Of course I have received, via twitter, the final electoral map of Ted Panos. It is an interesting contrast to mine, and not just because we have different views of the ultimate winner. Lets take a look.
Teddy has Romney emerging with an electoral college victory by a 281 to 257 margin. I have Obama emerging with an electoral college victory of 281 to 257. Hmmmm. Maybe Teddy and I are not so far apart after all. We seem to agree on all, except Ohio and Iowa. But what both maps say is that we both agree that it is all up to Ohio. On both maps an Obama win in Ohio, and a Romney victory in Iowa, would still produce an Obama Electoral College win. And an Obama win in Iowa, on Teddy’s map, coupled with a Romney victory in Ohio, would still give Romney the victory. So after all of the back and forth we end up in Ohio, where President Obama is 10 points better with working class whites than he is anywhere else in the country. The auto bailout, if I am correct, will have decided this race.
Lets speak frankly here. Republicans were against the government intervention on ideological grounds. The position was that the Big Three would have their output replaced by foreign manufacturers. It was a position based on a free market/free trade ideology, which is still Republican dogma. I have had so many of my Republican friends say to me, in private, that GM and Chrysler should have been let go. I have heard the phrase “The government won’t bail me out, why should they bail out the inefficient auto industry with my money” so many times. When they say it now I just ask why they don’t go to Ohio and make that case there. They tend to hang their heads and mumble in response. I remember quite well the warnings of conservative Republican Patrick Buchanan when the auto bailout was being discussed. Lets look at one of his columns from way back when.
Before Republicans follow this free-trade fanaticism to their final interment, they might study the results of a poll by Peter Hart:
– Seventy-eight percent of Americans believe the U.S. auto industry is highly or extremely important. Three percent think we can do without it.
Ninety percent of Americans believe the death of the U.S. auto industry would do great damage to our economic future.
By 55 percent to 30 percent, Americans favor federal loans to save it. And by 64 percent to 25 percent, Americans back President-elect Obama’s resolve not to let the U.S. auto industry go under.
If the GOP blocks these loans, and the industry dies, the party can forget about Ohio, Michigan and the industrial Midwest, for the Reagan Democrats will never come home again. Nor should they.
A stark warning from Pat Buchanan. If President Obama wins Ohio tomorrow Buchanan’s prediction would be eerily accurate. And one New York Times op-ed would have trumped, by a slight margin, the Romney comeback.
I have really not paid much attention on this blog to local matters since I came back, but the Methuen City Council tonight takes up the concept of privatizing the City Information Technology Department. (Disclosure: While Mayor I drew the management study of the Department, which was late in my term and was left for Mayor Zanni.) The Tribune did a story on it yesterday, and it looks like it will be a close City Council vote tonight.
Should the City lay off employees and privatize? Or should the plan be rejected? Do you have any thoughts? Sort of an open thread that may give all some food for thought.
The Ted Panos electoral map has arrived, and the race for electoral bragging rights is on. I am examining his map, and in the spirit of trying to one up Ted I will start by pointing out that he should switch Hawaii to blue, and Alaska to red.
Ted has Romney at 254, Obama at 229, and toss-up at 55. So even a strong Romney supporter does not have him at 270 just yet. My major argument with the Panos map is in Virginia, which at best should be a toss-up. I have to say that wishful thinking aside both Nevada and Iowa are no longer toss-ups, but pretty much strongly lean Democratic. Teddy is hoping that the Obama candidacy falls down in Ohio and Wisconsin.If it does then I will be eating a lot of crow on Wednesday morning, but if not the Romney candidacy is over. I look forward to his revisions, due on Monday. Listen to Teddy on 980 am WCAP each and every morning starting at 6:00 a.m., follow him on twitter @tedpanos, and stand by for my victory dance via twitter and on the radio. Hopefully we can place a friendly wager before the windows close on Monday! My current map is here.
