PPP national poll shows GOP weakness in age demos

  The latest PPP national poll is out. 

While it shows Clinton "only" four points ahead, we should bear in mind that Obama beat Romney by "only" four points. 

From the summary (emphasis added): 

The race is shaping up pretty much as you would expect along demographic lines. Clinton leads 51/36 with women, 82/13 with Hispanics, 91/5 with African Americans, and 57/28 with young voters. Trump leads 48/37 with men, 51/32 with whites, and 51/36 with seniors.

Clinton has a 39/35 advantage with independents. Trump's actually getting more crossover support with 10% of Democrats to Clinton's 7% of Republicans. That's partially because of some Bernie Sanders fans continuing to hold out from giving their support to Clinton- among Democrats and independents with a favorable opinion of Sanders 79% are voting for Clinton to 7% for Trump, 3% for Stein, and 2% for Johnson with 9% remaining undecided. If Clinton could even win over just half of those folks her support would go up to 49% and give her an 8 point lead.

 I'm unsure how many supposed "Sanders supporters" are even really Democrats to begin with. It's become apparent over the course of the primary that a lot of "independents" (i.e. Republican-leaning voters) comprise the Sanders camp. These are voters that hate Trump because he's not a 'real' Republican, and hate Clinton because 'real' Republicans are required to hate all Clintons by definition. Winning over half seems possible, though. 

  As for the 10% of Democrats supporting Trump, that doesn't mean much. First, PPP showed 13% of Democrats supporting Romney on the eve of the 2012 election, and 13% also in October. So Trump's 10% of Democrats is actually worse than Romney's losing share. Second, this was supposed to be Trump's big edge -- his appeal to "Reagan Democrats". 

  Clinton leading with independents is important, because Romney lead independents by by five points in October 2012 -- and still lost. 

  As far as the stupid "oversampling" (a/k/a "unskew") argument, the D/R/I of this latest national poll was 39/34/27. Current polling shows: 

   That's a current D/R/I of 38/35/25. So no "oversampling" of Democrats. 

  But what's more interesting in the bigger picture is the age demographics. 
On the generic ballot, it's clear that senior citizens are the Republican Party's key age demo. 

  This isn't a "head-to-head" (h2h) between candidates. This is a hypothetical preference for President assuming ideal candidates. In other words, it's a best-case scenario for Republicans. I should note that PPP showed seniors breaking 52/45 in Romney's favour on the eve of the election. Senior citizens were the exact same proportion of the sample in both polls: 20%. 
This means that the GOP gets 10.6% of the electorate (.20 * .53) by winning seniors with a 15-point advantage. It might also be important to note that PPP ended up with a 50/47 result in Obama's favour on Election Eve. The actual result was 51/47. So, pretty accurate. 

  As you can see from the age breakdown on the current generic ballot, all other age groups either break evenly or go to the Democrats. The average life expectancy is around 82. A whole lot of this demographic won't make it to 2020, and they'll be replaced by voters who aren't nearly as favourable to the GOP. The age demo will still favour Republicans, but the GOP can't afford to lose any voters -- much less their key demographic. If only 47% of seniors favour the GOP, that will bring their share of the electorate down to 9.4%. A Party that is losing national elections by four points can't afford to lose nearly an entire point and still hope to win. 

  Some attrition will also take place in the 46-65 age group, as well. This split demo will be diluted by voters favouring the Democrats by six points. I wouldn't expect any kind of dramatic shift over four years, but the split in the 45-65 group will probably be slightly in favour of the Democrats. 

  You also have to consider the influence that these older voters have on the younger voters, especially in 'red' states. Without these seniors snarling and bellowing at their adult children about the evil Democrats, the impact of right-wing propaganda will lessen. The culture war talking points that the GOP uses to animate much of their base will fall on increasingly disinterested ears.  

  All of this assumes, of course, that the GOP will continue on their same course. There isn't much hope of that course changing. The Party "establishment" has been thoroughly discredited in the primary, and will undoubtedly be blamed by the Republican base for Trump's loss -- just as they were blamed for Romney's loss. With the Party organisation no longer having credibility, all of the Republican 'bench' having firmly tied themselves to the current course, and the base firmly entrenched in a bubble reality alternating between fear and outrage, where will any new course originate from? 

  We've seen a remarkable polarisation in the electorate. Most of the Republican base now lives in a different reality than the rest of nation, and this reality is built on conspiracy theories and 'facts' that are no longer reconcilable as "differences of opinion". You are either "in" or you are "out", and there aren't any new people getting "in". There is no effort made to persuade outsiders to join this bubble reality. Anyone who isn't already "in" is presumed to be evil or stupid, or both. This base simultaneously crows arrogantly that they are the majority and whimpers that they are also an oppressed minority. It's more like a tribal identification or religious indoctrination than it is a coherent political movement. Fads and heroes are embraced and soon forgotten, with no memory that they were ever embraced in the first place. Abandoned talking points are picked up years later and shouted anew as fervently as if they were never abandoned at all. 

  Over all of this is a strange desire to return to the past -- a past that is hazily misremembered and cast in black and white. More or less, this past is the 1950's -- nearly sixty years ago. It's little wonder that senior citizens are the key demographic of the Party, with this in mind. It's not only a time of strictly-enforced conformity (giving the lie to the "liberty" narrative), but also a time when minorities had very little in the way of rights or dignity. Oddly, it's also a time when labour unions were strong, but that part is left out of the hazy picture.

  Nobody under the age of 50 remembers this period with glowing fondness, mostly because they weren't alive back then. For these voters, it was a time of racial segregation. It was a time when you couldn't be an individual, but were tightly locked in someone else's vision of how to dress, speak, behave, and which opinions to hold. It was time when gays lived in quiet desperation, terrified of losing their jobs, being brutally beaten, and despised by all if their terrible secret ever got out. It was a time of few career options for women, and all of them were low-paid occupations. You could beat your wife (or most women, for that matter) with impunity. You could beat, cheat, or insult any minority without consequence. Basically, if you weren't a white male, it was an "anything goes" situation. There was no shortage of craven cretins eagerly willing to enforce this social order with their fists, their economic power, or with ropes and guns in other cases. And good luck if you weren't a Christian. 

  If this sounds like a "tough sale" to voters, it is. Were a sufficient number of Republicans to actually think the consequences through, most would reject a return to this social order. Instead, they know it can never happen so it becomes an aspirational goal and an element of tribal identification. In this purpose, it can only produce frustration and disenchantment with those that they elect, because they can never possibly deliver a return to the Golden Age. 

  The Republican Party has engineered a disastrous long-term situation for itself in order to achieve a short-term gain. And that short-term gain has instead become little more than a holding action. It virtually guarantees that elected Republican office-holders will have a short political life, because they can't enact the crazy brand of change that their base so strongly desires. It creates a revolving door of crazy, and even more crazy, candidates making bigger and bigger promises while failing miserably to get results. It burns through the 'bench' of electable options and leaves the Party with only clowns to run. And so we see the current desire for "outsider" candidates on the Right, whose lack of appeal outside of the Party base in seen as a major asset. 

  Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, a candidate simply has to be "not crazy". This sets a low bar, and leads to disillusionment and frustration with a perceived "lack of progress" in that Party's base. The fervent Republican hope is that their "holding action" can put enough stress on the Democratic Party that it will begin to splinter and put forward unelectable candidates in its own right. But the age demographics, inherent instability, and gaping schisms within the Right don't give the GOP sufficient time for this strategy to play out. The Democratic Party is well-accustomed to coalition politics, while the Republican Party is not. It chafes at the compromises made as a coalition, and has lost its vaunted "unified messaging". It's very identity has become lost and subsumed into little more than an "anti-Democrat" Party with no real principles of its own. 

  It's a political game of "chicken" that the GOP can't win, nor can it afford to lose. When the string is played out, the Republican Party will be left in a shambles. The Democrats will have free reign to shape the narrative. And most Republicans will 'forget' that ever believed any of the stuff that they now hold to be Sacred Truth. But the nation will have squandered a decade in a generational tantrum.
       

       

Welcome to 2016

  I'm back at this blog for the 2016 election! 

Once again, we see the usual delusions from the Right and the same worn-out narratives that were floated in the 2012 election. 

The Trump campaign is being run as a Republican primary effort. Once again, we see the Republican candidate basically just talking to Republicans, rather than swing voters. This entire "Crooked Hillary" tag is ridiculous. Anyone that buys it is already voting for Trump. Likewise, Benghazi/email server/Clinton Foundation have already been out for over a year. If you haven't been persuaded by these by now, it's highly unlikely that hearing Trump talk about it more will change your mind.

We saw the same thing in the 2008 election, when Ayers/Wright/Rezko were flogged endlessly and seen by Republicans as some kind of magic words that convert people to their side. 2012 saw the magic words "You didn't build that!" paraded as the key to victory, when anyone that wasn't already voting for Romney just shrugged. 

Republicans do this because they are under a few fundamental delusions: 

• They believe their base is much larger than it really is. This is due to a fixation with the 1980 electorate, and the mistaken belief that the electorate is static and written in stone. Reagan's core demographic was  seniors, and those people are dead thirty-some years later. Those "Reagan Democrats" became Republicans long ago. You can't count them twice. And the percentage of whites voting has gone up, while their share of the electorate has gone down. There really aren't large numbers of non-voting whites for Republicans to draw, and it seems dubious that the majority of them would vote Republican if they were drawn in to vote. 

• They believe that they have strong credibility. Think back to all of the prophesies of doom in 2008 that every conservative firmly believed, and bellowed to anyone with ears. Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim usurper, who was going to throw conservatives and Christians in FEMA death camps. Guns would be confiscated. We'd be forced to bow to Mecca at gunpoint. Treason!!! AmeriCorps would become Obama's thug police force. He would be a dictator. He would change the flag. And so forth and so on. There was the whole birth certificate issue, and death panels, and persecution of Christians. Everything that happened was a "false flag". Ebola was going to wipe us out, and Obama was going to see to it. He was simultaneously a dictator and an incompetent, a warmonger and an appeaser. He would raise your taxes, and his tax cuts were dangerous. He was a "crony capitalist", and a wild-eyed socialist. He was uncompromising, and his compromises 'proved' that he was weak. The list goes on and on. Jade Helm. Net Neutrality. Gay Marriage. Benghazi. None of these things panned out, and conservatives promptly 'forgot' the last outrage when they moved on the next. For anyone outside of the conservative bubble, it was just a lot of crazy noise from people you had learned not to take seriously. So they just turn up the volume. 

•  They believe that they are the default choice. Again and again, we see Republicans believing that everyone wants to vote for them. All they have to do is 'prove' that the Democrat is flawed, and people will vote for whatever sorry bozo they nominate. They scream that the Democrat is 'hated', and they lose to the guy that's hated. They never see that they are hated even more. They screamed that Obama is 'dangerous'. They never figured out that the electorate is more afraid of them running the show. Now they are slated to lose to a 'corrupt', unpopular woman. And they still think that they are loved.

•  They believe that, if they truly believe, they can change reality. This is "magical thinking", and it's at the core of movement conservatism. Again and again, we see conservatives assert their desired outcomes as certainties, simply because they desire those outcomes. Any facts that throw cold water on these beliefs are dismissed as "biased" or "corrupt". Only the True Believers are free of bias and corruption -- in their own minds, anyway -- so they are the only ones with access to the "facts". The entire "unskew!" narrative, which was thoroughly proven wrong in the 2012 election, is now being presented as something completely new. The same idea that there are legions of untapped white voters for the taking is once again seen as an obvious fact by the Right. They won't just win; it will be a landslide for Trump. When they lose, they will conveniently 'forget' that they ever believed any of these things, and fill those gaps with faddish new delusions that are sure to work out for the best. 

I should probably also add the persistent Republican habit of conflating primary results with general election outcomes. They don't seem to understand that Republican primaries are for Republicans. High turnout for primaries does not translate to general election victories, except for solid red states. And I'll also add the ridiculous giddiness with which they point to overwhelming GE leads in solid red state polling, as something that will automatically translate to blue states and swing states. Oddly, these red state polls are always seen as reliable and unbiased. It's only those polls that don't line up with the desired outcome that are seen by conservatives as untrustworthy. 

As long as I'm at it, I'll point out the ludicrous conservative fascination with square miles, rather than electoral votes. Oooh, look! Big old Montana went red! And tiny little Vermont went blue. They have the same number of electoral votes, genius! Huge North Dakota counts less than tiny little Hawaii. Wyoming counts less than New Hampshire. New Jersey counts as much as South Carolina and Alaska combined. Rhode island counts the same as Idaho. It's about the population of the state, not the size! I'll take Delaware and Connecticut (10 EV) over Nebraska (5 EV) any day. 

Right now, things aren't looking good for Trump. He's already had his "rally" from becoming the presumptive nominee -- and he's still behind. Must-win states for Trump are tossups (e.g. NC and FL). And Hillary hasn't had her "rally" from wrapping up the nomination yet. Even conservative pollsters like Rasmussen are currently showing Trump losing by five points -- and Obama beat Romney by four. Solid red states like UT and GA will probably only be narrowly won by Trump -- within five points. Trump is still thinking that he can win MN and NY! 

It's just going to get harder for Republicans, too. 2020 will have even worse demographics. It's also a Census year, meaning that those gerrymandered House districts will get re-shuffled. 

Republicans hit the 'reset' button after their 2008 loss. No fair bringing up Bush, because they had changed! But they've become so heavily invested in this current course - doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down -- that it will be extremely difficult to hit 'reset' again and re-define themselves. And the Party organisation that would lead that effort is nearly comatose and powerless over the base. Not to mention that this primary campaign has discredited pretty much their entire bench of 2020 potentials. 

As far as policy goes, there's nothing there on the Republican side except vague and unrealistic aspirations. Mostly, the GOP exists as little more than an "anti-Democrat" party now. Whatever "the libs" are in favour of becomes the new definition of conservative policy. Beyond that, it's just a basic desire to turn back to the clock to a time that they mis-remember. And those times mean nothing to those born after them. 

As the oldest of the conservatives die off or become vegetative, their influence over the younger generation will rapidly fade. 2020 will be the "last hurrah" for the current incarnation of the conservative movement. They will still control states, but never again be within striking distance of the White House. The "pendulum" only swings because the losers change to attract new voters, but this incarnation refuses to change and the pendulum will refuse to swing. 

Benghazi

rob delaney (@robdelaney) tweeted at 0:34 AM on Sat, May 18, 2013: This is hilarious. RT @TeaPartyCat: http://t.co/j2L5drxXF7 (https://twitter.com/robdelaney/status/335629450463023105) Get the official Twitter app at https://twitter.com/download

Rasmussen revealed

This is Rasmussen's Polling chart for 2012.
As you can see, it showed Romney ahead from April onward.



Interesting that Rasmussen makes you pay to see these results.

This is PPP's chart for 2012.
As you can see it showed Obama ahead.



Right now, it's 11/3/12.
If Obama wins, Rasmussen can claim that he was within the MoE (margin of error), and thus "accurate".
If Romney wins, obviously Rasmussen can claim "accuracy".
Note: the links below will probably not function after the election, or will require payment.

Since Rasmussen will charge you to see this after the election, let's look at Rasmussen's latest Ohio results:

Friday, November 02, 2012

With four days to go, President Obama and Mitt Romney are tied in the critical battleground state of Ohio.   
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters finds Obama and Romney each with 49% support.  Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, while one percent (1%) is undecided. 

 Let's also look at Rasmussen's latest Colorado survey:

Thursday, November 01, 2012

Mitt Romney still holds a narrow lead in Colorado. 
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Colorado Voters shows Romney still holding 50% support, while President Obama earns 47% of the vote. Two percent (2%) favor some other candidate, and one percent (1%) is undecided.

 And Florida, which Scotty hasn't polled since 10/26. Latest results:

Friday, October 26, 2012

Mitt Romney still earns 50% of the vote in the key battleground state of Florida, but his lead is smaller.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Sunshine State finds Romney with 50% of the vote to President Obama's 48%. One percent (1%) is undecided.

Now realise that Rasmussen's MoE on these State polls is +/- 4%.
Even if Obama wins these States, Rasmussen will still be able to claim "accuracy", even though he predicted a Romney win in two of these three. Scotty does not even have to pick the correct winner to be considered "accurate".

Let's look at Rasmussen's chart for Florida:


As you can see, Rasmussen showed Romney leading in every poll that he did of the State. That's pretty different than showing one poll where it could go for Obama and still be within the MoE.

And now, let's look at Rasmussen's chart for Colorado:


Romney is ahead and steadily gaining since July. Wow, it sure looks as if Romney couldn't lose, doesn't it?

Now for Ohio. Let's see Rasmussen's view of the race:


Obama was ahead all year, except up to the very end when Romney pulled ahead. Weird, right? But Scotty's still within the MoE, isn't he? No harm in giving Republicans a little hope, when you can still claim accuracy even if Romney loses.

Let's see how "accurate" Rasmussen really is after the election. It should be fun to hear him spin, but he will probably hide all of this information shown on his own site, or require payment.

PPP: Obama leads by 7 in OH

Ohio is another crucial swing state, worth 18 electoral votes (EV) out of the required 270 EV. Polling this year has shown Obama with varying leads, with the exception of a February Fox News poll showing Romney leading by six points. Even Rasmussen gave Obama a four-point lead in April (46/42). HuffPo averages out the polling to show Obama with a five-point lead (47/42), making it a State that "leans Obama". The President won Ohio 51/47 in 2008.

The latest poll from PPP for OH (875 RV, ±3.3% MoE, 5/3 - 5/6) gives Obama a seven-point lead (50/43).
Let's look at the ideological breakdown of the sample to dispel notions of bias:

Q13 Would you describe yourself as very liberal,
somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat
conservative, or very conservative?
Very liberal ...................................................... 9%
Somewhat liberal ............................................ 18%
Moderate......................................................... 31%
Somewhat conservative.................................. 22%
Very conservative ........................................... 19%

So, that's 41% conservative, 27% liberal.

PPP's Tom Jensen sums up the phenomenon that has allowed Obama  to assume this lead:

Ohio voters don't love Obama. They're evenly split with 48% approving and 48% disapproving of him, although that is an improvement from the negative numbers he's posted during most of his time in office. Obama's lead in the state may be driven more by the fact that Ohioans just don't much care for Mitt Romney. 37% have a favorable opinion of him to 53% with a negative one. That includes a 33/59 spread with independents. Romney's performance in Ohio in the primary wasn't terribly impressive and his issues seem to be extending to the general election.

We see this frequently in state polling. It's not so much that Obama is immensely popular, but rather that Romney is just not well-liked at all. This also means that significant margins of key demographics for Romney show soft support -- a greater percentage of a particular demographic saying that they will vote for him than the percentage that has a favourable opinion of him. Voters exhibiting soft support are less likely to turn out, volunteer, donate, or "talk up" their candidate, though they don't usually flip to the opposing candidate.

Even worse than Romney's "favourables" are those for Ron Paul:

Q2 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of Ron Paul?
Favorable........................................................ 26%
Unfavorable .................................................... 51%
Not sure .......................................................... 23%

Paul loses to Obama in a match-up 48/40. He loses women to Obama in the match-up by 24 points, splits white voters (45/43 O+2), loses voters 45 and under by at least 15 points, and loses moderates by nearly 30 points. He has all of Romney's weaknesses with key demographics, but he holds a higher percentage of undecided voters in most of them than Romney does.

We are now well past "Rosen-gate", where Ann Romney was supposed to have won over female voters and erased the gender gap by playing the victim card. It hasn't worked. Jensen notes:

The GOP's struggles with women and young voters really show themselves in Ohio. Obama's up 55-36 with women and has a 62-30 advantage with those under 30. If you extend the definition of 'young' voters to those under 45 Obama still holds a massive advantage at 56-35. Romney's winning seniors 49-45 but he needs a much bigger lead than that to make up for his weakness with young people.

 Seniors are a reliable Republican demographic, and they are only breaking for Romney by four points. Men break for Romney by six points (50/44, 7% undecided), which isn't strong. It hardly begins to counter the nineteen-point lead  Obama has with women. Moderates, as we've seen in so many States, break strongly for Obama. Apparently they don't believe that Obama is some kind of radical Marxist. In Ohio, Obama wins moderates 56/31 (13% undecided) in a match-up against Romney. The moderates that do support Romney show five points of soft support.

Conservatives, as one would expect, are Romney's biggest supporters. Those who describe themselves as "somewhat conservative" break overwhelmingly for Romney in a match-up 67/25 (9% undecided). Unfortunately for Romney, 67% of the 22% of the electorate that describe themselves as "somewhat conservative" is only 14.7%. He gains less than 15% from this overwhelming margin toward his 43% support. And only 59% of this demographic has a favourable opinion of Romney, which leaves him with eight points of soft support among those "somewhat conservative" voters.

For those describing themselves as "very conservative", the situation is much the same. Romney wins them by an even larger margin (79/15, 5% undecided). However, this only nets him another 15% of the electorate. Out of his 43 points of support, nearly 30 points (69%) of his support is from conservatives. The price of this is losing moderates steeply to Obama. And only 65% of those "very conservative" voters have a favourable opinion of Romney. That leaves a considerable 14% of soft support with this demographic.

Let's look at Obama's soft support. Among moderates, 58% have a favourable opinion of him -- two points more than break for him. Actually, with these subgroups, these small margins are meaningless. Among women, 53% are favourable (negligible two points soft support). Among white voters, 44% have a favourable opinion, leaving three points of soft support. Obama's senior supporters are solid at 47% favourable, compared with his 45% share of the demographic. Independent voters break for him at  43%, while 41% approve. Even the 25% of "somewhat conservative" voters breaking for Obama show 23% favourable opinions of him. He shows five points of soft support among "somewhat liberal" voters, but he's solid with "very liberal" voters (for what their 9% of the electorate is worth).

With Obama's support being so firm, it's unlikely that negative attacks will be effective against him. Romney, however, is vulnerable to depressed enthusiasm among his base -- especially among the "very conservative" voters showing considerable soft support for him.

Even worse, Romney's team has shown no ability to make Romney himself look better. Instead, they have concentrated on trying to make Obama look bad.

PPP: Obama leads VA by 8

Virginia is a crucial swing state, and one that Romney supporters continue to assert the Republicans will win. Actually, they assert this because there is no realistic path to 270 EV for Romney if he loses VA's 13 EV. Rasmussen, of course, found VA as a virtual tie, but this was mostly a propaganda piece to support the narrative that Romney is seeing dramatic improvement after winning the nomination. It should be interesting to see how Rasmussen walks this back as we get close to the election, since he gave Obama a nine-point lead one month earlier. For Obama, winning VA opens up several different paths to 270 EV, and it would be very difficult for Romney to block all of them. 

PPP's latest survey of Virginia (680 RV, ±3.8% MoE, 4/26 - 4/29) shows Obama ahead 51/43. 

Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling notes: 

Obama's approval rating in Virginia is 50% with 46% of voters disapproving of him. This marks just the 3rd time in our polling of the state since he took office that Obama's hit 50% on that front. Meanwhile Romney continues to be pretty unpopular with only 38% of voters rating him favorably while 52% hold a negative opinion.

Remember, this is weeks after Santorum dropped out. The poll was in the field while Gingrich virtually dropped out. