Fox News Poll shows Obama leading nationally by 4

I also wanted to go back to this Fox News poll (912 RV, ±3% MoE, 3/10 - 3/12) that I missed earlier. I should also note that this Fox poll includes 206 cell-phone respondents in their sample, to counter land-line bias. 

First, we see Obama with slightly positive job approval numbers: 47/45, with 8% unsure. This is an increase of 3% in approval since 11/11, a 3% decrease in disapproval, and 2% decrease in the "unsure" category. 

Second, we see that the Democratic Party is viewed more favourably by voters than the Republican Party. The Democratic Party shows a positive 48/44 break on "favourables", while the Republican Party shows a negative 39/52 rating. The "Tea Party Movement" is seen even less favourably by the electorate than the Republican Party itself: 30/51. It's not 2010 any more, even in Fox News polling. In fact, the Democratic Party's "favourables" are now up sharply from a negative 41/50 in August 2011.

Third, we see Romney getting unpopular since the last poll in January. He is now at a negative 39/49, where is was previously at a positive 45/38. Romney is now roughly as popular as the (unpopular) Republican Party.

Fourth, 58% of voters "see signs the nation's economy has started turning around". 

In a match-up with Romney, Obama breaks 46/42, with 5% undecided. That's a four-point lead nationally, which is above the margin of error (MoE) for this poll. In January, it was 46/45, with 5% undecided. That's pretty much a show of Romney's declining support. 

Of those who say they would vote for Romney in the match-up, 54% of them say they are" voting against Obama", with only 40% saying they are voting "for Romney". That's about 23% of the nation's electorate voting primarily "against Obama". That's the supposedly huge "anybody but Obama" demographic that the conservatives have placed all of their hope in. More bad news: that 54% of Romney's support that is primarily voting against Obama has dropped 4% since January (58%). 

Obama, by comparison, has very strong support. 73% of those choosing Obama in the match-up with Romney say that they are primarily voting "for Obama", with only 23% saying they are primarily voting "against Romney". That means that 33.6% of the national electorate is voting "for Obama". Those voting "for Obama" dropped a statistically-insignificant 1% since January.  

Even more bad news for Republicans: only 63% of likely Republican primary voters say that they will "definitely vote for the Republican candidate" in the 2012 election, with 12% saying that they will only vote for the Republican if their favourite candidate is the nominee.

Then there's this: 

"If you had to choose, which would you prefer?":

•  "Your candidate wins the Republican Presidential nomination, even if the race continues for months." 52% of likely Republican primary voters choose this option .
• "The race for the Republican nomination ends as soon as possible, even if your candidate loses." 36% of likely Republican primary voters choose this option.

They say this, even though 66% of the nation's electorate think that "the campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination has mostly divided the Republican Party and weakened the candidates". 

The Republican base, tied to an unpopular Tea Party and obsessed with "beating Obama", is undermining their candidates in a bitter primary race that could cost them 12% of their own base in the general election.

And, regarding the putative Republican "trump card" of gas prices, this poll finds that 52% of voters do not think that "the President's refusal to build the Keystone pipeline [is] responsible for the increase in gas prices". 

Looking at the cross-tabs for Romney's "favourables", we also find that the plurality (47%) of voters under the age of 35 hold an unfavourable opinion of Romney (37% favourable), and an identical plurality (47%) of those over 65 also hold an unfavourable opinion of Romney (40% favourable). He breaks even with white voters (43/45), loses women by 15 points (36/51), and leads men by only six points.

In a match-up with Obama, Romney wins white voters by 50/39. But Republicans have to get at least 58% of whites to compensate for their decreasing share of the electorate. McCain got 55% of that vote and lost. Also, Obama wins the 65+ age demographic 48/40 over Romney (3% undecided), which is crucial to Republicans. For those under the age 35, Obama wins 47/42 with 6% undecided. On top of that, Obama wins women by 12 points (49/37).

Again, this is Fox News polling saying these things.

These national polls do not show the true picture of the race, because the State electoral votes are what really determine who wins. Still, they are an indication of "what works" with the electorate, and who are the likely demographics for support of each candidate. Besides, the state polling is not looking good for Republicans right now, so there's little consolation there.

There is a clear trend in the state polling of Obama getting more popular, and the crucial Republican demographics either only weakly breaking for the GOP or weakly breaking for Obama.

The "Rasmussen Effect" on polling averages

Pollster.com aggregates a multitude of polls and averages them out to show a composite view of the election.

Their composite average of the match-up between Obama and Romney currently puts Obama up by 2.9%.

This is the graph if we include all pollster's results (including Rasmussen):

This is the graph if we exclude Rasmussen: 

This is the graph if we exclude all of PPP's polling (and the DKos results):

It's clear that Rasmussen's polling reduces Obama's numbers by nearly a point (0.9%), and artificially inflates Romney's numbers by the same amount.

PPP's polling, however, inflates Obama by a mere 0.1% and actually inflates Romney by 0.2%!

Yet, Republicans (and the pundits who routinely shill for them) dismiss PPP as some kind of radical, left-leaning pollster who deliberately suppresses Republican support in their results. This simple comparison shows that PPP favours the Republican front-runner, however slightly.

Let's do this same comparison for polls since March.

First, all pollsters:

Now, let's take Rasmussen out of the mix for the same period:

Next, let's put Rasmussen back in and take out all PPP (and the DKos) results from the mix:

Again, removing Rasmussen adds nearly a full point (0.9%) to Obama's support, while reducing Romney's support by nearly a full point (0.9%). This is a net bias of nearly two points in the Republicans' favour produced by Rasmussen's skewed polling. 

And again, removing PPP hardly changes anything, because PPP isn't an outlier. Including PPP in polling averages gives Romney a false 0.2% edge, while giving Obama a mere 0.1% false edge. PPP actually gives a net 0.1% bias in the Republicans' favour. 

Consider also that Rasmussen automatically gives Republicans a 3.2% boost in his figures due to his "likely voter" screen. Do we see a 3.2% difference between "likely voters" and registered voters in these results? No, we don't. 

 -------------------------
Pollster ratings from fivethirtyeight.com, based on 2010 elections:

PPP: "Obama up in NC", leads by 3

I'm having to catch up with PPP's latest poll on NC (804 RV, ±3.5% MoE, 3/8 - 3/11), which places Obama three points ahead of Romney in a match-up. 

PPP's Tom Jensen writes:

Whoever the Republican nominee is Barack Obama has an advantage over him right now. Obama leads Romney by 3 points, 49-46. That's up from a 1 point lead a month ago. And Obama's ahead of Santorum by 5 points, 49-44. That's up from a 2 point lead in February. Obama's up 48-41 on Ron Paul and 51-42 on Newt Gingrich.

Obama's breaking even on his approval numbers in the state with 49% giving him good marks and 49% poor ones. This is the first time since last June Obama hasn't been under water in North Carolina. Obama hit a low water mark in September 43/53. He's seen modest improvement with Democrats and Republicans since then, but the really big shift is with independents. He's gone from 31/62 with them to 46/51- they're still not fond of him but he's coming a lot closer to breaking even now than he did six months ago. 

