Tag Archives: Wisconsin

The “Sweet” Sixteen Governors

Continuing our sector review of the 16 most competitive political campaigns reflective of the spirit of the NCAA College Basketball Tournament, we today turn to the gubernatorial campaigns:

Arizona: Gov. Jan Brewer (R) is ineligible to seek re-election, so we can expect a tight open seat contest in the Grand Canyon State. So far little action is occurred, however. Secretary of State Ken Bennett (R) says he will run; so does former Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman, also a Republican. No Democrats have yet stepped forward. Richard Carmona, the Democratic senatorial nominee who held freshman Sen. Jeff Flake (R) to a three-point win last November, publicly announced that he will not run for governor.

Arkansas: This is another state where the incumbent, in this case Democrat Mike Beebe, has reached the limit of his allowed service. Thus, a tough open-seat battle is already commencing. Republicans appear to be headed for a consensus candidate in the person of former Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR-3). Democrats could be headed to a primary between former lieutenant governor Bill Halter and ex-representative Mike Ross (D-AR-4).

Connecticut: Gov. Dan Malloy (D) won his seat with only a statewide margin of just 7,604 votes, and thus is expected to again face tough competition. The 2010 GOP nominee, former Ambassador Tom Foley, says he wants to run again. Chances are this race won’t be as close as last time. Gov. Malloy has to be rated the early favorite.

Florida: The Sunshine State gubernatorial campaign could become the most interesting in the nation. GOP Gov. Rick Scott is politically weak and former governor Charlie Crist, this time representing a new political party as he as switched from the Republicans to the Democrats, will be his likely opponent.

Hawaii: Incumbent Neil Abercrombie should cruise to re-election against any Republican, but his angering of Rep. Colleen  Continue reading >

Upward Mobility

Even at this early point in the 2014 election cycle, a grand total of 32 House members have either indicated they will run for another office or are mentioned as considering doing so. Below is a listing:

  • Arkansas – Rep. Tom Cotton (R) – reportedly moving toward a challenge to Sen. Mark Pryor (D), but has yet to finally decide.
  • Georgia – The free-for-all to replace retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) is touching a large number of Georgia House delegation members.
    • Rep. John Barrow (D) – has twice publicly said he has no plans to run for Senate, but may now be changing his mind. He is reportedly pressuring Democratic Party leaders to help clear the primary field so he has the maximum amount of time to raise general election funds without the pressure of a primary.
    • Rep. Sanford Bishop (D) – though he has received little coverage about a possible Senate bid, Mr. Bishop has reportedly been telling people in his 2nd District that he is seriously considering running for the seat.
    • Rep. Paul Broun (R) – announced Senatorial candidate
    • Rep. Phil Gingrey (R) – Georgia political insiders rate him as “very likely” to run for Senate.
    • Rep. Tom Graves (R) – announced that he will not run for Senate.
    • Rep. Jack Kingston (R) – clearly making moves to run for the Senate but has been known in the past to shy away from taking political chances. Today, he is a likely candidate, but that may change when next year’s filing deadline approaches.
    • Rep. Tom Price (R) – originally thought to be a sure Senatorial candidate, Mr. Price is now putting  Continue reading >

Unexpected Voter Turnout Patterns

We wish you the best for the happiest of Thanksgiving holidays. The PRIsm Political Updates will return Monday, Nov. 26.

The official state participation and candidate preference statistics are being released throughout the nation, and many of the numbers are quite surprising. While turnout was down nationally, it was up in most of the battleground states and, despite Pres. Barack Obama’s victory, it may be erroneous to assume that the turnout pattern completely favored him.

While it is clear the president obviously benefited from the voting preferences of the aggregate group of people who cast ballots during the election process, it is interesting to note that he was only able to return 91.5 percent of the total vote he received in 2008. In contrast, losing national Republican nominee Mitt Romney retained 99.4 percent of John McCain’s 2008 vote. Obviously Romney needed to do better than to simply equal McCain’s vote, but it is significant that Obama’s share of the vote declined by almost a full 10 percent from what he obtained four years ago, especially when understanding that the Obama campaign clearly had the superior grassroots organization.

