ELECTIONATE OCTOBER 16, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
While it’s unclear whether Romney has made big gains in swing states like Ohio or Iowa, there’s not much question that Romney has made big gains in Florida, the largest battleground state. In polls conducted after the first debate, Romney leads by an average of 1.8 points compared to an Obama edge of 2.6 points in post-DNC, pre-debate surveys. Unlike Ohio, Romney’s 4.4 point improvement is similar to Romney’s gain of 5 points in a direct comparison with pre-debate counterparts.
What’s driving Romney’s gains? Both PPP and NBC/WSJ/Marist found Romney’s favorability ratings improving, with a majority of voters in both states now holding a favorable impression of the Republican nominee. In Ohio, Romney appears to remain unpopular, which appears at least partially responsible for his struggle to regain the lead in the Buckeye State.
Polls also suggest that Obama has a problem with Democratic unity. In PPP, Rasmussen, and ARG, Obama only averages 83 percent of Democrats while Romney is near 90 percent among Republican partisans. NBC/WSJ/Marist still shows Obama in the lead, in part by finding Obama with 93 percent of Democrats. A more unified Democratic coalition could bring the race to a dead heat, since the polls suggest that Romney has a narrow lead among independents (Rasmussen and Marist dissent with a large Obama and Romney advantage among independents, respectively) and Democrats slightly outnumber Republicans in the Sunshine State.
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
If there’s any element of the Democratic coalition where Obama might be struggling, it could be Latino voters. But here, the evidence is somewhat mixed. On the one hand, Mason Dixon, PPP, and NBC/WSJ/Marist all show Romney either ahead or with Obama leading by only a few points among Hispanics, even though Obama won Florida Latinos by 15 points four years ago. Similarly, an FIU poll of Hispanics in Florida showed Obama leading by 6 points among a large sample and found Obama struggling among Cuban voters, despite strength among Puerto Ricans. But other polls suggest Obama might be holding up better among Florida Latinos. Rasmussen shows Obama ahead by 55-37 among non-white or black voters and UNF shows Obama leading 59-33 among Hispanics. A Latino Decisions survey conducted prior to the first presidential debate found Obama leading 62-31.
Given that these subsamples are so small and the consistency of Obama's big lead among Latinos in national surveys, this evidence isn't yet sufficient to be sure that Obama has a problem with Hispanic Floridians. The difficulty of polling Florida's Latino population is exacerbated by the unusual diversity of Florida's Latino population, which includes Republican-leaning Cubans and Democratic-leaning Puerto Ricans. For instance, Mason Dixon found Romney up by 10 in the Orlando region and leading by a slight margin among Hispanics, which might mean that they missed Orlando’s large, growing, and overwhelmingly Democratic Puerto Rican population that all but assures that Obama wins Orange and Osceola counties by double digits.
But even if Romney doesn’t lead among Latino voters, Obama's margin still looks like it might be lower than it was four years ago. At the very least, the evidence raises the real possibility that Obama is struggling among Cuban voters, since the FIU poll sampled both Cubans and Puerto Ricans and found Obama underperforming among Cuban voters. In 2008, Obama improved on Kerry’s margin in Miami Dade County by 90,000 voters, representing nearly 40 percent of Obama’s statewide margin of victory. Many of Obama’s gains were due to improvement among Cuban Americans and Obama would prefer to hold onto to those gains in a tight race. On the other hand, the FIU poll was landline-only and many believe that Obama's '08 gains were due to younger, third generation Cuban Americans who might be less likely to own a landline.
Regardless of whether Obama’s decline in Florida is attributable to losses among Cubans, Democrats, or voters with a better impression of Romney, the big picture is quite clear. Unlike other states where the evidence is more mixed, Obama has suffered sizable losses in Florida and Romney holds a slight lead. Given a close race nationally and Florida’s traditional Republican-tilt, this isn’t surprising. From a certain perspective, the fact that Romney isn’t further ahead might be considered good news for the president—Florida voted 5 points more Republican than the country in 2008, but Obama remains competitive in a tight national race. But although a competitive race forces Romney to spend in the Sunshine State, an Obama victory would have been all but sufficient to win the election and Romney now appears positioned to avoid check mate in the southeast, at least for the moment.
12 comments
This story seems full of misplaced optimism to me. Just a week ago, Mr. Cohn suggested ("Romney's Bounce Levels Off, But Will It Last?") the post-depbate bounce wouldn't last. It did. A a few weeks before that, Mr. Cohn indicated Romney had a serious challenge in Virginia ("Romney’s Overlooked Challenge In Virginia") and intimated that somehow it had been "overlooked." Today, Romney looks to be taking, or at least seriously contending, in VA. And then two weeks ago ("Judge Romney's Performance With His Weaknesses In Mind"), Mr. Cohn told us that "[Romney] has a favorability problem." And yet, today, we see he's reached a new high in favorability and Obama's favorability lead has evaporated. And a week ago, Mr. Cohn reminded us all that "Romney Leads Nationally—Just Not in Battleground States" and yet today, the PPP/SEIU/DAILYKOS poll puts Romney ahead 50-47 in swing states. Hmm.. :)
- seattleeng
October 16, 2012 at 12:18pm
Over at the Plank, Alec McGillis is arguing that debates don't, or shouldn't matter. With a post-debate 4.4. net loss for Obama, evidently they do. It's not that often that I agree with seattleeng, but he's right here - misplaced optimism. The polls are clearly moving in Romney's favor.
- dubyadoubte
October 16, 2012 at 12:25pm
These polls are virtually meaningless in terms of the probable outcome. They probably represent the low ebb of O's campaign which is now poised to sprint for the finish line. Carter was leading Reagan in the polls about this time in that campaign and Reagan won going away. It's tough to beat a sitting President. It's virtually impossible to do it with bullshit.
- Robert Powell
October 16, 2012 at 12:31pm
Hopefully, Robert Powell is right because bullshit is all they've got and that, they possess in metric tons. Mountains.
- Sophia
October 16, 2012 at 1:16pm
Just in case, on the "bullshit" charge: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/sorry-u-s-recoveries-really-aren-t-different.html This is fundamental to the Romney campaign--"Look how badly he's done!". I read about Roghoff et al's book in 2009. You're telling me a guy who want's to be President isn't as well-informed as I am on his principal campaign meme? Talkin' about bullshit here.
- Robert Powell
October 16, 2012 at 2:17pm
If that wasn't enough to justify calling bullshit: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/the-final-word-on-mitt-romney-s-tax-plan.html seattle, or any other Rom-bot supporters out there, your guy has served up a thin gruel.
- Robert Powell
October 16, 2012 at 2:44pm
Tough to beat a sitting president? Maybe so but: Carter, Bush pere, Ford? Maybe not that tough. Florida, like most places, is doing better. But the housing situation there is still horrendous--a huge drain. I tend to think BHO is in trouble. I have his sign on my lawn, but believe he did serious damage to himself during the debate. He appeared incompetent--like someone who comes to a job interview without enthusiasm and without a story to tell. I know it's been said ad nauseum. But it's not simply that he didn't do well. He did poorly in a particularly damaging way. The hit he has taken in the polls does not surprise me. People are not fact junkies like most TNR readers. Unfortunately, like GWB, they go with their gut.
- Vogelfam
October 16, 2012 at 4:11pm
RP writes: "seattle, or any other Rom-bot supporters out there, your guy has served up a thin gruel." Most I talk to that claim to understand Romney's proposal actually don't understand it :) Romney has said, point blank, that he will not reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income earners. That isn't at all incompatible with reducing marginal rates. Here's an example to help illustrate this. A single person earning $50K in the US today has a marginal rate of 25%. He pays an effective rate of 14.2%. The reason the marginal and effective rates are different is due to deductions. Ergo, you could eliminate all deductions and reduce this marginal rate by 11% and he'd pay the exact same amount in taxes while his marginal rate was chopped substantially. This is precisely what Romney is saying: Eliminate deductions, slash marginal rates, keep effective rates. The tax code would be dramatically streamlined and simplified. Why is this so hard for folks to grasp? The benefit of this is a hugely simplified tax code. This is also what confuses the left about tax rates "back in the day". The top 1% have always paid an effective rate around 32%. Even back when marginal rates were 90%. Yes, 90% sounds like a lot, but everything could be deducted. The company car, the country club membership, vacations (as long as you talked business at some point), all interest, etc. A pure tax code has marginal and effective the same: No deductions. And tax code ripe for gaming has marginal rates much higher than effective rates. As the gap between marginal and effective grows, the entire process becomes overrun with lobbyists and a swelling IRS needed to oversee the complexity. PS. Carter lost because he couldn't articulate what he'd do differently the next 4 years. Obama can't either.
- seattleeng
October 16, 2012 at 5:27pm
Obama took the lead in tonight's debate. btw: someone should tell those old retired geezers that Romney will step by step take away their medicare and would if he could trim social security.
- arnon1
October 16, 2012 at 11:11pm
Check the link seattle--you can't possibly say the author doesn't have the facts. The problem isn't lack of understanding by critics, it's lack of candor by the candidate. "Eliminate deductions" is fine as far as it goes, but number one he refuses to say which ones, and number two, actually getting this done in Congress is Hell and gone different than bullshitting about it in general terms. As far as O's agenda for the second term, more of the same would be just fine given that the actual historical record shows that he's presided over the strongest, quickest recovery from a major fiscal crisis in over a century (first link). We're poised for a much stronger recovery if he wins, especially if he's able to use the mandate to strong-arm Congress into facing its responsibilities, at least in terms of the most pressing matters. A Romney win sends up back to square one, and for sure the number one priority of Dems will be to deny him a second term. Turnabout may be fair play, but in this case it's not what's best for the country.
- Robert Powell
October 17, 2012 at 1:19am
RP writes: "Check the link seattle--you can't possibly say the author doesn't have the facts. The problem isn't lack of understanding by critics, it's lack of candor by the candidate." Look at how the Tax Policy Center's analysis fell apart. They started with a simple analysis: If rich people paid 33% today, and their taxes dropped 20%, then they'd pay just 13%, which means a lot less revenue. Wrong. Then, they came back and adjusted a few things, and got closer. Lather, rinse, repeat, and they finally admit that "Under those assumptions and policies it would be revenue neutral." Wow! They got to closure with the Romney camp! yes, those are actually their words in the quotes. Now, they didn't say it'd be easy. But that's quite a shift from the original assertion that this was $5T, isn't it? Suffice to say, the left doesn't talk about the TPC analysis anymore. They've moved on to the next batch of arithmetically challenged reporters that don't know the difference between effective and marginal rates. And each of those wanting analysis makes a similar set of mistakes. RP writes: "As far as O's agenda for the second term, more of the same would be just fine given that the actual historical record shows that he's presided over the strongest, quickest recovery from a major fiscal crisis in over a century (first link). " I guess if you throw out all the other crises that WERE well handled (as the article did), and only considered those that were poorly handled (as the article did), then yes, this one might look OK :) Ironically, our two biggest "collective" presidents presided over the worst ones. WERE they the worst ones, or were they made worse due to the "collective" responses of FDR and BHO? We've had a major economic stumble once per decade over the last 100 years. But make no mistake, had someone else been in office, this wouldn't have been nearly as deep, or nearly as long. Remember, after a full year in office, with all the visibility one might hope for, the president declared this over. Green shoots everywhere. Good times were back. And yet they weren't. Why? Two years AFTER that proclamation, we're still struggling. Why?
- seattleeng
October 17, 2012 at 4:21am
1--serious scholarship, not "the article", demonstrates conclusively that over more than a century in a variety of different places, fiscal/banking crises similar to 2008 take five to ten years to resolve--some more. O's ahead of schedule. Your hypothetical about "someone else in office" doing better is poor. McCain? Space aliens? 2--please actually read Barros' careful breakdown of Romney's tax "plan". Quibbling about the TPC analysis isn't going to help you here. The. Numbers. Don't. Add. Up.
- Robert Powell
October 17, 2012 at 4:30pm