Part of Obama's good numbers in North Carolina are a function of his own improved popularity, but he's also benefiting from the poor image of his opponents. As we're finding in most swing states Mitt Romney is very unpopular with only 31% of voters seeing him favorably to 56% with a negative opinion. Rick Santorum doesn't do much better- his favorability spread is 36/52.

As much as the Republican base screeches about the unpopular President, it's clear in poll after poll that their front-runner is even more unpopular. 

Let's look at the ideological breakdown of this poll's sample:

Q10 Would you describe yourself as very liberal,
somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat
conservative, or very conservative?
Very liberal ...................................................... 12%
Somewhat liberal ............................................ 15%
Moderate......................................................... 29%
Somewhat conservative.................................. 25%
Very conservative ........................................... 20%

Using simple arithmetic, we can see that self-described conservatives are 45% of the sample, and only 27% are liberal. Of course, this has not prevented partisan wingnuts from dismissing this poll as biased toward "the Far Left". With the largest group describing themselves as "moderates", I guess the new definition of "Far Left" is "moderate". Because, in the mind of a wingnut, any poll showing Republicans losing is "biased". 

 

As we see above, the race in 2008 was very close for NC. Let's look at PPP's Dustin Ingalls' response to a critic for an explanation of what, exactly, has changed in NC since 2008 (emphasis added):

Mark: You obviously don't know anything about NC, which is one of the fastest-growing states in the country, and has been for 20 years. Some estimate that a third of the state's population did not live here four years ago. Most of the voters who move here are more liberal than the natives and more educated. We asked in a poll one month last year when respondents first lived in NC, and those who moved here or were born 20 years ago or after were going for Obama by 20 points over Romney. (Tom Jensen and I are among this group.) That was a huge chunk of the electorate, and this was when Obama was in worse shape than he is now.

So Obama's decline with independents and and moderate/conservative Dems is buffered by the sheer demographic shifts taking place in this state, plus his continuing popularity with black and Hispanic voters (and growing popularity with the latter because of Republican rhetoric on immigration). That's why you see him holding his ground or even improving in other growing, diverse states like VA, CO, NM, and AZ relative to states which are declining in population and which are older and whiter, like OH, PA, NH, and most of the Midwest.

I recall, during the 2008 election, dealing with conservatives fixated on the results of 2004 (and even 2000) in states to "prove" that Obama couldn't win. In the response above, "Mark" claims that, since Obama is now 'known', he cannot win over any Republican. Sadly, this is a pretty standard level of 'analysis' from conservatives. Voter demographics change, and time is not on the side of the GOP. By tying themselves to a 1950's-style morality and mindset, dismissing virtually all Hispanics as "illegals", and virtually all African-American votes as "fraudulent", the Republicans have locked themselves into an older, whiter voting base. And they aren't even strongly carrying that older and whiter demographic. 

Let's look at the highlights of this poll: 

• In job approval, Obama wins moderates by more than 2-to-1 (67/30). Romney's "favourables" with moderates are reversed (24/65). Yet, per the wingnut narrative, Obama is on the "Far Left". 
• In a a match-up with Romney, Obama carries moderates by more than 2-to-1 (64/28).
• Obama's job approval numbers show a strong gender gap. Women view him more favourably (55/42), while males are the opposite (41/56). Males are turning out to be a crucial demographic in the Republican base in this election.
• Romney's "favourables", however, are lousy for both genders. Women break a negative 28/57, while men break a negative 34/55. This means that Romney is viewed less favourably by men than Obama is.
• When matched up with Romney, these male favourables go out the window. Women break in Obama's favour 55/39, which is in line with their approvals. Men break in Romney's favour 54/42, although only 34% of men have a favourable opinion of Romney. This is classic "soft support", with males breaking along the lines of their approval of the incumbent, rather than the alternative. 
• Obama's job approval with Independents (as mentioned by Jensen) are negative (46/51), but their  view of Romney is even worse (36/53). 
• Independents, however, break for Romney is a match-up (44/49). That leaves 8% of Independents breaking for a candidate (Romney) that they don't view favourably. Again, soft support.
• Romney wins white voters 57/37, but Republicans will have to do better than 57% of this crucial demographic in order to win.
• Obama wins a majority of voters 45 or younger when matched up with Romney. Romney, however, only breaks even with voters over 45. 

In summary, we see that the conservative base (despite being 45% of the sample) is isolated in public opinion. There is a strong breaking point between moderates (and liberals, of course) and those who consider themselves to be more conservative. Romney (and the other candidates) simply fail to appeal beyond the conservative base in significant percentages. 

We also see soft support for Romney among males and Independent voters. Voting demographics with soft support usually do not donate money or volunteer for a campaign, and they do not "talk up" a candidate to to others in their peer group. Rather than swinging to the other side, they tend to sit out elections if their opinion of their candidate sours further - or if their view of the opponent becomes more favourable. Undecided voters in demographics showing soft support are also much less likely to show up at the polls.

Older voters are also unreliable for Romney. He's underwater with voters 45 or older by more than 20 points, and only breaking even in a match-up. 14% of his match-up support among voters 65+ doesn't view him favourably. This hardly seems like a solid base to build a culture war upon.

North Carolina is a crucial State for the Republican path to 270 electoral votes (EV), which is what it takes to win the Presidency. Without NC and its 15 EV, the GOP has to win every toss-up State. Even then, it's a dicey proposition to get to 270 EV. For Obama, winning NC opens up several possibilities to reach 270 EV. 

If CO and VA go to Obama, the addition of NC would allow him to lose FL, PA, OH, NH, and all of the Republican-leaning toss-up States - while still winning re-election. 

With PA currently polling Obama ahead, PA + NC would allow Obama to lose CO, IA, FL, OH, NH and all of the Republican-leaning toss-ups - and still reach 270 EV. 

So the Republican effort to win the White House pretty much hangs on which way NC goes, and Republican partisans are reduced to crowing over a possible tie within the margin of error (MoE), or dismissing the polling completely as 'biased'. I fail to see how having an election depend on a virtual coin toss in NC is a positive thing for the GOP, but that seems to be their current optimistic scenario. 

Also, having Obama showing positive momentum in NC with Independents is hardly a good omen for Republicans. Voters are unlikely to be convinced that Obama is scary at this point. The key is for Romney to be seen more favourably, but the extended primary is making that less and less likely by the day. With the rabid Republican base pushing Romney further and further toward the Right, these numbers we are seeing now could easily become the Republican high-water mark in NC for 2012.

 -------------------------
Pollster ratings from fivethirtyeight.com, based on 2010 elections: 
 

PPP: Obama "doing better" in PA, leads by 7 over Romney

In the crucial swing State of Pennsylvania, PPP 's latest poll (689 RV, ±3.7% MoE, 3/8/ - 3/11) finds Obama taking a lead over Romney. The President's job approval figures have improved slightly since PPP's last survey (11/11), but he only has a two-point lead over Santorum.

Barack Obama's numbers in Pennsylvania are the best they've been in 10 PPP polls of the state taken since he was elected President. He now leads Mitt Romney by a 7 point margin in the state, 49-42.

