronger in heads up match-ups against a potential nominee and see the possibility of a winnable general election race slipping away from them if the fight for the nomination continues.

A long nomination fight is not always a bad thing - certainly President Obama and then-Sentaor Hillary Clinton had a long process - through all the primaries and caucuses and beyond, and certainly there was ill will between the two camps even after the race (does anyone remember that PUMA = "Party Unity, My Ass!")  But Hillary and Barack weren't really that far apart on the issues.  That wasn't a fight for the core of the party, it was a fight between two candidates carrying the same center-left mantle.  And Republicans are no doubt sensing that a civil war playing out on the news every night through June would not help their general election chances.

So circle the wagons they have.  Jeb Bush has endorsed Mitt Romney.  So has Marco Rubio.  So has George H.W. Bush.  So has Paul Ryan.  Jim Demint didn't officially endorse Romney, but basically said Republicans should unite behind him.  It was actually a very impressively orchestrated parade of endorsements coming out at smartly timed increments throughout the course of the week.

Romney appears poised to win all three contests on Tuesday, with Maryland and DC firmly in his corner and Romney holding a high single-digit lead in Wisconsin.  He wants to win all three decisively, then have his inevitability be the story in the 3 week gap between those races and April 24th where he should, at minimum win 4 out of the 5 states that hold contests (New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware) and hopes to win the fifth (Santorum's home state of Pennsylvania.)

If Romney can effectively close the show in April, he avoids having to face down what would likely be a string of losses if the race stays competitive, in unfriendly territory: May's contests include: North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Nebraska, Oregon, Kentucky, Arkansas and Texas.  In a close race, he'd likely lose 7 out of 8, making the news story all about how Republicans still aren't sold on him.

In a race that is no longer close, he could win 5 or 6 out of the 8 (he probably still loses a few in Kentucky, Arkansas and Nebraska, but the rest are winnable.)

Romney will close it out for sure in June, when his California/New Jersey/Utah winner-take-all firewall goes up.  But he'd rather not spend two months plus spending money and defending his reputation.

What's Going on in the Senate and House?
I looked at the electoral map last time, so I thought I'd bring things up-to-date in the key Senate races and a first look at how the newly-redistricted House races will shape up.

The Democrats have a lot of turf to cover as this is an "echo" of the 2006 race, where they made huge gains, including in some states that traditionally aren't that friendly to Democrats.  All of those seats are up for grabs this cycle.

The current composition of the Senate is 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and 2 Independents.  Since the two Independents - Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont caucus with the Democrats, this gives them a working majority of 53 to 47.

The Democrats have 21 seats up for re-election as well as both of the seats held by Democratic-leaning independents.  The Republicans are only defending 10.

Here is a run-down of the races as they stand today.  The one disclaimer that I'd give at this stage in the game is that even seats categorized as "Safe" could still shift between now and the election.  Just look at Scott Brown's upset to see what is possible in allegedly safe races.  But as of now, these are 20%+ races.

Safe Independent Hold (1)
Vermont

Safe Democratic Holds (6)
California, Maryland, New York, Delaware, Minnesota, Rhode Island

Likely Democratic Holds (5)
New Jersey - Bob Menendez faces a couple of possible GOP opponents, but New Jersey (my home state) has not proven favorable to GOP Senate candidates in a long time and Menendez is still popular.
Pennsylvania - Pennsylvania may be a swing state of sorts, but Bob Casey Jr., the man who beat Rick Santorum for his Senate seat is extremely popular and the Casey name is gold in Pennsylvania.
Washington - Maria Cantwell is running for re-election in this solid blue state that appears likely to stay that way.
Hawaii - Hawaii is not safe for the Democrats for two reasons - it is an open seat and Linda Lingle, who has proven her ability to win statewide is running.  But this is still the bluest of blue states and Lingle trails all possible opponents in the polls by double-digit margins.
Michigan - Debbie Stabenow runs for re-election in a state that has turned more and more blue over the past decade as Republican voters have left the state.  She leads by double digit margins against possible opponents.