My weekly appearance on WCAP this past Friday, talking with Teddy, Mara, and Todd about the politics of the day. Always a good time with a great group. Follow this group on twitter. @tedpanos @maradolan @billmanzi
A post without poll numbers? Will miracles never cease. A couple of days back I talked about what might happen if President Obama won re-election and was faced with decisions on the fiscal cliff. There has been plenty of talk in the last few days about how a President Romney would deal with the fiscal cliff, and the overall federal budget problems. Some great back and forth, with a columnist that I greatly respect (David Brooks) arguing that the newly moderate Mitt Romney would be in a better position to do big things on the budget. Brooks argues that the new Romney “flexibility” makes him the better choice for President because he will force the Republican Congress to “accept” a deal that includes revenue increases, which a re-elected Barack Obama could not do. As mentioned I really do like Brooks, a centrist who draws fire from both Republicans and Democrats. On this one I think he has it wrong. How does he envision Obama handling the fiscal cliff?
The first order of business would be the budget deal, averting the so-called fiscal cliff. Obama would first go to Republicans in the Senate and say, “Look, we’re stuck with each other. Let’s cut a deal for the sake of the country.” He would easily find 10 Republican senators willing to go along with a version of a Grand Bargain.
Then Obama would go to the House. He’d ask Eric Cantor, the majority leader, if there were votes for such a deal. The answer would probably be no. Republican House members still have more to fear from a primary challenge from the right than from a general election challenge from the left. Obama is tremendously unpopular in their districts. By running such a negative presidential campaign, Obama has won no mandate for a Grand Bargain. Obama himself is not going to suddenly turn into a master legislative craftsman on the order of Lyndon Johnson.
There’d probably be a barrage of recriminations from all sides. The left and right would be consumed with ire and accusations. Legislators would work out some set of fudges and gimmicks to kick the fiscal can down the road.
So Brooks speculates that the Republicans dig in and refuse to compromise (with President Obama) on revenues, and some fiscal disaster ensues which requires delay of a solution. How does he see a President Romney handling things?
To get re-elected in a country with a rising minority population and a shrinking Republican coalition, Romney’s shape-shifting nature would induce him to govern as a center-right moderate. To get his tax and entitlement reforms through the Democratic Senate, Romney would have to make some serious concessions: increase taxes on the rich as part of an overall reform; abandon the most draconian spending cuts in Paul Ryan’s budget; reduce the size of his lavish tax-cut promises.
As President Romney made these concessions, conservatives would be in uproar. Talk-radio hosts would be the ones accusing him of Romneysia, forgetting all the promises he made in the primary season. There’d probably be a primary challenge from the right in 2016.
But Republicans in Congress would probably go along. They wouldn’t want to destroy a Republican president. Romney would champion enough conservative reforms to allow some Republicans to justify their votes.
So Brooks feels that Romney should be elected because he is a “shape-shifter” who would govern as “moderate Mitt”. The column title tells it all! “The Upside of Opportunism”.
Brooks point, as I see it, is that Republicans will take their ball and go home if Barack Obama wins, but would make the same compromise with a President Romney they would refuse to a President Obama. Not sure that Brooks has it right on two Republican points.
1) Mitt Romney will support budgetary compromise, and additional revenues.
2) He would have House Republican support if he did.
Majority Leader Eric Cantor has just posted a video attacking the idea of using Simpson-Bowles as a model for solving our nations difficulties. It is true that attacks on Simpson-Bowles have come from left and right, with each side cherry picking what they like, and rejecting the part that requires “compromise”. Not sure if Brooks saw this video, but it should tell us all we need to know about the potential for Republican compromise, either with Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. The fear of right wing primary challenges to Congressional Republicans will not abate if Mitt Romney wins the Presidency. In fact it is my view that Mitt Romney will have an exceedingly difficult time getting House Republicans to agree to compromise. I agree with Brooks that Senate Dems will be looking to cut a deal, and will not hold the country hostage. I do not agree that they can sign on to a deal that contains no revenues. I have to say that it is the first time I have seen someone of Brooks stature say that we should vote for a candidate because he doesn’t tell the truth about his positions, or believes in changing those positions to suit the political terrain he is standing on. Without question I don’t agree with rewarding that type of behavior in a political candidate.