Pennsylvania voters are evenly divided on Obama's performance with 47% approving and an equal 47% disapproving of the job he's doing. That's a big improvement from Obama's numbers in the state over the course of 2011, which came in at 42/53, 46/48, 42/52, and 46/49 on our four polls of the state. Obama's numbers are up across the board when it compared to our November poll- with Democrats he's gone from 69/26 to 74/21, with Republicans he's gone from 9/85 to 15/78, and with independents he's gone from 45/53 to 52/41.

Once again, we see that the Republican front-runner, Romney, is much less popular than the supposedly hated Obama:

In addition to Obama's approval numbers improving, Romney's image has taken a hit in the state over the last 3 months. His favorability numbers were already bad at 32/51, but now they're worse at 30/60. 

 With Rasmussen having already crowned Romney as the nominee (and giving him big leads over Obama since that point in his skewed polls), it might be interesting to note that, nationally, Gallup is seeing a lack of enthusiasm for this nominee among Republicans: 

The 35% of Republicans who at this point say they would vote "enthusiastically" for Mitt Romney for president if he were to win the GOP nomination is identical to the 35% of Republicans who said the same about Romney back in late January/early February 2008.

In that same 2008 poll, however, 47% of Republicans said they would vote enthusiastically for John McCain, who ended up as that year's GOP nominee. In short, Romney's enthusiasm deficit in 2008 has carried over to his current campaign, with the difference being that none of the other nominees this year are generating any more enthusiasm among Republicans than Romney is.

This pretty much confirms what many people have been saying for a while now: Republicans are voting against Obama, not for any kind of "conservative alternative".

But, national Republican views aside, this PA poll is good news. Rasmussen posted a virtual tie in his February poll, which was mysteriously in the field for 15 days to find 438 "likely voters". Up until now, PPP's average of four polls showed basically what Rasmussen found, with the last poll (11/22/11) showing a 45/45 tie with Romney. 

Other polling for PA: 

• Franklin and Marshall (592 RV, ±4.0%, 2/14 - 2/20): Obama leads by 8 points.
• Muhlenberg (625 RV, ±4% MoE, 2/15 - 2/21): Obama leads by 11 points.
• Quinnipiac (1256 RV, ±2.8% MoE, 3/7 -3/12): Obama leads by 6 points.

Let's dig into the latest PPP poll highlights:

• Obama won PA in 2008, 55/44. In this survey we see:

Q12 Who did you vote for President in 2008?
John McCain................................................... 46%
Barack Obama................................................ 47%
Someone else/Don't remember ...................... 7% 

So, the survey sample shows eight points less than reality for the Democrats, and two points stronger than reality for the Republicans. Let's not bother pretending that this is some left-wing sample here.

• Romney is seen only marginally positive by those who voted for McCain in 2008 (47/42). Yet, in a match-up with Obama, Romney wins 76% of those former McCain voters. That's soft support.
•  Obama has strong job approval from moderates, breaking 67/24. Romney has the reverse when it comes to "favourables" with moderates (23/67). 
• In a match-up with Romney, Obama wins moderates 3-1 (68/21). Outside of that conservative base, Republicans just aren't that popular. Obama even wins 24% of those who self-identify as "somewhat conservative".
• In a match-up with Romney, Obama wins women voters by 12 points (50/38), and breaks even with males (48/47). With males turning out to be a critical demographic for the Republicans this election, they can't afford to just break even with them in match-ups.
• Romney has underwater "favourables" with Republicans (40/46).
• Romney basically just breaks even with white voters (47/45), which is another crucial demographic for Republicans. 
• Romney narrowly wins voters aged 65+ (47/44, R +3). Yet another crucial demographic that looks weak.

I look at the electoral math here. 

Basically, if Obama can win VA, then winning PA (21 EV) will put him over 270 electoral votes (EV), which means that he wins. That assumes that he wins IA, which Ann Selzer's recent poll might call into question. 

It's a good thing, then, that PPP just polled NC (15 EV) with a three-point lead for Obama. That allows him to lose IA and CO, and still win. 

On top of that, Obama leads in OH (20 EV) currently. And FL is a coin flip; if the Republicans lose that coin toss, they lose everything.

Ras Trax 3/10: Romney leads big for some reason

Apparently, the nation's "likely voters" have been waiting to decide if Romney is really the GOP's nominee before choosing him a match-up. This bit of delusion is supposed to explain why Rasmussen's crazy daily tracker suddenly , over a mere six days, switched from Obama six points ahead to Obama five points behind. Hand in hand with Rasmussen's latest results showing that 80% of Republican primary voters think Romney will be the nominee, 'naturally' Romney takes the lead. But if that's the case, how does Scotty explain Santorum also leading the President? He doesn't.

With the perception growing that he will be the GOP nominee, Romney leads President Obama by five points in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Today's numbers show Romney at 48%, Obama at 43%. That’s Romney’s largest lead since December.  

If Santorum is the Republican nominee, he is up by one point over the president, 46% to 45%. This is the second time since polling began in 2011 that Santorum has had a slight lead over Obama. Romney is the only other candidate to lead the president more than one time in the polls.

 Isn't this the virtual proof that Rasmussen's "likely voters" are mostly Republicans? Why else should anyone outside of the GOP care if Romney is the nominee? Even if they did, for some reason, why would that have prevented them from siding with one of the Republican candidates before? 

Also mysteriously, "Strong Disapproval" of Obama has gone up to 44%. Were "likely voters" waiting to decide who the Republican nominee would be before they decided to dislike Obama even more? 

I expect that this poll will become one of the key points that analysts will point to after the 2012 elections. Unfortunately for Rasmussen, it will be one of the examples used to illustrate exactly where Rasmussen went off the deep end and became the joke of the polling world. 

I leave it to the reader to guess how, exactly, Romney can lead the President by five points, yet be four behind in the "core States". 

Rasmussen has now firmly thrown in with the Republican delusional narrative. Nobody else is showing leads like this for any Republican candidate. Nobody else has shown a lead at all since mid-February, and only by two points, at that. He is past the point where he can redeem himself with last-minute "things changed" moments. No one will believe that now. The Right would never forgive him for doing that, and nobody else takes him seriously after this result. He will have to go down with the narrative in November. 

Perhaps Rasmussen thinks that he can intimidate other pollsters into showing more Republican-friendly numbers by doing this. If so, he vastly over-estimates his stature in the polling world after his 2010 debacle. Nobody is afraid to dispute Scotty's results anymore, and his reputation has declined even among Right-leaning pollsters. He would also be under-estimating the influence of pollsters such as PPP, whose results run counter to Rasmussen's. And, when PPP begins polling likely voters, Rasmussen will be deprived of his familiar crutch that he frequently employs against other pollsters.

Rasmussen: "core states" leaning to Obama

Because it's Rasmussen, the link to this poll might not work in the future. Scotty likes to make it difficult for people to check up on his previous predictions. Still, Rasmussen released a new poll (500 LV, ±4.5% MoE, 3/3 - 3/8) where he finds the "core States" (FL, NC, OH, and VA) leaning toward Obama 46/42. Hardly a surprise, that's exactly within the margin of error (MoE) for the survey. Also unsurprising is that this poll has major flaws:

First, a sample of 500 spread across four states is virtually meaningless. 500 would be a barely respectable sample size for each of the four States. I'm a little bewildered how Rasmussen arrives at a mere 4.5% MoE with that sample size. 