Lean Democratic Holds (4)
West Virginia - popular ex-Gov Joe Manchin would appear to be the favorite in this race, but West Virginia has been moving more and more Republican.  Manchin's moderate conservatism should help here, but President Obama is likely to be a drag in a state he lost badly in 2008.
New Mexico - expect a tight race for this open seat in a swing state.  Rep. Martin Heinrich appears likely to be the Democratic nominee and leads by low single digits against the likely GOP opponent, Rep. Heather Wilson.
Ohio - incumbent Sherrod Brown faces a stiff challenge in this traditional swing state from popular Ohio Treasuer Josh Mandel, but still holds a small lead at this stage.
Florida - Bill Nelson is still well liked in Florida, but so is likely opponent Connie Mack.  It should be a close race, with Nelson sporting a modest lead at this point
Virginia - probably the closest contest in the nation at this stage, former Governor Tim Kaine appears to hold a miniscule lead over former Senator George Allen for this open seat.  Watch this race as the bellweather of how the race will go.

Lean Democratic Pick-Up (from Independent 1, from Republican 1)
Connecticut - Joe Lieberman is retiring.  If former Rep. Chris Shays is the GOP nominee, it will be a fight.  If WWE heir Linda McMahon gets the nod, Chris Murphy will cruise to victory.
Maine - a pick-up in Maine appears likely with Olympia Snowe's departure from this heavily Democratic state.  The parties are scrambling to field candidates, so this one could swing in one direction or the other, but appears more likely than not to go blue in November.

Lean Republican Pick-Up (3)
Missouri - Incumbent Claire McCaskill appears to be in trouble in this traditional swing state which has been trending red.  She trails all three potential GOP opponents by small margins.
Montana - Jon Tester faces a stiff challenge in this traditionally red state that he won in the 2006 Democratic sweep from Rep. Denny Rehberg, who leads modestly at the moment.
Wisconsin - popular former Governor Tommy Thompson being in the mix for this open seat tilts it to favor the GOP, even in this blue-leaning state.

Lean Republican Hold (3)
Massachusetts - Scott Brown has been an effective moderate and is surprisingly, leading liberal darling Elizabeth Warren by a small margin in the majority of polls, although this race is among the closest in the nation.
Nevada - appointed incumbent Dean Heller holds a small lead over Rep. Shelley Berkley in this seat that was vacated in disgrace by its previous GOP occupant.
Arizona - this open seat is still taking shape, but on face would favor the GOP in this Republican-leaning state.


Likely Republican Pick-Up (2)
Nebraska - Ben Nelson's departure from this traditionally Republican state gives a golden opportunity to the GOP, who should win this race handily.
North Dakota - this is probably the easiest pick-up this cycle, with long-time Senator Byron Dorgan headed out, the GOP should win easily in this conservative state.


Likely Republican Holds (1)
Texas - an open seat is the GOP's only barrier to this seat being safe, but Lt. Governor David Dewhurst appears to have a comfortable lead against all the potential Democratic candidates.

Safe Republican Holds (5)
Indiana, Mississippi, Wyoming, Tennessee, Utah

This leaves us with a projected Senate composition of:
51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 1 Independent (51-49 working Republican majority)

Best case for Democrats (win all leans):
45 Republicans, 54 Democrats, 1 Independent

Best case for Republicans (wins all leans):
57 Republicans, 42 Democrats, 1 Independent

So, there are a wide range of possibilities, but Republicans appear slightly favored to gain control of the Senate in November.  Intrade puts their odds of winning control of the Senate at 58%.  Of course, in the event of a 50-50 split, the party winning the Presidential (and therefore Vice-Presidential) race would have working control.

In the House, redistricting will give a significant structural advantage to the GOP.  This is largely for three reasons:
(1) Gerrymandering - in most states, legislatures control drawing the district lines.  The GOP controls more state houses than the Democrats do and can therefore design districts most favorable to GOP candidates.
(2) The Voting Rights Act - ironically, legislation that requires the creation of black majority voting districts, which was designed to bring more black voices to the table in Congress, actually dilutes black Democratic voting power by concentrating black votes in a few districts where they are a majority.
(3) Natural demographics - cities tend to be heavily Democratic while suburbs tend to be modestly Republican.

This leads to situations where you have a few solidly Democratic seats and a lot of leaning Republican seats.  Here are a few easy case studies:
Colorado - is a classic swing state, exactly mirroring national voting patterns.  But of its six congressional seats, 2 heavily favor Democrats and 4 favor Republicans, because Democrats in Denver are concentrated within 2 of the 6 seats.
Florida - Florida is only modestly Republican (+2% more than nationally) but the GOP is favored in 18 out of 25 House races because of concentrating Democratic votes in Miami within a few districts.

