Whither the Electoral Weather

My thanks to Miranda and Professor Schaff for filling in while I was abroad. I haven't had time yet to look at the comments on the recent posts or reply to those on my posts before I left. I will respond to Professor Schaff's July 4^th election post. Jon thinks that Obama is going to win. He relies largely on Nate Silver's projections and the Intrade odds, and he thinks that Obama has an easier route to 270 electoral votes.

Nate Silver is a forecaster. He tries to assemble a package of data sources that has been reliable in the past. That's how a weatherman tries to tell you whether it will rain tomorrow. Given these numbers, 2 out of 3 times, it rains. Jay Cost is an analyst. He tries to map the general forces that will determine the outcome. That's how a weatherman tries to predict the weather over the next week. Given these fronts, etc., this is what seems to be shaping up.

I find Cost's approach more interesting and more plausible. Cost ranks a number of forces from strongest to weakest in this order: party identification, right track/wrong track, evaluation of incumbent, and net campaign effects. Cost notes that a President usually gets a share of the vote equal to his approval rating.

After the back-to-back debacles of 1980 and 1984, the Democratic party essentially rebuilt its core coalition. Since 1988 the party has not fallen below 46 percent of the two party vote, either in the presidential contest or the national House race. That looks to be the core Democratic base of support in this country.

If we go by his job approval, this is roughly all President Obama is holding at the moment. He pulls in a little bit more in most polls most of the time, but not very much.

I note that the President's approval rating has been consistently lower than 50% for some time. His approval rating has been over 50% in only two polls since May. It has been at 50% only in two polls out of the most recent ten.

Jon compares this election with 2004.

Romney, like John Kerry, is essentially an acceptable but uninspiring figure, not the kind of guy who convinces a nation to oust an incumbent president. And like 2004, an incumbent president with some very noticeable weaknesses will win, and win ugly.

I note, however, that this is precisely the point at which George W. Bush's approval rating climbed above 50% in the Gallup polls in 2004. It remained there for most of the remainder of the election cycle. Bush won narrowly, but convincingly. Gallup has given Obama a 50% approval rating only very briefly in 2011, when bin Laden was killed. Other than that, he has been below 50% for most of the last two years. This looks to have solidified. Unless the President can move those numbers, the odds are against him.

As for the Electoral College numbers, I am with Charlie Cook. They matter only in a very close election and then only in the last days. If either candidate wins the national vote by more than a hair, that candidate will win enough of the battleground states to give him the victory. Right now Obama has the lead in national polls by a few points. Most of these are polling registered voters or all voters. The few that poll likely voters show a tie. Again, however, except for the Pew poll, no national poll puts Obama at let alone over 50%.

Obama is running a very negative campaign. What else can he do? With the President's numbers, however, it is not enough to tear Romney down. He has to convince the voters that Romney is unacceptable. He doesn't seem to be accomplishing that yet and he may be using all the ammunition he has rather early in the game.

At some point, Obama is going to have to pull his numbers up over the halfway mark. I think we know by now that the President is not effective at making a case for himself and his policies. This isn't going to change. Not only is his approval rating lower than Bush's 2004 numbers at comparable points, but the wrong track numbers are considerably worse. He is also running against much worse economic numbers. The recent job growth numbers are terrible.

Of course, Romney has to pull his numbers up as well. That is usually easier for a challenger than for an incumbent, whom the voters know all too well by this point. Where is Obama going to get the four or five points he needs? Right now I can't see it. If Obama can't get that, uninspiring Romney wins by default.

KB

Comments

[duggersd]

I first learned from Dick Morris that undecided voters tend to go to the challenger. Given that Obama and Romney are essentially tied, Romney is in a pretty good spot going into election day. Obama does not have a record he can run on. Romney can attack Obama's record, but Obama, like other liberals, makes things up in order to gain traction. It will be interesting to see how things play out when Romney begins advertising in earnest.

[larry kurtz]

Former NM Gov. Gary Johnson needs to poll at least 15% to participate in debates with President Obama and alleged felon: white, wimpy, wildly unpopular, Willard Romney.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/libertarian-s-johnson-criticizes-obama-romney-in-las-vegas-visit-162435246.html

If Gov. Gary Johnson can gather enough uncommitted and disaffected Ron Paul supporters in South Dakota, having John Thune on the losing ticket in his own state would be the coldest of dishes.

[larry kurtz]

You guys are in big trouble, Ken: Gov. Romney may be forced to argue his case just to salvage his candidacy at the Republican Convention where John Thune or Jeb Bush could easily emerge as the nominee.

[Bill Fleming]

Meanwhile, Nate Silver has Obama's electoral vote projected at 298.9 vs Romney at 239.1. If the election were held today, his model has it 305.4 to 232.6. (...an 81% chance of winning.)

I guess if I were pulling for Romney, I'd be looking for a new set of tea leaves, too, KB.

Welcome back, by the way.

Hope you enjoyed your trip.

Did you do anything awesome and righteous?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[Stan Gibilisco]

Bill, I think you're right. Romney comes off as a member of the investor class. That single factor alone will probably keep me from voting for him.

If I, a lifelong Republican with a rigidly conservative fiscal attitude, won't vote for Romney, I think his baboon is broiled.

Not that I'll vote for Obama, either ... but I think Obama will be elected by a surprising electoral margin.

[Donald Pay]

I'm not sure why the "wrong track" numbers indicate problems for Obama. I'm voting for Obama, and I think the country is on the wrong track. There are a lot of Democrats who think the country has been on the wrong track for a long, long time--thirty or more years, at least since Reagan.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: Thanks. We both want to hear what we want to hear. I note that Silver predicts that Obama will win just over 2% of the popular vote margin. That's mighty thin. A point or two either way will move a lot of electoral votes.

Donald: the right track/wrong track numbers have been very reliable predictors of Presidential elections. As hard as this may be for you to accept, Obama is president now and he is the incumbent. If the voters decide to hold him responsible for the present situation...

Stan: if I have to choose between the investor class and the never challenged to do anything until now class, I choose the former. That would be if I believed in classes, which I do not.

[Sevil]

If she can get a good bump in Iowa and NH and since we no she will have the funds, Im hoping that she can get in the Top 3 for the first 4 pirramies and then lets see what happens. Since it is not a winner take all anymore, she has a real shot if she can hang in there while others drop out.