why obama won't win ohio

As a so-called “battleground state,” Ohio is receiving a lot of attention in the presidential race. There is one important indication that regardless of what the polls show—Obama won’t win Ohio.

The real key to Obama’s inability to carry Ohio is found in the November 2011 statewide election.

While the mainstream media concentrated on Issue 2, which would have limited collective bargaining for public employees, Issue 3 exempted Ohioans from the mandates of Obamacare.

Much was made of the fact that the anti-union Issue 2 lost by a margin of 62 percent to 38 percent. But what was overlooked in the November 2011 election was that the anti-Obamacare Issue 3 won by a margin of 66 percent to 34 percent. Issue 3 won in every county in Ohio. Issue 2 didn't lose in every county (it actually passed in 5 counties).

There are some interesting comparisons between these two ballot issues. For example, Issue 2 lost in Ashland county by 48 percent to 52 percent; but Issue 3 won by 74 percent to 26 percent. In Auglaize county, the anti-union Issue 2 lost by 51 percent to 49 percent; but the anti-Obamacare Issue 3 won by 77 percent to 23 percent. In fact, 40 counties voted in favor of Issue 3 by 70+ percent of the votes. This is compared to only 12 counties that voted against Issue 2 by 70+ percent of the votes.

How Ohioans voted on these ballot issues indicates that regardless of what they think of unions and collective bargaining, there is a strong majority agreement that Obamacare is unacceptable. This is especially impressive when one considers that millions of dollars were spent to defeat Issue 2, whereas Issue 3 was a grassroots effort primarily relying on word-of-mouth and people reading the information about the issue at the voting booth.

With these statistics in mind, it would be wise for the Romney/Ryan ticket to focus in Ohio on Romney’s promise to repeal Obamacare.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Many who read polls and pundits tend to think well "candidate A will win because Issue B will drive turnout" and in many states this is true but Ohio doesn't follow the trend.

What I will say is right now the polling in VA, Fl and OH at 47-46 in favor of the President. Now if you have followed what I believe from previous posts 47 is THE LOWEST an incumbent can have and still win. But now for the bad news for the President. Romney leads Indys in all of these states. That means the Dems need over a 4 pt turnout advantage over Repubs in order to win. In 2008, a landslide year for Dems in OH the Dems had a +6 turnout. In 2010 it was even. I will be shocked if the Dems get a +4 turnout.

If Romney wins those 3 states he takes the electoral college. If he wins those 3 he will also probably take CO & WI too.

MikeyA

What poll are you looking at for independents? Last one I saw had, about a month ago, had Obama winning independents.

They are all listed on pollster.com.

What you do is click on the Ohio aggregate which is where I got the 47-46 number. Then you click on the individual polls for the internal tabs.

I wish there were a better answer but each pollster reports their internals differently. Some are up front, others you have to search for.

MikeyA

Pollster.com took me to Huf post with this sweet map -

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map

Seriously though, I’m not sure how Romney is going to work the elector map. He pretty much needs to take 2 of the 3 – Ohio, Florida and Virginia and there are quite a few scenarios where he needs to take all three.

Romney just doesn’t have a message that resonates with people and his team is already going into finger pointing mode. Obama is pulling away and Romney needs to change the dynamics of the race if he’s going to win.

Yes, those three and how they break are key to what map Romney takes.

CO and IA will both probably end up in Romney's column as the most recent polling data is suggesting but even the combination of them is not enough to break up those three. He needs to take 2 of 3. But what I found interesting is how the polling of those three all closely resemble one another.

Obama is not pulling away. He received a bounce from the convention which is predicatable but we're already seeing that bounce fade in both the tracking polls. And that bounce was still not enough to move his aggregate anything more than 3 pts nationally. Some have said the movement has come in reliably blue states as the base was solidified in the convention, I have seen this only verified in Mass but not denied anywhere else.

MikeyA

I think Obama will take CO, but IA is a tossup for sure.

I like this map a bit better; it lets you see what’s in play:
http://core.talkingpointsmemo.com/election/scoreboard

So in this scenario , as long as Obama wins CO and OH, he can lose – FL, WI, IA and VA to Romney. Alternatively, if Obama were to win FL, Romney could win OH, VA, CO, IA, WI and NV and still loose the presidency.

Like I said, the elector math is going to be rough for Romney.

The only polls that really mean anything is the last ones before the vote. The poll companies want those to be accurate because those are more likely to be remembered.

Up until that point, the poll are more for influencing public opinion than for judging public opinion.

Just a week or 2 ago, Axlerod was bitching about one of the polling companies, and what do you know, a short time later, their results swang in 0bama's favor.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

September 1979.
Jimmy Carter, was ahead by 4% one week before the election October 1979.

Either way, if Obozo wins, we are all so dead, we'll all be dragged through the streets by screaming job killing, net worth killing, DOWNGRADED ONCE AGAIN, America hating OWS-Dimwits !

http://www.colorado.edu/news/multimedia/cu-study-says-analysis-election-...

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Bickers says the overwhelming factor influencing this model is the economy. The thing is, more people still blame Bush for the economy than Obama, so I'm not sure the model is going to hold.