Barack Obama, if re-elected, will have steep challenges of his own to face on fiscal matters. Brooks highlights the potential Obama problems with House Republicans. Unfortunately that will not be his only challenge. The attacks on Simpson-Bowles from the left have been just as tough as the ones from Eric Cantor and the Republicans. (See, Krugman, Paul). Today’s Politico has the marker from the left being laid down. The title of the story tells it all: “Liberals Fear Grand Bargain Betrayal if Obama Wins.” From that piece:
“It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant,” Obama told The Des Moines Register editorial board. “But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in [taxes], and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.” Administration officials say the range of options that Obama has considered in the past are well known, so it shouldn’t be a surprise if they are resurrected.
But progressive leaders don’t want Obama to go back there. Privately, they use words like “debacle” and “betrayal” to describe the backlash that would ensue. They are far more measured in their public statements ahead of the election.
The unions and advocacy groups have invested time and money in the battleground states pushing the message that Obama is better than Republican Mitt Romney on creating jobs, protecting the middle class and preserving Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.And if Obama wins, they say they plan to remind him who is responsible for delivering him a second term — and it won’t be a coalition of Republicans, deficit hawks or even independents, but rather a Democratic base that expects him to stand firm on key priorities.
Yes it is a bipartisan problem. Reaching compromise will be difficult for either man after the election. So I think that the voters ought to go in and vote for the man who best reflects the positions and values they hold. To base that vote on Mitt Romney’s malleability would be a mistake. The bete noire of the right, Paul Krugman, has it right.
And, when Republicans took control of the House, they became even more extreme. The 2011 debt ceiling standoff was a first in American history: An opposition party declared itself willing to undermine the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, with incalculable economic effects, unless it got its way. And the looming fight over the “fiscal cliff” is more of the same. Once again, the G.O.P. is threatening to inflict large damage on the economy unless Mr. Obama gives it something — an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy — that it lacks the votes to pass through normal constitutional processes.
Would a Democratic Senate offer equally extreme opposition to a President Romney? No, it wouldn’t. So, yes, there is a case that “partisan gridlock” would be less damaging if Mr. Romney won.
But are we ready to become a country in which “Nice country you got here. Shame if something were to happen to it” becomes a winning political argument? I hope not. By all means, vote for Mr. Romney if you think he offers the better policies. But arguing for Mr. Romney on the grounds that he could get things done veers dangerously close to accepting protection-racket politics, which have no place in American life.
The name of the Krugman column? “The Blackmail Caucus”. Post election compromising sure does not look promising today. I hope that changes next Wednesday morning.
Since we have been all polls all the time why change today? Wall Street Journal/NBC/Marist has arrived with three key swing state numbers, from New Hampshire, Iowa, and Wisconsin. They all show President Obama holding onto small leads that have diminished over the past month. The numbers please.
For me I look to Wisconsin first. Even though some of my friends don’t believe it I still concede that Mitt Romney has a chance to win this election. I try to look at the numbers without trying to spin them so that I get a result I am hoping for. Not to be a broken record but I don’t see how Mitt Romney wins without Ohio. That is not a partisan observation. I think Mitt Romney believes it too. Wisconsin is important because I believe that if Romney were to break through here it might indicate that the Obama mid-western firewall, including Ohio, might be in trouble. So lets see what Marist is showing in WI.
25% of voters have already voted in Wisconsin, and as with other early vote states the President is leading by large margins with those voters. (59% to 39%). Overall the President leads Mitt Romney, with likely voters, by a 49% to 46% margin, with 3% undecided, and 2% with “other”. That 2% looks pretty important to both candidacies right about now. It is also clear that voters are hardened, and there is not a lot of persuasion left to be done. The number is within the margin of error, and shows Romney cutting the President’s lead in half since the last survey. An interesting note is the favorable/unfavorable number. The President stands at 53%/44%, while Romney is at 47%/47%. The President’s job approval is at 49% approval, 45% disapproval. And the President has a big lead with women, leading here by 14% with females. The big US Senate race in WI has Democrat Tammy Baldwin with an ever so slight lead on Tommy Thompson 48% to 47%, with 1% undecided (talk about hardening) and 4% with “other”. That 4% looks pretty big right now as well. Another key race that may well determine the majority in the US Senate.
