For Whom the Bell Polls

The worst poll yet for Obama was released by The Hill this week. The poll of 1,000 likely voters begins with an unusual question:

Based solely on job performance, does President Obama deserve to be reelected?

The results were devastating. Men said no by 57%. Women said no by 51%, as did voters 18-39. All three groups showed a yes vote of 40%.

Obviously the question is designed to isolate the voter's judgment of Obama from the influence of their judgment of Romney. The poll also estimates likely voters as 2% more Republican than Democrat (36-34%). Both factors weigh slightly against Mr. Obama, but the second is in line with most estimates of voter enthusiasm and the impact of the second depends on how voters favor Romney. Neither, I think, is likely to make enough difference to overcome the numbers above. If this poll is correct, Obama is a one term President.

Charlie Cook thinks that voter enthusiasm is a big problem for the President. He continues to score very well among blacks, Hispanics, younger voters. Of the three, only blacks seem likely to turn out in relatively large numbers. Meanwhile, the voter blocks that favor Romney are the groups most likely to turn out.

The other group that Obama is counting on is women voters. Here the CNN poll has some good news. It has the race tied 48-48% among likely voters. The lean Obama/Biden v. Romney/Ryan numbers among women were 54-42%, the mirror image of the numbers for men. I guess that explains the tie. Of course, it is hard to square these numbers with the Hill poll above.

So what about favorability? TPM's poll tracker shows a spike in Romney's favorable ratings across a range of polls. Measured in terms of horse race numbers, Romney enjoyed a small but historically disappointing bounce from the Republican Convention. In past elections a convention bounce seems to come from shifts in undecided voters as they absorb the two sales pitches. The prevailing theory now is that there just aren't a lot of undecided voters.

In the current environment, Romney needed to improve his favorable enough to hold onto all his leaners and attract every last voter still in play. Judged by that standard, Romney seems to have enjoyed a very good bounce from the convention. His favorable ratings are generally above 50% and he has pretty much caught up with Obama.

If I were part of the Romney organization, which I am not, I would be hopeful but worried. If I were part of the Obama organization, which I am not, I would be very worried but hopeful. The only thing I would project from the above is that there is very little that Obama can do to improve his position. The only thing he can do is to try to beat Romney back down. For evidence of my proposition, consider the subtitle of a recent LA Times editorial:

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are pinning the election on the proposition that Obama has been a disappointment. The president must explain how his second term would be different.

The LAT implicitly concedes Romney's point. Obama's first term was a disappointment, so he has to convince voters that his second term won't be like his first one. If the left coast Times is right, Obama's ass is oatmeal.

Comments

[Bill Fleming]

A second Obama term wouldn't be at all like the first one, for a number of reasons, not the least of which would be the fact that he doesn't have to worry about being elected to a second term. Congress would have no choice but to work with him.

A first Romney term by contrast would be much like a first Obama term as far as congressional cooperation goes... as in, there probably won't be any.

That, plus the demographic shift, probably explains why the GOP is so clearly nervous this time around. They've already lost the long game. The short one is all they have left to play. And to even come close to winning, they have to get almost all the marbles.

Ain't gonna happen.

[Donald Pay]

Has Obama been a disappointment? Yeah. He's governed like a center right Republican, so it's no wonder people are disappointed. His health care plan is mostly warmed over Romneycare. It gets to universal coverage, and it can be fixed, so we'll live with it and try to improve it. It's better than the nothing we get from Romney-Ryan. He kept the Bush tax abomination and didn't get out of Bush's wars fast enough---that exploded the deficit. Still, as disappointing as his Republican policies have been, it is still far better than the fascism that awaits us under the Romney-Ryan Republicans.

[larry kurtz]

Jon Lauck told twitter that RomneyCare will pay for a MA inmate's gender reassignment: who knew that Willard was such a Liberal?

[A.I.]

It appears you are citing national polls KB. As you well know, they don't count for much in terms of which candidate will win. That is determined by the electoral college and battle ground/swing states where Obama has been polling ahead of Romney.

So why write this post? My best bet is you are trying to bolster morale/enthusiasm among Romney supporters who, when polled, are saying they think he will lose.

[Bill Fleming]

Perhaps Mr. Silver can provide a little clarity (if not much hope) to KB's polling ruminations here:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/sept-4-the-simple-case-for-why-obama-is-the-favorite/

[jhm47]

The polls don't matter. Neither does the election. The outcome is already ordained by voter fraud and the manipulation of vote tabulation. The Obama (Chicago) machine has already stolen this election. May God have mercy on our country!

[larry kurtz]

Meidinger: you have given thousands to Saxby Chambliss, earth hater extraordinaire. No wonder you just like white people.

[duggersd]

AI, while you are correct that there are actually 50 state elections for President, the fact remains that if the difference in the vote is more than about 1%, the one getting less is not going to win. The last time the person with fewer votes than the popular vote winner, the difference was well below 1%. I suspect Romney is in a pretty good spot at this point. He is essentially tied with Obama and has not spent his money yet.

[Ken Blanchard]

A.I.: Dugger is right. If Romney wins the popular vote by a significant margin, he will win enough electoral votes. Are you hoping for the opposite? Obama wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote? I can sympathize. I've been there.

I don't know if the Hill poll is right, but if it is then Obama's in trouble. Contrary to what you say, I have no illusions about the impact of this blog. I write because I am interested in what is going on.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: you are certainly on Obama's wave concerning his next term. He told the Russians, when he thought we weren't listening, that he would have more flexibility in a second term. So one thing to look forward to, if he is reelected, is that we will finally find out what he honestly thinks.

If Romney is elected, I look forward to you blasting the Democrats for obstructionism. Its a win win situation!

[Bill Fleming]

Yup. Win win. Exactly.

[Bill Fleming]

If the GOP doesn't will all the marbles, in the short game, they lose. And in the long game, they're obsolete either way. Today's 'my way or the highway' R Party is a dead man walking. Toast.