All of this gives us a situation where if the parties exactly evenly split the vote in the 2012 elections, it appears likely that the GOP would win at least 234 of the 435 House seats.

Based on this district-by-district model and generic congressional polling results, we can predict overall House election results.

The current composition of the House is:
242 Republicans, 193 Democrats

Republicans are currently +1.8% in generic polling, which would imply the following post-election results:
252 Republicans, 183 Democrats (Republicans +10)

So, at this stage in the game, I would project a strongly Republican congress, a modestly Republican Senate and a Democratic President.  The classic ticket split.

Note: House races projected with the help of the Cook Partisan Voting Index analysis of congressional districts.

Will Democrats stage a comeback in the Senate?  Will the Republicans rally to take the Presidency?  Stay tuned for the next 7 months.

If you like this site, tell your friends.

How the Framing of the Story Changed, Newt - Get Out!, Looking Ahead to the General

The Inevitable Story Gains Legs
One of Mitt Romney's selling points to the GOP for the past couple of months has been that Romney inevitably would become the GOP nominee and had the best shot of beating President Obama in November and that the party should therefore line up behind him as continuing the primary fight only served to help the President's re-election prospects.

It was not a particularly sexy story - if you are a Republican, you'd much rather your nominee seek your vote because his views align with yours, his vision of the country is compelling, he has proven strong leadership, etc. versus "pick me, because you have no choice", but the story was more or less born out by the facts.  Romney wasn't and still isn't completely inevitable, but the math for anyone else to win is extremely difficult, as detailed in my last post.

The media - both the right (Fox News), the left (MSNBC) and the center (CNN) largely reported on but poo-pooed the assertion of the Romney campaign.  The reason is obvious - a competitive primary season that drags on generates more news coverage and ratings than an inevitable candidate just going through the motions.

The right wing of the Republican party largely rejected the narrative as well.  Romney wasn't conservative enough, was only winning pluralities, just COULDN'T be the choice of the home of the tea party if you were on the right.  So this odd marriage between the mainstream media and the right wing of the party kept the story of a competitive primary alive.

But a funny thing happened after Romney's victory in Illinois.  The GOP finally started circling the wagons.  Jeb Bush gave a belated endorsement to Romney.  Conservative king-maker Jim DeMint stopped just short of a formal endorsement, but made his support very clear.  The media started asking if the thing was over.

The odd thing is, the past week has gone exactly how anybody would have predicted it would have gone.  Romney won a large, urban state outside the south (Illinois) decisively, Santorum won a medium-sized deep south state decisively (Louisiana.)  It doesn't seem like the arc of the campaign has changed at all and yet the discussion has shifted entirely.

Maybe people are just finally realizing the math, maybe the election night coverage ratings are dwindling, maybe Republicans are starting to realize that losing to President Obama in November is quickly moving from a possibility to a probability, I don't know. 

At any rate, the race takes a little bit of lull this week with no contests going on (but surely lots of waving of Etch-a-Sketches), but confronts three winner-take-all contests worth a total of 98 delegates a week from Tuesday in Maryland, DC and Wisconsin.  Romney is leading all of those races and could pad his current delegate lead, which I estimate stands as follows (with some delegates yet to be decided in the last two races, pending final results):
Romney - 538 (53%)
Santorum - 254
Gingrich - 149
Paul - 67
Perry - 3
Huntsman - 2

Drop Out Gingrich - And You Too Ron Paul
I have long enjoyed the romantic story of Don Quixote, the Man of La Mancha, a man convinced he was a knight taking on giants (which were actually windmills.)  The term quixotic has entered our vocabulary as a romantically-inspired quest for a near-impossible goal.

But there comes a time to turn the sword in.  Newt Gingrich's time is here.

Newt Gingrich's power base has always been the deep South.  After having lost both the Alabama and Mississippi primaries, coming in a distant third in Louisiana clearly demonstrates that even his base has abandoned him.  If he can't do better than third in Louisiana, what states will he even be remotely competitive in?

Gingrich clearly cannot win the nomination.  He may be hanging around hoping that nobody gets to the magic number and he is a second ballot nominee.  But only an insane GOP would put him through on the second ballot.  In the unlikely event that Romney doesn't get to his magic number, he'd probably be able to build a coalition to get there.  Even if he couldn't, the GOP would be far more likely to broker a deal for a better candidate such as Jeb Bush or Chris Christie than to give the nomination to the third-place also-ran with more baggage than the cargo area of a 747.