Second, it's a bit suspicious that Rasmussen was in the field for five whole days getting these 500 voters. 

Third, Rasmussen left PA off of his list of "core States", though he previously found PA to be a virtual tie.

Rasmussen avoids directly contradicting other polls of OH and VA that show Obama doing well by lumping his results into one poll. With other pollsters also showing FL and NC as a tie, Rasmussen also avoids shedding any light whatsoever on those States. This poll is not only meaningless and suspect; it's also worthless. 

These "core States" are absolutely crucial for the GOP to win. It's highly likely that losing any single one of them could produce a win for Obama in the general election. Any poll showing Obama leading in all of them would be death for the Republican chances. Is it any wonder Rasmussen combined his results into one meaningless composite, since that is the case? 

Here is the result that Rasmussen allows those unwilling to pay him to view:

President Obama now holds modest leads over Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in combined polling of key swing states Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. The numbers mark a shift from late February when Obama was tied with both candidates in the four states. 

Obama is now ahead of the former Massachusetts governor 46% to 42%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate in this matchup, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey of 500 Likely Voters in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia was conducted on March 3-8, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Once again, we find the defenders of the Republican narrative to be settling for a tie. Since the poll results are within the MoE, it could be that Romney breaks even. Guess what partisan Republicans are going to believe? I'm not really sure how a tie supports their delusions that Obama is a hated figure who could be beaten by "anyone", but it seems to represent the limit of Rasmussen's willingness to manipulate his figures. Of course, the Right "knows" that the 6% of "undecided" voters is going to break for Romney, so the MoE is just icing on the cake of self-delusion. 

The important thing to note here is not the actual poll results. It is, instead, the delicate dance that Rasmussen is forced into doing to counter the growing evidence that Obama can reach 270 EV in 2012. Scotty concedes that Obama has improved by four points in a few weeks, while he also concedes that his poll results are so shoddy that they could indicate a tie. The mere fact that Rasmussen has to do this dance is further evidence that the Republicans are in trouble with their electoral votes. 

We are seeing the narrative of the Right shift from "anybody could beat Obama" to "Obama can't close the deal". That's huge. I'll take that. 

With the most Right-leaning national pollster in America slowly being backed into the "outlier" category, Rasmussen could find that Fox News is the only network willing to take his numbers seriously.

Charlie Cook says Romney losing Independents

Charlie Cook, in his National Journal column, once again sounds the alarm over Romney:

At the start of this campaign, most independent voters, who generally follow politics less avidly than partisans do, saw Romney as something of a blank slate. Now, poll after poll shows that his numbers among independents have taken a beating. In an ABC News/Washington Post national survey earlier this month, Romney had a healthy 60 percent favorable and 29 percent unfavorable rating among Republicans. Among independents, it was 32 percent favorable and 48 percent unfavorable. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll among Republicans, 58 percent had a positive view of Romney, with 23 percent neutral and 18 percent negative. But among all voters, it was 28 percent positive, 28 percent neutral, and 39 percent negative. When this happens to the most “electable” candidate, it is not good for the party.

 Isn't this what I've been saying?

This year, it seems that Republicans have become self-absorbed and obsessed with their conservative base. They seem unable to acknowledge or unwilling to care that the rest of the electorate is watching and getting turned off by overheated rhetoric almost guaranteed to alienate all but the most conservative voters.

Cook, of course, has the obligatory remarks that Obama isn't a lock for re-election. Mostly, it's about the President's low approval numbers. He completely ignores that the Republican candidates are less popular, though. And he also seems to be secretly hoping for some kind of disaster that will hurt Obama:

There are so many land mines between now and Election Day for Obama: Iran and Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East; the impact of Middle East troubles on oil and gasoline prices; the sovereign-debt crisis and recession in Europe; a global economic slowdown; and the possible collapse of a European financial institution or two. But when you look at what is happening on the Republicans’ side, you kind of wonder whether they want to win or are happier just fighting among themselves.

Well, it is a National Journal article, you know.

Assuming Romney is the nominee, which Cook seems to take as fact, the more interesting question is whether the Republican base will allow him to move back toward the centre in the general election race. McCain was basically pushed further to the Right after winning the nomination. With the GOP believing its own spin that they are the majority, it could very well be that Romney will be forced to do the same thing in order to keep that base "energised". 

It might also be instructive to look again at Cook's February column where he voices similar doubts. Nothing has changed since he voiced those warnings. But, really, who in the Party has the ability to change course at this point? Nobody. The wingnut base is driving the car, and they aren't listening to anyone else.

Cook Report 3/8

The latest House Race Chart from Charlie Cook is up. Here are the changes:

• NY-22 has dropped off the radar. On 3/5 it was "Likely Democratic". This means that the seat isn't even in slight jeopardy.
• NY-26 moved downward to "Democratic Toss-up", while NY-25 moved from "Republican Toss-up" to "Lean Democratic".
• AR-4 has moved from "Lean Republican" to "Likely Republican".
• NY-19 and NY-20 have moved downward from "Likely Republican" to "Lean Republican".
• MI-3 is now "Likely Republican", indicating a slight drop from safe.

Chip Cravaack (MN-8) is still deemed a  "Republican Toss-up", and John Kline (MN-2) is still deemed "Likely Republican". Collin Peterson (MN-7) is still considered to be "Likely Democratic". Bachmann (MN-6) and Walz (MN-1) aren't listed, which means that their seats are considered safe. 

Walz's case is particularly interesting, since the MN GOP is involved in a contested primary race over who will get the chance to lose in 2012. Mike Parry, who has important positions in the Republican-controlled MN Senate, is vying with evangelist retread Allen Quist for the seat. 

Quist lost his race for Governor several years ago, and usually that marks one as a permanent loser in the MN GOP. Now, with the evangelicals having successfully taken over the MN GOP, Quist is getting a second chance due to his evangelical cred. For Quist, it's a last chance. 

Parry, however, has a lot to lose. Having won a special election against the execrable Sen. Dick Day, he won a full MN Senate term in 2010 - 54/46. It would be really nice to see Parry lose the race and become marked as a loser by his own Party. I am really hoping that Parry wins the primary, because the MN GOP doesn't seem to have any money to spend on campaigns, and the evangelicals have been very stingy with their money of late. All of the evangelical money seems to be going into the campaign for the Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, with actual races left as an afterthought. 

If Quist wins the primary (and goes on to lose the race for the seat), it will be a huge warning signal that the evangelical Party takeover has big negative electoral consequences. I would think that the DFL would like the MN GOP to continue down the "social conservative " road. So, if Parry wins (and goes on to lose the race for the seat), the evangelicals can scream that their guy would have won. It would strengthen their hold on the Party, which is good for the DFL. And Parry's career would take a permanent hit, which is just a bonus for the DFL.