Becasue the model seems to stress economic factors above all else, not taking into account or deemphasizing approval ratings, likability, social issues...

In 2012, "What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida," Bickers said.

Does anyone see Obama loosing Minnesota, Pennsylvania? I'm not sure about Minnesota, but I know Romney pulled out of Pennsylvania. He know's he's not going to win it. Sorry this guy's model just doesn't match with the reality we're seeing.

I'm more of a Nate Silver guy,

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

His analysis seems solid.

I don't know how many of you remember when Carty Finkbeiner ran against Mike Ferner for mayor of Toledo in the mid-90s. Ferner was significantly ahead of Finkbeiner in every poll that the local media conducted. Finkbeiner won. When the pollsters were left to explain why they were so wrong--even in the exit polling--their explanation was that voters were too embarrassed to admit that they had voted for Finkbeiner and lied when surveyed.

Polls have so many variables (e.g. the respondent telling the truth, projecting the opinion of a few onto many, etc.) that relying on them as predictors is iffy.

One aspect of polling that I have read a lot about recently is how each poll assumes a certain voter turnout, in terms of demographics and political persuasion. Although I'm anticipating the wrath of readers who will have issues with the source, here's a link to a concise and informative article on that subject.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-graph-shows-why-obama-is-ahead-in-t...

That is true they do adjust models and as JM said SOME do release polls to drive a narrative but IMO most do not.

There is much more importance on being accurate than driving a message.

In fact what you point out Galt, some of the very recent polls have had a Dem/GOP/Indy model that would have Dem turnout exceeding 2008. I don't know of anyone who thinks that will actually happen. However being that some of those show those type of numbers and Romney is still within MOE doesn't worry me as a Romney supporter one bit.

I think this election will look very much like the 2004 electorate albeit with some adjustments within the internal demographics. i.e. hispanics will vote in larger numbers.

Also just looked at some polls released today showing the President only +1 in WI.

If WI flips to Romney then that breaks the OH/FL/VA map. While WI has been a reliable blue state, in 2004 it BARELY went to Kerry. Add Ryan to the ticket and that may be why we're seeing the polls we are.

MikeyA

WI has had a weird couple of years; I don't consider it a bell whether for much else. I know I do have couple friends in Ohio where consistent Republican voters and after SB5 are pretty much Democrats. I also know several pharmacists who are now dispensing free birth control to many women who used have to pay for it. Some ask why it’s free, the answer it’s given is ‘Obamacare’. Also things turning around in Ohio largely due to the automobile companies doing better.

These are anecdotal, but it does play into a narrative that Ohio is better off and that plays for Obama.

Look at the polling for the senate race too. It’s not favoring Mandel by a longshot and I can’t see there being a whole lot of Romney/Brown cross party voters out there.

Here is Karl Rove’s Electoral College map –
http://www.rove.com/uploads/0000/0707/Romney-Obama9.17.12MAP.pdf

Pretty much the same as TPM.

If each candidate takes their “lean states”, Obama only need to take 1/3 of the toss up to win.

I can see some of your points. SB5 overturn resonated with a Indy farmers I know.

I don't believe the autobailout meme. Yes 1/8 Ohioans do work directly or indirectly for the auto industry, but that's a broad brush. You can't tell me the workers at the Honda plant are pumped about a GM/Chrysler bailout. Outside of Toledo and Youngstown areas I really don't think it made much of a difference.

I do like Nate Silver, he breaks things down well. I also like www.electionprojection.com he just inputs the data into his formula, no moving much around.

Ohio's economy has improved and that does favor the President. But there is a GOP Gov which is huge for GOTV effots. I do think however Ohio goes the rest of the swing states will go as well.

MikeyA

The polls had Carter ahead of Reagan a short time before the election and Carter got smoked.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/flashback-gallup-had-carter-up-4...

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Most campaigns break one way or another in the final two weeks.

MikeyA

I heard the same thing in 2008 and it turned out the polls were acurate. I think polling is much more scientific than it was 30 years ago.

I think as of now Obama is ahead, but the election is weeks away with the debates coming up too a lot can happen.

Two items that stand out in Jeepmaker's link is that Gallup was off by almost 4 points between its final poll and the actual results for Reagan.

Also, Gallup had Carter up by 8 points in October.

One poll 30 years ago was off. Today there are a lot more polls and they are more scientific. People were talking about the same thing last election too.

Here is some good commentary from 2008 about 1980.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/10/reagans_come...

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-this-day-in-1980-carter...

??

How are polls more "scientific"? I'm not being facetious--I'm truly interested in getting a further explanation on that.

I'm thinking that 30 years ago every household had one phone. If you wanted to get the opinion of a household, you called that phone. Now some households don't have landlines, some households have a landline and a cell phone(s), etc.

Scientific might not be the right word, I should have said sophisticated. Today with public databases of voters, census records and super computers, I will to bet accuracy has improved dramatically.

Again, it was one poll that was wrong 30 years ago. Today multiple polls are telling us the same thing. The Romney campaign feels it and has already started the blame game with six weeks left in the election.

It is scientific.

Public polling represents the largest public sector use of mathematical statistics in the country. Every industry uses statistics but not primarily, only to improve products or services. In polling the statistic is the primary purpose.

Now, can statistics become flawed? Yes. Push-polling, where someone forces another to answer, or even non-objective quantifiers like the wording of a question can bring about different results, but the results are still true albeit from that question, when you poll the same question you will then be able to gage public sentiment on that question.

Now you bring up a good point on cell phones. However I never cease to be amazed by the ingenuity of the human brain.

To correctly incorporate for dual phone or cell phone only households pollsters still use....THE PHONEBOOK. Yes, that's where they get your cell phone number... no not literally.

What they do is they randomly pick numbers in the phone book. Then they apply that number to a 2 digit randomizer where 4 digits are created. so let's say 419-555-5555 is picked. Then the randomizer picks the numbers 4-9, 8-0. Then the number called is 419-955-5055 because the 4th and 8th digits are replaced by 9 and 0 thus giving you a random chance at calling a cell phone or landline.

It's still random which means it still falls within the laws of mathematical probability.

MikeyA

But this will change by tomorrow.

Monday, September 17, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 45% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. See daily tracking history.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administra...

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Gallup's tracking poll today: 47 O 46 R, and this is among Registered Voters not Likely Voters (RV's tend to poll 3-4 pts better for Dems). As I said yesterday, the President is not pulling away. He had a convention bounce and it faded.

Now Gallup is different from Ras because their tracker is not only Registered Voters but also it's a 7 day rolling period and not a 3 day like Ras is. That means the 2 point drop we saw today ACTUALLY is a combination of either 1 a bump for the Romney today OR a loss for the President a week ago.

Which do I think it was?

Well a week ago today was 9/11. The demonstrations in Cairo were already in full force by the time the Ohio St. game started meaning by the time most of those polled were contacted there was enough in the 24hr news cycle to suggest most had heard about the protests. So it represents a drop for the President. I expect another drop tomorrow because that would represent the supporters who heard AFTER the Libyan attack.

MikeyA

I'd bet anything that a poll like that has a larger uncertainty number. Any poll quote of X-vs-Y must have a +/- Z% associated with it.

What is it for this "47/45" poll?

Fox says Romney isn't doing well in Ohio...or Virgina or Florida.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/obama-has-edge-over-romney-in...

Interesting.

There were a lot of "swing state" polls released today. Each tells it's own story.

MikeyA

Romney just lost another week talking about his video tape. Time is ticking...

I disagree. First, as long as the President doesn't poll above 50 the undecideds will break against him. Second for being an incumbent you are not seeing the Pres with much of an advantage. Third, Romney doesn't need to win this early. You are seeing it now. All the pundits who said he was finished last week are being laughed at today.

If it remains close and the President still can't get above 50 then Romney has a strong chance to win. This election will not break out until the final two weeks.

MikeyA

The Republican machine is already leaving him and the infighting has started. The problem for him, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. People like under dogs, but hate losers.

There also seems to be something more fundamental going on. Many close senate races are also starting to break for the Democrats. It looks like Romney is starting to weigh down the down ballot races.

Romney is now ahead in New Hampshire (a state that Obama won easily in 2008). It has very few electoral college votes, but what it signals is bad news for Elizabeth (Pow Wow Chow) Warren. Why? I spend 2 weeks a year in New Hampshire and know that cities like Portsmouth are filled with liberals from Massachusetts who are escaping that State's high income taxes (ironic, isn't it). If the extreme left wingers can't deliver New Hampshire for Obama, how can Warren expect to win with the leftover moderates.

NH is still a toss up.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_...

I'm not surprised Romney is doing well there, he's spent a ton of time there in the 5 years he's been running for president and he was the liberal governor of state next door.

Well Pawlenty just quit as the co-Chair of the Romney’s campaign. With less than 60 days left before the election Pawlenty couldn’t wait for Romney to win before taking a lobbying job? Hell, being the co-chair of the Romney campaign would have made him worth 10x as a lobbyist or a shoe-in for a cabinet post if Romney won. Internal polling must be worse than the national polling.

I'm sure that Pawlenty was given the Romney job as a consolation for not being selected as the running mate. Probably was more of a figurehead.

Pawlenty will be the CEO of the Financial Services Roundtable. It's a BIG deal--the largest lobbying group on Wall Street. I'm sure it will pay a couple of million.

My MBA school featured Steve Bartlett (I'm guessing he's the person Pawlenty must be replacing) as the alumni meeting speaker a few years back. I must say that it seemed like a dream job. Lots of power and having the ears of all of the large banks. Right up a former politicians alley!

I'm sure that Pawlenty was given the Romney job as a consolation for not being selected as the running mate. Probably was more of a figurehead.

Pawlenty will be the CEO of the Financial Services Roundtable. It's a BIG deal--the largest lobbying group on Wall Street. I'm sure it will pay a couple of million.

My MBA school featured Steve Bartlett (I'm guessing he's the person Pawlenty must be replacing) as the alumni meeting speaker a few years back. I must say that it seemed like a dream job. Lots of power and having the ears of all of the large banks. Right up a former politician's alley!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.