In small but critical New Hampshire Obama maintains a slight lead, which is also down from the last Marist survey, and within the polling margin of error. Obama leads 49% to 47%, with 3% undecided, and 1% with “other”. The President’s job approval is at 48%/48%, while his favorable/unfavorable is at 50%/46%, while Romney is at 49%/46%. One other note is the NH right track/wrong track question, which is at 42% right track, 53% wrong track. That is a negative for Barack Obama in light of the tightness of this race. In NH the President leads with women by a whopping 16%. For all the talk of closing the gender gap it appears that if Barack Obama does win re-election then one of the major pillars of that effort would be his support with women. New Hampshire is real close, and remains a true toss-up state.
The New Hampshire Governor’s race shows Democrat Maggie Hassan beginning to open up a little distance between herself and Ovide Lamontagne, the Republican. Hassan leads with likely voters by a 49% to 44% margin, with 6% undecided. A Hassan victory here appears likely.
The survey shows that 10% of the respondents in NH had voted early, and with that group the President leads by a 56% to 42% margin.
I had moved NH from toss-up to Obama on my last map, but you can see it will be a very tight race there. I also have Wisconsin in the Obama column, but I feel more confident there. I did not talk about the third leg of this story, Iowa, because I see that as being a bit out of reach for Romney.
Even with the very small margins I am sure the Romney folks will call into question the “methodology” of these polls. Democrats over-sampled, likely voter screen too strong/weak, pollster’s mother is a Democrat, and on and on we go. In light of all of these objections I have searched for a poll that would be considered “properly sampled” by Republicans, and I believe I have found it. It is the survey that shows Mitt Romney in the lead. Unfortunately that survey is not from Ohio.
It is time to re-visit the electoral map. I have made my first changes, which include moving Virginia from toss-up to Barack Obama, moving FLA from Romney to toss-up, and moving NH from toss-up to Barack Obama, My new map leaves President Obama at 294, Mitt Romney at 206, and toss up at 38. Without Ohio I just don’t see the path to victory for Mitt Romney.
New polling data from Quinnipiac in the critical swing state of Ohio has Barack Obama up by 5, at 50% to 45%. The Romney desperation in Ohio is reflected in the dishonest attacks he has launched on the auto bailout issue, which should tell you all you need to know about where Romney thinks he stands in that state. The only thing left for Romney supporters is to question the Quinnipiac methodology. Good luck with that. I guess we will find out about that methodology on Tuesday, which is really the only poll that counts.
In FLA Quinnipiac has Obama ahead by a 48%-47% margin. Romney sees some trouble here, as he has scheduled some FLA time as part of his final push. Since the Romney surge after the first debate the President has been inching his way back in FLA, and it is competitive enough to move it back to toss-up. As a Dem I would want to believe that the President can pull this out, but it is still at least toss-up (leans Romney). If Romney loses FLA then it is obviously game, set, and match for the President.
In Virginia Quinnipiac has the President up by 2 at 49% to 47%. I move it to the President because I see the state trending Democratic, including a wider lead for Tim Kaine in the U.S. Senate race. (50% to 46% against George Allen). If Romney loses Ohio then Virginia is a must-win state for him. Resources will be poured in by all, because this state remains vital for both parties.
Colorado is as close as can be. I give the slightest edge to the President, but it is so close that whoever does a better job on the ground will win. The RCP average of polling here has it as a dead heat.
And so here is the link to my new map. More changes will come, and I will leave no toss-ups on my final map.
Just as the Globe released a new poll yesterday on the Senate race David Paleologos and Suffolk have hit the streets with their own numbers. It is not good news for Scott Brown. From the Suffolk press release:
“Elizabeth Warren is riding a final wave of momentum to the U.S. Senate,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “Unless something drastically changes in the final days before the election, you will be hearing the title ‘Senator-elect’ Warren instead of ‘Professor’ Warren.”
The numbers please.
Warren leads Brown by a 53% to 46% margin, with 1% undecided. Suffolk is reflecting the trend we have seen in all but the latest Globe poll, which is Warren moving into “comfortable lead” territory. This 7% margin is the largest I have seen, and gives Warren a lead outside of the margin of error. It may be time to chalk this one up.