Nationally, and rather astonishingly from what was widely forecast before the election, overall voter turnout was down six million votes from the number cast in 2008, or a fall-off of 4.7 percent. It appears that virtually all of the drop-off came from the Obama coalition, as the president’s vote receded by almost that same amount as did the national turnout (voter participation reduction: 6,148,768 individuals; Obama drop: 5,917,631 votes).

The four core states also recorded interesting turnout patterns. Of the quartet of places that Romney needed to convert if he were to unseat the president, it was North Carolina — the only state in this group that he did carry — that had the highest participation rate increase from 2008. North Carolina voter turnout was up 4.5 percent in comparison to their aggregate number of voters from four years ago. Virginia and Florida, two of the three core states that remained with the president, also saw increased participation. Virginia was up 3.5 percent; Florida 1.0 percent.

Ohio, often believed to be the most important state in the presidential contest because it was viewed to be a national bellwether, surprisingly recorded a lower turnout this year than during the previous Obama victory campaign. Ohio turnout was down a rather substantial 5.9 percent, or greater than 336,000 participants from 2008.

Of those seven states commonly viewed to be in the secondary target group — at least one of which Romney would have had to have carried to be successful, more if he failed to carry all of the core states — four saw increased participation, and three declined. The states producing a greater number of voters were in the Midwest (Wisconsin, up 2.4 percent; Iowa, increasing 1.9 percent) and West (fast-growing Nevada adding 4.5 percent; Colorado, up 3.1 percent).

The three eastern and Mid-Atlantic states all recorded a smaller voter participation rate. Pennsylvania, always considered a swing state and a place that attracts a great deal of campaign attention, saw its voter turnout rate fall 6.1 percent; Michigan, the only state in the Union that actually lost population in the preceding decade, dropped 5.7 percent; and New Hampshire returned almost the same number of voters, coming in just 5,091 ballots under their 2008 total.

It appears the biggest voter drop-off occurred in some of the nation’s largest states, those that are most Democratic and among the president’s strongest places. His home state of Illinois, for example, saw more than 431,000, or 7.8 percent, fewer people vote this year than when compared to their favorite son’s first election in 2008. New York had the largest drop-off, a stunning 19.8 percent below its participation level of four years ago. California, the nation’s largest state, was off 12.5 percent. But, lower turnout rates were not confined only to the large Democratic states. Texas, the biggest and most loyal Republican entity, also saw a reduction in turnout. Over 112,000 fewer voters went to the polls in 2012 when compared to 2008.

More analysis will be completed when additional data is available, but these statewide turnout numbers may have produced more questions about the nation’s voting patterns than answers.

GOP Senate Momentum Has Stalled

The Indiana Democratic Senate campaign of Rep. Joe Donnelly released its internal Global Strategy Group poll (Oct. 28-30; 600 likely Indiana voters) that posts their man to a 43-36-9 percent advantage over Republican Richard Mourdock. The latter number is going to Libertarian Party candidate Andrew Horning. Mourdock countered by making his internal data public, a poll that claims his deficit is only one point. But even this latter margin is a reduction in support for the reeling Republican as a rape-related abortion comment in the final candidates’ debate could prove to be the deciding factor.

Republican gubernatorial nominee Rep. Mike Pence probably confirms Donnelly’s lead with his latest actions. Though releasing positive numbers for his own campaign and that of the presidential contest, the Pence team remained mum on the Senate race, leading to speculation that their internal data also shows Donnelly leading.

Taking Indiana would be a huge boon to the Democrats and will go a long way toward achieving their goal of holding the Senate majority.

In two western states, however, the GOP trend may be improving.

The National Mining Association, through their continuing Count on Coal campaign, launched an attack against Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester. The group goes so far as to say that Tester has joined Pres. Barack Obama’s “war on coal” for not supporting the coalition efforts and for his backing of federal regulations that have largely undermined the state’s coal production operations. Along with the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Tester has refused to sign onto the Montana coal petition that pledges to protect the industry. Despite being a place of just under one million inhabitants, Montana ranks fifth in the nation in coal production, producing slightly under 45 million tons in its apex year of 2010.

Republican Denny Rehberg signed the pledge, as have most other candidates throughout the state, and the coal group is trying to make this issue the deciding factor of the campaign. In a race that has polled even for months, one coalition group heavily promoting a critical issue position could have a major effect. Energy issues are making an impact in races across the country, especially in the West.

Conflicting polls are now coming from New Mexico. Rep. Martin Heinrich, the Democratic nominee, released his internal GBA Strategy numbers (Oct. 27-29; 600 likely New Mexico voters) that again places him 10 points ahead of former Republican congresswoman Heather Wilson. But, earlier this week, Wilson countered with her own Public Opinion Strategies survey (Oct. 21-22; 500 likely New Mexico voters) that showed her topping Heinrich, 44-43 percent in this case, for the first time in the campaign.

Heinrich’s numbers have held for most of the election cycle, and he has been in stronger position than one would have guessed running against a Republican former representative who proved she could win repeatedly in Democratic regions. If her earlier POS data is correct, it might signal that her campaign could be peaking at the right time and become the Republican sleeper race that many people suggested it might be earlier in the year.

Overall, however, the Democrats look to be in the more favorable position than Republicans in Massachusetts, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The GOP is likely to convert Nebraska, and is trending more positively in North Dakota. With the likely loss of the Maine seat to Independent Angus King, the Republicans could be trading two of their current seats for two others, but this still leaves them four short of majority status.

If Indiana and Montana cancel each other from a party division perspective, and Elizabeth Warren unseats Republican Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the Democrats could actually end the night breaking even, or losing fewer than the four seats than the GOP needs to snatch away the majority. Democrats are protecting 23 seats in this cycle as compared to the Republicans’ 10, thus giving the GOP many offensive opportunities. But their early positive momentum has definitely stalled.

Little Change in Two Years

Less than one week before Election Day 2012, we know little more about the projected outcome than we did when the campaigns began in earnest almost two years ago. At that time there was uncertainty about the presidential election. A feeling persisted that Pres. Barack Obama could certainly win re-election, but enough vulnerability existed that a strong challenger could deny him a second term.

With majority Democrats having to protect 23 of the 33 in-cycle contests, control of the Senate appeared up for grabs. With the 2010 state legislative elections swinging hard toward the Republicans, thus giving them clear control of the redistricting process, it became a foregone conclusion that the House GOP majority would be sustained in a post-reapportionment election year with newly drawn congressional district boundaries.

Two years later and six days away from the people’s decision, we still have no counter-arguments to any of these observations.

According to all of the latest national polls, the presidential race is a virtual tie. Seven national pollsters released popular vote surveys yesterday and the biggest spread among the group was Rasmussen Reports producing a two-point lead for Republican Mitt Romney. Five of the polls were showing one-point margins either way, and one, Public Policy Polling for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), showed a 49-49 percent tie. It simply doesn’t get any closer.

Turning to the states, we find equally close numbers though the Romney position has improved in many key electoral vote havens. Think of the model that stated the Republican needed to convert Indiana, the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska (because the state awards it electoral votes individually for the candidate carrying each congressional district), Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio and one other Obama state larger than Vermont or Delaware. Today, Romney looks solid in Indiana and NE-2, and good in Florida and North Carolina, while improving to even footing in Virginia. But this standing, while much better than his Republican predecessor’s of four years ago, does not clinch victory.

The next tier becomes determining. The Romney trends in Ohio are improving, and at least one pollster, Rasmussen Reports, actually has the challenger forging ahead in the Buckeye State by the slimmest of margins. All other survey research firms show either a tie or a slight Obama lead. Trends seem to be moving Romney’s way in Colorado. Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire are all still very much in play, and are virtually deadlocked. Obama has been recently drawing stronger numbers in Nevada. Movement could still occur in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and possibly even Oregon, but it is likely that these states are only flirting with the Republicans and will return to the Democratic fold on Election Day.

Though there are still ways for Romney to win nationally without carrying Ohio, assuming the rest of our analysis rings true, he likely won’t unseat the president without winning what is becoming the deciding state. It is very likely that the way Ohio eventually votes will determine who remains or becomes president. Amazingly, the election is still simply too close to call.

The Senate remains just as tight, though Democrats are in good position to hold at least a bare majority. There are still 14 Senate races projected to be within the margin of error, so anything can still happen. The outcome of the presidential race will likely help decide all of these critically important, and virtually dead even contests.

There are ominous signs on the near horizon for the president, however. As an incumbent, going into an election tied rarely leads to victory. The Obama campaign confirms Romney’s momentum by consistently promoting a negative message. Additionally, aggregate estimates from all of the early voting states suggest that the Democrats are more than 20 percent behind their 2008 pace of returning the ballots to the election officials. They are still responding in greater numbers than Republicans, but the Democratic margin is certainly down. And, finally, we are all basing our predictions on polls showing a zero to two-point difference when their own error factor is 2.5 to 3.5 percent.

It’s clear this election will be very close and it’s possible we could be headed to political overtime, meaning absentee ballot counting could again make the difference, just as it did in 2000.

What the Polls are Really Saying

Republican lobbyist Mike Barbera contributes a guest column today, sharing his views about the presidential election. On Friday, we will feature a piece reflecting the Democratic perspective.

By Michael Barbera

It doesn’t seem to make any sense …

The American economy is burdened with sustained unemployment at levels never before seen in American history. Gas prices are through the roof. The budget deficit and national debt are both sky-high. Household incomes are down, and the housing market is still decimated all over the country. And that’s just the news here at home. Overseas, our embassies are attacked, our diplomats assassinated and our soldiers in Afghanistan are slaughtered by our so-called “allies.”

And yet according to the polls, until his poor debate performance in the first debate, Barack Obama was winning the race for the White House. In some polls he was ahead narrowly, in others he was ahead comfortably — but he was always ahead. How can that be right?

The simple fact is, it’s not. The president may or may not be ahead, but he is not winning. In fact, anyone who looks at the numbers closely realizes that the president’s electoral standing is perilous at best.

Why is it that so many talking heads have spent much time telling us that the president was winning? Quite simply, most of them read polls in a lazy and simplistic manner. Most observers only focus on the “horse race” — who is ahead and by how much. And for most of 2012, the president was ahead. So pundits simply regurgitate the numbers and pretend they know something.

At this stage of the race, horse race reporting doesn’t tell us very much. It doesn’t matter if Pres. Barack Obama leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by three points in Ohio or by six in Wisconsin, or whether he is ahead by one point in the Gallup poll or by five in the latest poll by the AP.

Here is what matters: how far is Pres. Obama from getting over 50 percent of the vote? And the answer, based on any fair reading of the evidence, is that he has a lot of work to do.

Look at the Real Clear Politics averages in the key battleground states. Even before Romney’s recent surge, the president was stuck between 47.1 percent and 48.8 percent in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa and Colorado. Karl Rove reported in the Wall Street Journal the day before the Denver debate that in 91 recent national polls “Mr. Obama was at or above the magic number of 50 percent in just 20. His average was 47.9 percent. Mr. Romney’s was 45.5 percent.”

The polls have now shifted after Romney’s strong debate performance and the president’s weak one in the first debate. The challenger cut into the president’s lead and in some cases erased it altogether.

That brings us to another popular myth about the polls — that they are constantly shifting. In fact, the president’s numbers have remained very steady. With the exception of a slight spike after the Democratic convention, the president is where he has always been — in the mid-to-high 40s. He has a solid base of loyalists, but he has not yet closed the deal with most voters — despite dominating the airwaves. According to the National Journal, as of Oct. 1, the Obama campaign spent a total of $285 million on broadcast and cable television, in addition to radio advertising, while the Romney camp spent just $117 million — and still the president was well-below the magical 50 percent mark. An incumbent stuck below 50 percent in October is an incumbent in trouble.

What has changed throughout the course of the campaign is the level of Romney’s support. This is no surprise. Like it or not, the American people have seen Obama in action. Most voters know whether they like him and whether they think he is doing a good job. Very few voters are truly undecided about him. Until very recently, many voters were very much undecided about Mitt Romney, however. That is why the president spent so much money over the summer on a steady drumbeat of negative advertising. The American people were not convinced by those ads, many of which were powerful. They wanted to decide for themselves about Mitt Romney, and a record 67 million people watched the first debate. Mitt Romney picked a good day to have a good day — and the president picked a bad day to have a bad one. Romney’s strong performance shook up the race, and he is almost certain to win decisively among late-deciding voters.

Many polls are also overstating the president’s support. These polls are using turnout models based on the 2008 election, which means the pollsters are betting that the electorate of 2012 will look a lot like the electorate of 2008. This is likely to be a losing bet.