Newt's funding has to be drying up - even rich Super-PAC donors want to know that they aren't just burning the money.  I actually expect that he will finally see the light and drop out soon.  He does like the spotlight, but the media has started ignoring him more and more.  It can't be much fun anymore.

And while we are on the topic of people who should drop out, let's talk about Ron Paul.  In the past 16 nominating contests, the man who has said over an over again that "it's all about winning delegates" has won a grand total of 11 of them out of 557 that were available in those contests.  Not only does Paul not have a shot at the nomination, his delegate total isn't gaining, so he isn't even winning any influence at the convention.

Paul, unlike Gingrich, will be able to keep raising funds for as long as he desires to continue.  But it is wrong for him to do so.  It's a free country and people are giving to Paul freely, but telling the devoted libertarians that give small donations to him that they are doing so because Paul has a real shot at the nomination (something that they are still utterly convinced of if you reading the comments section on any story on Paul) is disingenuous.  Paul had a good run, made some great points and had an unblemished legacy of supporting liberty and freedom in Congress and as a Presidential candidate.  It's time for him to stand aside.

General Election Catch-Up
Part of Romney's urgency to get the nomination locked up is so that he can get on to taking on President Obama, who has been quietly building a sizable lead while the Republicans fight for their nomination.

My average of averages has him up by 4.1% nationally in a heads up match with Romney, short of his 2008 victory, but a sizable lead that would surely deliver an electoral college victory.

In the key battleground states, here is the state of things:
Previously Lean Romney States:
Missouri - remains a Lean Romney - Romney +9% in recent polling
Indiana - remains a Lean Romney - no recent polling, but Obama needed a 7.2% national win to eek out a win in Indiana, so he would presume to trail by about 3% here
Florida - FLIPS TO LEAN OBAMA - Obama +3% in recent polling
North Carolina - FLIPS TO LEAN OBAMA - Obama +3% in recent polling
Ohio - stays with Romney...for now - the 2 most recent polls tell opposite stories, with one having Romney up by 6%, the other with Obama up a whopping 12%.  Based on the national margin, I'll leave it with Romney for now, but will keep an eye on it.
Virginia - FLIPS TO LEAN OBAMA - three recent polls all have Obama leading by margins of 9, 8 and 17% respectively.

Previously Lean Obama States:
New Hampshire - stays a Lean Obama - up 10% in the most recent polling
Colorado - no recent polling - stays a Lean Obama based on the national polling
Michigan - now a Likely Obama - up by 18% in recent polling
Pennsylvania - remains a Lean Obama - up 6% in recent polling

Other key states I am watching:
Arizona - remains a Likely Romney for now, but definitely one to watch - the two most recent polls have him leading by 5% and 11% respectively
Iowa - moves down to Lean Obama - Romney is leading in one of two recent polls (by 2%, Obama leads by 5% in the other poll)
Oregon - remains a Likely Obama for now, but his lead is 8 to 11% in recent polls, could be competitive if the race tightens
Wisconsin - another one that remains a Likely Obama but is one to watch, with Obama's lead at 5 to 14% in recent polling.
New Mexico - no sign of let-up for Obama, he is up by 19%.  Remains a Likely Obama and probably will not be competitive in November.
Minnesota - Obama up by 10 to 13% in recent polling.  Remains a Likely Obama.
Maine - Obama now up by 23% in recent polling.  Move from Likely Obama to Strong Obama.

So with all of that, we get the following map (assuming neither Nebraska nor Maine split their congressional districts):

Note: Map created with the help of 270towin.com

Clearly at 329-209, Mitt Romney has work to do in the general election.  He needs to take back Virginia, North Carolina and Florida plus one additional state from the Lean Obama column (either New Hampshire, Colorado or Iowa.)

And keep in mind, his war chest is oversized relative to the GOP field, but not relative to the President, who will surely be a fund-raising juggernaut again this year.

Of course, it is way early.  Michael Dukakis looked pretty good against George H.W. Bush at this stage in the race.  The economy, public perceptions, the foreign policy arena, it could all change a lot between now and November.

But what is clear is that Romney has an uphill battle.  Which is why he wants to wrap up the nomination now.

If you like this site, tell your friends.