How did we get here? The favorable/unfavorable numbers for Brown are, by memory, the worst I have seen. Brown is at 45%/42%, while Elizabeth Warren is at 51%/36%. Lets look at the numbers I think are important! (Same ones we highlighted for the Globe survey)
1) Independents. Brown leads Warren here by a 54% to 43% margin, substantially below where he needs to be to win the race. He is off by 20%, and obviously below the Globe number by a substantial margin. Scott Brown cannot win with that spread, and I do believe the Globe number is an outlier. Real bad news for Scott Brown.
2) Gender. Elizabeth Warren leads with women by 57% to 41%, a healthy 16% margin. Brown leads with men by 3%, 51% to 48%. More real bad news for Brown, as the effective campaign run by Warren has placed Brown on the defensive with women, forcing the Brown campaign to try to move that needle with a barrage of women-centric advertising. It does not appear to have worked.
3) Democrats. In a state with a wide registration advantage for Dems it is self evident that Brown must have crossover support. A huge part of his campaign message has been designed to win that Democratic support, as he has distanced himself from the Republican brand. Warren has countered Brown at every turn by reminding Democratic voters who Brown’s friends are in Washington. Jim Inhofe and Mitch McConnell are not very popular with Massachusetts Democrats. Warren’s campaign has managed to drive Democratic support for Brown, in this survey, down to 17%. It is another nail in the coffin.
I am not sure, with these numbers, why Scott Brown would not be debating as much as he could. This song is over.
It was great to join Teddy Panos, Mara Dolan, and Todd Robbins on the big morning show on 980 am WCAP this past Friday, and every Friday morning. I always have a great time, and we are able to have a pretty good discussion of national, state, and even local events as they arise. For all of you folks who use twitter you can follow Mara Dolan @maradolan, Teddy Panos @tedpanos, and me @billmanzi. Teddy and I have been known to have some great twitter wars, so please look all of us up. WCAP can be followed @980wcap. Follow local football? Then get on twitter and follow @pigskinpresspas. Looking forward to chatting with the gang Friday.
A new Boston Globe survey has Scott Brown with a slight lead over Elizabeth Warren. The results were published yesterday, and I have just bumped into the top-line numbers this morning. Those numbers please!
Scott Brown leads Elizabeth Warren by a 45% to 43% margin, with 12% undecided. When the “leaners” are included the race breaks out as 47% each, with 6% undecided. Most surveys as of late have had Elizabeth Warren leading by about 5%, and we have looked at what I consider to be the three key numbers.
1) Independents
2) Democrats (or Obama voters) voting for Scott Brown.
3) The Elizabeth Warren edge with women
The campaign has essentially been fought out on those three fronts. What does this Globe survey show? With independents the Globe has Scott Brown up by a whopping 39%. I have harped on that number in past postings on this race because it was the key to the Scott Brown win against Martha Coakley. The prior surveys that have shown Brown as behind have this margin as substantially smaller. If Brown wins indies by 39% he will be difficult to beat.
Democrats are shown in this survey to be supporting Brown with 13% of the vote (Obama supporters at 14%). Even in this survey the Warren campaign success with peeling off Democratic support from Brown is evident. We have seen some surveys with Brown at 24% Democratic support. That number has been going in the right direction for Elizabeth Warren.
Warren only leads Brown by a 47% to 40% margin with women, while trailing with men by 50% to 39%. It is the second reason for the slight Brown lead in this survey. Warren needs a slightly larger margin with women, especially if she were to lose indie voters by a wide margin.
As we get close to the end the survey I will look for (of course) will be the final Suffolk poll, with the bellwether data included. The bellwether survey has been extremely reliable, and I hope one is forthcoming from Suffolk.
On the ballot questions the so called “physician assisted suicide”, (question 2) leads by a 47% to 37% margin, with 16% undecided. There has been some spending on the vote no side so this question still has an opportunity to be defeated, but time is slipping away. On question 3 (medicinal marijuana) the yes side leads by a wide margin, with 63% in favor of allowing marijuana dispensaries for medicinal purposes, and 28% opposed (9% undecided). You can chalk that one up. Question 3 will pass, and by a wide margin, even with the institutional opposition it has engendered.
The Globe survey has a margin of error of +/- 4.1%.
Bill Manzi.com 