The 2008 election featured the following: a historically unpopular Republican president, an economic meltdown one month before the election, an incredibly motivated Democratic base, a demoralized Republican base, record turnout of young voters, blacks and Latinos, and a sizable number of Republican crossover votes for Barack Obama. Does that sound like the electorate we have today? Yet many seemingly reputable pollsters construct their polling around 2008 models. I believe the technical polling term for this is “wishful thinking.”

If we look at the polls with a trained eye — and not simply repeat the horse race numbers fed to us by lazy pundits — it is clear that Obama is not winning. And if he isn’t winning now, he’s not likely to be ahead on Nov. 6.
_______________________

Michael Barbera is a lobbyist and consultant with the American Continental Group.

A Close Look at Swing State Electoral Votes

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that all of the latest publicly released presidential election state polls are accurate. If so, then the nationwide electoral vote count would post Pres. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to within four votes of each other.

First, from a national popular vote perspective, seven polls have been completed within the past few days (Gallup, Rasmussen Reports, Investors Business Daily TIPP, Gravis Marketing, Ipsos Reuters, Public Policy Polling, and the University of Connecticut) and the president leads in four of them, Romney two, and one is tied. Obama’s largest lead is three points. Romney’s best margin, via Gallup, is six points, 51-45 percent. This tells us that with two weeks remaining, the presidential race is still undecided.

Turning to the all-important swing states, the CNN/ORC Florida poll (Oct. 17-18; 681 likely Florida voters) gives Romney a 49-48 percent lead. Fox News (Oct. 17-18; 1,130 likely Florida voters) posts the Republican to a 48-45 percent advantage. Rasmussen Reports (Oct. 18; 750 likely Florida voters) registers a 51-45 percent spread, also in Romney’s favor.

Turning to Iowa, Public Policy Polling (Oct. 17-19; 869 likely Iowa voters) finds Romney holding a 49-48 percent razor-thin margin over the president.

The Mellman Group, polling for the liberal Americans United for Change organization (Oct. 15-17; 600 likely Nevada voters) finds the president commanding the advantage within the Nevada electorate by a 51-43 percent margin. This is the largest Nevada spread shown for either candidate in quite some time, so the result should be looked at skeptically. For the sake of our model, however, we will place Nevada in the president’s column.

Public Policy Polling, also during the Oct. 17-19 period, surveyed 1,036 likely voters in New Hampshire. There, they found Romney leading Obama 49-48 percent.

In North Carolina, we have split results. Grove Insight, polling for the liberal Project New America (Oct. 17-18; 500 likely North Carolina voters) actually gives Obama a slight lead, 47-44 percent. More in line with all other polls conducted in the Tar Heel State, TelOpinion for the North Carolina Republican Party (Oct. 12-13; 500 likely North Carolina voters) projects Romney with a 49-45 percent advantage. Since the preponderance of recent polling gives Romney the edge here, we will project North Carolina in the Republican column for the purposes of this spot analysis.

Looking at critical Ohio, the Fox News Poll (Oct. 17-18; 1,131 likely Ohio voters) continues to show the president holding a small advantage, 46-43 percent. While other places seem to be leaning toward Romney, Ohio has not fully turned. It is this state that could be the determining factor, as it is one of the few big states that does vote for both parties.

Virginia is another swing state that could be determinative and the new Rasmussen Reports data (Oct. 18; 750 likely Virginia voters) puts Romney ahead of the President 50-47 percent.

And, in Wisconsin, Rasmussen Reports (Oct. 18; 500 likely Wisconsin voters) gives the president the slightest of leads, 50-48 percent.

Understanding that a two- or three-point poll is within the margin of error, the actual vote could go either way; however, we can develop an electoral vote model based upon the above data just presented. Remember, for the sake of our analysis exercise, we are going to presume that all of these polls are exactly accurate, with the one exception of placing North Carolina in the Romney column because more polls favor Romney.

Factoring the aforementioned states as they are currently polling, and using the 2008 results for the ones not recently surveyed, with the exception of adding Indiana and the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska to the Romney column, the national count would give the president 271 electoral votes and Romney 268. This means that any additional Obama state converting to Romney would give the national victory to the challenger.

It will be an interesting two weeks.