New jobs report helps Obama's election chances

An article from Bloomberg, of all places, examines the improving economic reports and their effect on the 2012 election:

A surge in new jobs last month that held the U.S. unemployment rate to 8.3 percent highlights a strengthening economy that bolsters President Barack Obama as he approaches the November election .

The jobs report “is another plus for the president,” said Stu Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report in Washington.

“These numbers suggest the economy is moving in the right direction,” he said. “It’s likely to make people more optimistic, and that’s always, always good for an incumbent president.”
Employers added 227,000 jobs in February, more than forecast, the Labor Department reported today in Washington. The median projection of economists in a Bloomberg News survey called for a 210,000 increase. Job growth was revised upward for the prior two months.

Of course, the Republican spin - which can never admit that Obama could be doing anything right - is that the economy is improving in spite of Obama: 

Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator seeking the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nomination, said today the economy is recovering “in spite of” the Democratic Obama administration’s policies.

“Certainly a quarter of a million jobs, roughly, being added is a positive step forward,” Santorum said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt” airing this weekend.

The administration “has consistently seen, you know, bad job reports because of bad policies that have led to those job reports,” he said. “And eventually, you know, the economy does recover, in spite of the headwinds that this administration has put in its place.”

 Remember the previous scary scenarios that Republicans promised would have appeared by now. Industry was supposed to nationalised by the "socialist" Obama. We are supposed to be seeing hyper-inflation from the stimulus package. Conservatives are supposed to be locked up in "FEMA death camps", and a national goon squad of AmeriCorps thugs are supposed to be rounding up dissenters. Our guns are supposed to have been confiscated by now, and radical Muslims are supposed to be forcing us to bow to Mecca at gunpoint. Christians are supposed to be fugitives from the powerful Obama's dictatorial agenda. We are supposed to be working in "collectives", where we are forced to sing the praises of our Leader. 

Yet, none of this has happened. The incredibly powerful dictator Obama is, instead, "a failed President" who is unable to keep unemployment from going down. 

The same braying jackasses who swore that every scary prediction would surely come to pass are now the same people who say that Obama is a powerless incompetent. Remember that. 

The economy does not have to be wonderful for Obama to be re-elected. It merely has to be on a upward trend:

While potential threats loom -- such as further gasoline price increases, a war in the Middle East or a worsening of the European debt crisis -- most private forecasts anticipate slow improvement in the unemployment rate in the months before Election Day, Nov. 6.

“Over the last several months, the economy has gone from being a net negative for Obama to probably something close to a wash,” said Schnur, director of the Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, interviewed before the release of the jobs report.

The trajectory of the economy is typically much more important in presidential elections than the actual unemployment rate, Wlezien said.

“The point is really are we getting better or are we getting worse and how fast is it changing,” Wlezien said. “Whether the unemployment rate is 6 percent or 9 percent matters less.”

Also, underemployment is decreasing:

The so-called underemployment rate, which includes part- time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking, decreased to a three-year low of 14.9 percent from 15.1 percent. 

Consumer confidence is also increasing:

The strengthening economy is beginning to translate into greater public optimism, even with recent increases in gasoline prices.

Consumer confidence climbed to a four-year high last week, according to the Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index (COMF). For a fifth straight week, half of those surveyed also rated their personal finances as positive, bolstered by a resilient stock market, faster job growth and rising wages.

The Commerce Department last week reported that the economy grew at a 3 percent annual pace in the final quarter of 2011, up from a 1.8 percent gain the prior three months.

The economy is supposed to be the Republicans' trump card. The "hated tyrant" narrative isn't really panning out for them right now. Outside of the Republican base, voters really aren't scared by Obama, nor do they think of him as a "dictator". And, let's face it, the GOP's plan of big tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens combined with removing any checks on their already disproportionate influence has not exactly caught on with the electorate outside of their base.

Is that why they are turning to a 1950's-style social agenda now? Yeah, that should turn things around for them.

Gallup again shows Obama with positive favourables

As with a few days ago, Gallup is showing Obama above water in job approval (48/44).

GALLUP DAILY

Mar 6-8, 2012

Obama Approval

48%

Obama Disapproval

44%

In February, the President had an average job approval of 45% in Gallup's polling. This is getting close to the putatively magical level of 46% that Selzer finds so important.

Even Gallup admits, however, that the Republican candidates are less popular than the supposedly "hated tyrant" Obama. We have had several months now of exposure to the Republican field, and a primary campaign that has been heavily covered by the media since January. If anything, the Republicans have become even less popular with increased exposure. Even match-ups with generic Republican candidates aren't giving rosy results for the GOP any more. PPP's last weekly survey showed Obama ahead of the generic Republican 48/45. Even the last generic Congressional ballot from PPP showed Democrats and Republicans breaking even 44/44 in a match-up. Where is this huge Republican advantage, if it's still 2010 in the minds of the wingnuts?

Rasmussen remains irrelevant

Rasmussen, in his search for irrelevance, now shows Romney with a two-point lead over Obama in the general election match-up. Scotty wants you to pay him money to see his tracking history, but a recent summary can be seen here for free.

Rasmussen now (3/6 - 3/8) shows a Romney lead (45/47). Just a few days ago (3/3 - 3/5) this same pollster showed Obama with a six-point lead (48/42). Apparently, in Rasmussen's world, 8% of the nation's "likely voters" flipped in two days over to Romney. That just doesn't happen in the real world.

Let's look at HuffPo's chart:

Okay, so Obama has an average four-point lead outside of Rasmussen's skewed surveys. Aside from the Quinnipiac poll (2/14 - 2/20) showing Obama ahead by only two, no other pollster is showing the race as close as Rasmussen seems to.

In all likelihood, Rasmussen will continue to show this same pattern up to October. On some days, Obama will have leads. On other days, Romney will have the lead. Even in August, we can expect Rasmussen to keep showing Romney within the margin of error (MoE) at critical points. We can expect these critical points to include dates around Romney campaign speeches, when Rasmussen will attempt to prop up the Republican narrative with false hopes. 

In October, there will be some relatively meaningless event in the "big picture". Rasmussen will seize on this, and make it his "things changed" moment. His polling will suddenly show Obama with significant leads nationally, and in important swing states. And nobody will remember that this shill pollster spent more than a year prior to that giving Romney fake leads in his manipulated surveys. 

That's part of what this record is all about. That's partly why Rasmussen forces you to pay money to see his results. If you are willing to spend money for his polls, then you have a financial incentive to trust them. Nobody likes to admit that they got conned by a shill, after all.

You may say that the polls don't matter at this point in the cycle. I say that they do. The Republican narrative is that Obama is highly unpopular and very vulnerable. One would think, then, that polling should back that up. It really doesn't, though. And, if the polls don't matter at this point, then why is Rasmussen doing a daily tracker? In fact, the Right seems to be indirectly admitting that Obama isn't nearly as vulnerable as they believed he was - but they believe that they can convince the voters he is terrible in the future by way of a huge advertising campaign. 

Thus far, all that Rasmussen's bogus polling has shown is that 40% of the voters really, really dislike Obama. Even if you believe that to be true, how does Romney drawing only 7% above that number show Obama to be highly vulnerable? For a narrative built on 2010, Rasmussen's own bogus numbers do not bear out an idea that those outside of the Republican base are significantly breaking for the Republican alternatives.

PPP: Obama "crushing" GOP in Maine

Maine (ME) is another of the solid bloc of electoral votes (EV) that Obama starts with on the path to 270 EV. 

It is a State that was presumed solid based on PPP's October poll and their 3/11 poll. Now we have a new survey from PPP (1256 RV, ±2.8% MoE, 3/2 - 3/4) showing both job approval increases and larger leads for the President in ME:

President Obama leads each of his potential Republican challengers in Maine by 15 points or more, a new poll from Public Policy Polling finds. The President leads Mitt Romney in Maine 58-35 (up from 49-38 the last time PPP polled the matchup in October), leads Rick Santorum 58-35, and leads Newt Gingrich 60-32 (up from 55-35 compared to last October).  Ron Paul actually performs best against Obama but still loses by 16 points, 54-38.

Now, that's a 23-point lead over Romney. And we also find that this "hated tyrant" is far more popular with ME voters than the Republican alternatives:

The Republican candidates suffer from horrific favorability ratings. Mitt Romney is viewed favorably by just 30% of voters compared to 63% who view him unfavorably (down from 38-49 last October). Rick Santorum sits at 29% favorable and 63% unfavorable. Newt Gingrich sees the worst favorability rating of the group at 17% favorable and 74% unfavorable (somehow down even further compared to where he was last October at 25-63). Ron Paul once again performs best, with a 34% favorable and 54% unfavorable opinion rating (up slightly from 24-57 last October).

Meanwhile President Obama enjoys a healthy 55-41 positive job approval rating in Maine, up sharply from 47-48 the last time PPP polled Maine in October.

Strong majorities disapprove of the Republican alternatives to the "Kenyan socialist", while a majority approves of the "unpopular" President.

Let's look at the ideological breakdown of the poll for further clues:

Q12 Would you describe yourself as very liberal,
somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat
conservative, or very conservative?
Very liberal ...................................................... 14%
Somewhat liberal ............................................ 21%
Moderate......................................................... 31%
Somewhat conservative.................................. 21%
Very conservative ........................................... 14%

 35% of ME voters are at least "somewhat conservative". That's the same percentage that breaks for Romney and Santorum. Again we see that the Republican candidates' appeal is limited to the GOP base. Maine just had their Republican caucus last month (2/11), and presumably voters were exposed to Republican ad campaigns. This undermines the Right's fist-shaking contention that, once the general election gets going, voters will be swayed by a Super PAC-funded ad blitz. 

What could that future ad blitz focus on that would sway voters so much? A bad economy? Surely voters are aware of the bad economy already. Socialism? Haven't we heard that non-stop for years now? Gas prices? Polling shows that Congress (and Republicans in Congress, specifically) get the blame for that from the voters. Scary conspiracies? Haven't we had these non-stop for years already? 

As far as the idea that Republicans will rally to the nominee once he is selected, all I can say is, "So what?". 

The GOP can't win with just their base, and they are working hard to turn off everyone outside of it. On top of that, they are living in a bubble reality in which it's still 2010. They still think that their "magic words" of "liberal", "socialist", "Kenya", "failure", etc. actually work on anyone outside of the base. The GOP is still selling a "war against the libs", which is not what Independent voters want. It's not what they wanted in 2010, either. They wanted jobs, and instead they got a war against "liberals". 

Let's look at the example of Maine, a State that elected a right-wing Governor (LePage) in 2010. PPP's 3/11 poll shows that 2010 is over in ME:

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of Governor
Paul LePage’s job performance?
Approve................. 41%
Disapprove............ 52%
Not sure ................ 7%

Q2 If you could do last fall’s election for Governor
over again, would you vote for independent
Eliot Cutler, Republican Paul LePage, or
Democrat Libby Mitchell?
Eliot Cutler ............ 43%
Paul LePage.......... 35%
Libby Mitchell ........ 19%
Not sure ................ 3%

Q3 If there was an election for the State
Legislature today, would you generally vote for
Democratic candidates or Republicans?
Democrats............. 51%
Republicans .......... 37%
Not sure ................ 13%

 If Obama is "hated" because he is under Gallup's magical 46% mark, then how popular can LePage be when he is at 41% approval? This is a State where a slim majority want to vote for a Democratic-controlled Legislature, not a "war against the libs". This is a State where Obama's job approval rating is going up, not down. How can anyone on the Right look at these numbers and think that the strategies of 2010 will continue to work in 2012? 

The answer is "delusion". Conservatives have isolated themselves socially into a world where everyone agrees with them. Everyone has learned to nod or make inane responses to their crazy, out-of-touch talking points and wild conspiracies. If you don't do that, you will get a dose of spittle-flecked fury and a long, angry rant. Nobody's mind will be changed, so why not just mutter vague agreement and let these crazy geezers live in their fantasy world? 

Having laid 2010 to rest, let's look at this new poll's highlights:

• Obama gets strong "favourables" from moderates (68/25), while Romney gets nearly the reverse (28/66). Moderates break more than 3-1 in Obama's favour when matched up with Romney (69/22).
• Obama has strong "favourables" with female voters (62/34), while merely breaking even with men (48/47). Males are turning out to be a key Republican demographic in this election, and breaking even is not a strong showing.
• In a match-up with Romney, Obama wins women voters strongly (64/30) and a slim majority of men (52/41). That means that 6% of men who have an unfavourable opinion of Obama still break for him in a match-up with Romney. 
• A slim majority of Independent voters have a favourable opinion of Obama (54/38), and they break strongly for Obama in a match-up with Romney (57/32). Again, 6% of Independent voters with an unfavourable job approval for Obama still end up voting for him over Romney.
• Obama picks up 16% of self-identified Republicans when matched up with Romney. 
• White voters (another crucial Republican demographic) break strongly for Obama over Romney (58/35).
• Voters older than 65 really do not like Romney. He has a negative 34/56 rating with this crucial Republican demographic. Obama wins the 65+ age group 58/35 in a match-up with Romney.

Maine has only 4 EV, and went for Obama 58/40 in 2008. While delusional wingnuts will likely continue to point to 2010's mid-term election as a sign that the GOP is competitive in ME, it seems that three polls over the course of one year dispute that narrative.

Ras Trax 3/6

Another day, another Rasmussen tracker that makes no sense in Rasmussen's world. Once again, Obama has higher disapproval than approval, which meant before that Obama should be losing in a match-up with Republican candidates. Strangely, this unpopular President is ahead of both Republicans. How can this be?

In a hypothetical 2012 matchup, the president leads Romney 48% to 42%. If Santorum is the Republican nominee, the president leads 48% to 41%.

Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) at least somewhat disapprove.

 So, Scotty says Romney is losing by six points. Once again, Romney is not picking up that 51% who are unhappy with Obama's job performance. This is so weird, because we are told that Obama is so unpopular that anybody could beat him. Once again, the Republican candidates are only picking the same percentage that "strongly disapproves" of Obama's job performance. Once again, that percentage of "strong disapproval" is only a few points above Rasmussen's percentage of self-identified Republicans.

And, once again, this 'unpopular' President is drawing 15% above Rasmussen's percentage of self-identified Democrats. And, once again, we must point out that these are "likely voters", and Rasmussen can't credibly claim that they won't turn out in November. Roughly half of Rasmussen's Independent voters are breaking for Obama, and the other half apparently aren't sure yet.

Marist: Obama strong in VA

In tandem with the last post involving OH, there is another Marist poll (2518 RV, ±2.0% MoE, 2/29 - 3/2) that shows Obama winning by double digits in the crucial swing state of Virginia. 

In a match-up with Romney, Obama prevails 52/35 (O +17). A slightly wider margin is shown in a match-up with Santorum (54/32). Likewise with Ron Paul (53/32).

Also, the overwhelming majority of VA Republican primary voters think Romney will be the eventual nominee:

Regardless of whom you support, who do you think will be the Republican nominee to run against President Obama?

• Mitt Romney 78%
• Rick Santorum 9%
• Newt Gingrich 5%
• Ron Paul 3%
• None of the above 1%
• Undecided 5%

 Also instructive, given the polling results, is this question:

Which one of the following candidates do you think has the best chance to beat President Obama?

• Mitt Romney 65%
• Rick Santorum 14%
• Newt Gingrich 9%
• Ron Paul 4%
• None 3%
• Undecided 5%

I examined the electoral math here and here. 

Again, assuming CO and VA are won by Obama, he only needs one of four States in his column to reach 270 electoral votes: NC, PA, FL, or OH. 

Colorado is a toss-up. 

Previously, VA has been shown tied in one poll, and Obama leading in three others:

• PPP  (48/42, O +6)
• Quinnipiac (47/43, O +4)
• Rasmussen  (49/43, O +6)

Seeing a fourth poll with the strongest lead for Obama yet is very encouraging.

In spite of three polls showing a lead, the National Journal (highly conservative) calls this new Marist poll an "outlier":

The new poll appears to be an outlier -- a conclusion that is supported by other results from the poll showing President Obama with a massive, 17-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The Roanoke College poll, on the other hand, showed Romney leading Obama by one point.

I'm not sure how four polls showing Obama ahead can mean that he's not ahead.

With VA looking more solid than ever, regardless of what the lead really is, the importance of other polling showing Obama ahead strongly in OH and PA is huge. 

FL has been polled as a tie by Quinnipiac and PPP. It's basically a coin toss, and if the Republicans lose that coin flip, it's all over for them.

NC (15 EV) is also a tie, per PPP. Those 15 EV would take Obama over the finish line if CO and VA are going along with Obama. The Republicans have a very difficult path to 270 if they fail to win NC. It's a coin toss that the GOP really must win.

Obama's solid base of 239 EV, plus VA with 13 EV, leaves us at 252 EV. 

From there, Obama only needs 18 EV to win. 

NC + NH = 19 EV.

FL = 27 EV 

OH = 20 EV 

PA = 21 EV

CO + NV + NH = 19 EV 

CO + MO = 18 EV 

CO + AZ = 18 EV 

MO, AZ, NH, and NV are all currently showing as toss-ups, though the Republican candidate is likely to have an advantage in all of them. Still, dropping two of them would be deadly. 

A possible obstacle to these plans is Iowa, and its 7 EV. 

With Selzer's outlier poll showing Obama losing IA by two points to Romney, it may be the only one of Obama's 239 EV base that is not so solid. 

This makes CO (9 EV) even more important, in order to cover the possible loss of IA. 

Still, with PA and OH looking more solid, that path alone would allow Obama to drop CO, IA, NC, NV, NH, MO, FL, and AZ and still win. 

Likewise, winning FL alone would allow Obama to drop IA, CO, and all of the other close States - and still win.

NC and either OH or PA would put Obama over 270 without needing IA or CO.

Of course, this leaves a lot of ground for the Republicans to cover. Unlimited PAC money only gets you so far, and there are Senate races, too. Polling isn't showing a lot of good opportunities for Republicans at this point, and Maine is now a new question mark. It's possible that the GOP could end up with a net loss of Senate seats. They will certainly lose on net House seats.

 -------------------------
Pollster ratings from fivethirtyeight.com, based on 2010 elections:

Marist: Obama strong in OH

A new poll of Ohio, a crucial swing state in the 2012 election, shows Obama with a strong lead.

Marist released a poll (3079 RV, ±1.8% MoE, 2/29 - 3/2) showing Obama leading Romney 50/38 in OH. 

From the release:

Obama Leads Possible GOP Rivals
How does the field of Republican candidates fare in Ohio against President Obama?

• Obama leads Paul, 48% to 38%.  13% are undecided.
• 50% support Obama compared with 38% for Romney.  12% are undecided.
• 50% of registered voters back Obama compared with 36% for Santorum.  14% are undecided.
• Obama — 51% — leads Gingrich – 36%.  13% are undecided.

Obama manages 50% in the match-up, in spite of an even break in approval:

45% of registered voters in Ohio approve of how President Obama is doing in office.  45%, however, disapprove, and 9% are unsure.

So, Romney is unable to pick up 7% of OH registered voters who are unhappy with Obama. Does that sound like a strong candidate to you?

It's even worse when you look at the party ID breakdown:

Ohio voters are more likely to identify as independents than they were in a similar poll conducted in October 2008.  35% of registered voters now consider themselves to be independent compared with 31% at that time.  Republican identification has decreased from 31% to 26%, and Democrats are little changed.  They went from 37% in 2008 to 38% now.

“President Obama’s advantage over his potential challengers in Ohio is underscored by the fact that more voters support him over the GOP field than approve of his job performance,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

So Romney is drawing 12% above his base partisan support. And Obama is drawing 12% above his partisan base support. That would be okay if Romney's partisan base of support hadn't dropped 5% since the last election - which the Republicans lost. 

Obama now has a twelve-point lead over Romney in a State that Republicans cannot afford to lose. 

Gov. Kasich is slightly underwater in his "favourables": 40/43, with 17% unsure.

And this shows the real "value" of those right track/wrong track poll metrics:

Majority Says Nation on the Wrong Track

55% of Ohio registered voters think things in the nation are off on the wrong track while 40% believe they are moving in the right direction. Five percent are unsure.

If a majority of OH registered voters believe that we are on the "wrong track", how can Obama get 50% in a match-up? Maybe this is a stupid metric to judge the President's electoral chances by. Maybe it reflects dissatisfaction with Republicans as much as it reflects a liability for Obama. 

Also, the poll shows a strong lead for the Democratic candidate in the Senate race:

If Democratic incumbent Senator Sherrod Brown were to face off against Republican challenger Josh Mandel, what are Mandel’s chances of victory? As the contest stands, Brown leads Mandel, 47% to 37%. 16% are undecided.

Ohio has 20 EV, and is a "must win" state for the Republicans. As was discussed previously,  if Obama wins OH, he is virtually guaranteed to win the needed 270 electoral votes (EV) for victory - as things stand now.

Electoral math:

Republicans must also mind their defences in MO, NV and AZ, as they are only narrowly going to the Republicans currently. They certainly can't afford to see these base States slip away, especially since Texas is only in their favour by 7 points. Texas is the "crown jewel" of the Republican election strategy. Without TX and its 34 EV, there is no hope for a Republican to win the White House. It's still solid for them now, but it might be a swing state in 2016.

Assuming Obama can win CO and VA, he then only needs to win one of these States: PA, OH, NC, or FL. We already see him ahead in OH.

Colorado looks close, and a recent poll set VA as a virtual tie. Both add up to 23 EV. Winning OH or PA would mostly offset losing the coin flip twice in CO and VA. 

Winning both OH and PA would mean that Obama would probably win the national election. 

It's a good thing that Obama is leading in both of those States, then.

Rasmussen gave leads to Obama in VA (49/43 O +6).

Republicans are in bad position at the moment. They have to basically win three coin flips in a row: CO, FL, NC. If they lose one of those, Obama wins. 

NH is another coin flip, but only has 4 EV. It might come into play if the Republicans win CO and VA, but lose PA and OH. 

This is why any polling of CO, FL, or NC will be closely watched.

Obama has a solid base of 239 EV right here:

CA (55), OR (7), WA (11), NM (5), MN (10), MI (17), IL (21), NY (31), MA (12), VT (3), ME (4), RI (4), DC (3), MD (10), DE (3), NJ (15), IA (7), WI (10), CT (7), HI (4)

Previous polling for OH:

PPP's November 2011 polling shows Obama with a 9-point lead in OH.
In 2/12 polling by PPP,  Obama leads by 6 points.
Rasmussen, for what it's worth, shows Obama with a 4 point lead over Romney and tying Santorum.

------------------------------
 Pollster ratings from fivethirtyeight.com, based on 2010 elections:

Ras Trax 3/4, and the ultra-likely voter

Today's meaningless Rasmussen tracker finds the President underwater in job approval (46/53). As we learned from Scott Rasmussen on 2/27, obviously this means that President is losing to the Republican candidates in a match-up. Being underwater in job approval also means that Ron Paul leads Obama in a national match-up. It just makes sense, because Obama is so unpopular that Democrats won't vote for him and everyone wants anybody but Obama to be the next president. I mean, it's obvious, isn't it? It's all there in Rasmussen's numbers and his commentary.

And yet, Rasmussen today finds the President leading the Republican candidates. How can this be? He is underwater in job approval! No one would ever vote for Obama, because he's so unpopular. Scotty said so!

Does it seem that Rasmussen is just making it up as he goes along? 

Remember, Rasmussen wants you to pay him to look at the history of this wondrous daily match-up tracker.

Anyway, as part of the chronicle of Rasmussen's decline from relevance as a pollster, let's peer into the warped product of a partisan manipulator of numbers and see the latest match-up:

In a hypothetical 2012 matchup, the president leads Mitt Romney 47% to 43%. If Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee, the president leads by the same margin, 47% to 43%.

And the job approval numbers:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15 (see trends).

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) at least somewhat disapprove.

 So 42% (of "likely voters, mind you) "strongly disapprove" of Obama's job performance.

And 43% (of "likely voters") would vote for either Republican candidate - but not Ron Paul, apparently. 

Those numbers are virtually identical. Statistically speaking, they are identical. 

It seems obvious that the Republican candidates are only attracting the strongest detractors of Obama. 

Subtract the number that disapprove from the number voting for the Republican candidate, and you get 7% of the nation's "likely voters" who would not currently vote for the Republican candidate even though they are unhappy with the President.

We are told that 46% at least "somewhat approve" of Obama's job performance. 

We are also told that 47% of the nation's "likely voters" would currently vote for Obama in a match-up. 

Again, those numbers are statistically identical. 

It seems obvious that Obama is attracting everyone who is at least "somewhat' happy with him.

Now, you can say that the gap between "strongly approves" and "somewhat approves" means that 20% of Obama's supporters won't show up to vote. Of course, you would be neglecting that these are likely voters. 

Rasmussen seems to be implying the creation of some kind of new voter: the ultra-likely voter. 

Unfortunately for Rasmussen, the vote of an enraged, highly motivated person counts exactly the same as the vote as a marginally enthusiastic person. You can't vote with an exclamation point. And, either someone is likely to vote or they aren't. Scotty's basically making up the definitions for these terms in the first place. And, considering he sets the rules, his narrative doesn't hold up under casual scrutiny. 

In the partisan Republican world, the President is a reviled figure that only 27% of the electorate likes. We are told continuously that Obama is a complete failure, a dangerous schemer, an out-of-touch elitist, and a "socialist". Everyone "knows" this. And the economy is horrible, which means that it's all Obama's fault.

What can they possibly make, then, of polls that regularly show Obama winning match-ups with their conservative champions? 

Easy, in the Republicans' minds. A lot of those people who say that they are voting for Obama won't vote, or can't vote. As for the rest, their minds will change once they get exposed to campaign advertising that tells people that the President is bad.

Okay, that's crazy. 

All of these criticisms of Obama have been screamed before. Hell, they've never really stopped. 

And the Republican 'ideas' have all been heard before. The House has been too busy de-funding NPR and trying to humiliate Obama to put those ideas into effect. Tax cuts. Yeah. Heard that one. Those Bush tax cuts have got the economy rolling, haven't they? 

This is a large part of what happened for the Republicans in 2008. They mistakenly believed that "base appeals" are effective on the general electorate. They really aren't. 

If the talking points of these anticipated game-changing advertisements are similar to those currently being pushed by Fox News, the right-wing blogosphere, or talk radio, then they won't work. The people who are receptive to that type of appeal have already sided with the Republicans. Hearing Obama being blamed for a bad economy the 2354th time isn't suddenly going to do what the 2353rd instance failed to accomplish. 

Republicans, consider this: 

You have spent over four years already (including the campaign) telling the nation how scary, evil, clueless, and weird Obama is. You've used every angle, from the crazy conspiracies to the legislative logjam to attack the guy. This has got you 40% of the electorate, and you've pretty much had that same 40% since the middle of 2009. If this line worked on more than that 40%, it would have worked by now. 

Even with all of that, there's still 7% of the electorate that's unhappy with Obama, but unwilling to vote for your guy.

We've been locked in to majority disapproval of Obama for over two years now, and the President is still winning in match-ups against your two most likely candidates. And this is all data from your favourite conservative pollster, not the "liberal media". 

You guys are supposed to be business minds, and all that. You must be familiar with the concept of "diminishing returns". Think about how likely tripling the amount of harsh criticism is going to pay off for you. It'll get the people already on your side frothing mad, but that's not really such a good idea when you want to appeal to the general electorate, is it? People are pretty tired of the screeching, spittle-flecked rage coming from you guys already. How do you come back from all that when you lose? More importantly, how does that allow your nominee room to take more moderate positions after the primaries? 

You are going to try and moderate after the primaries, aren't you? 

You guys are so screwed.

 -------------------------
Pollster ratings from fivethirtyeight.com, based on 2010 elections: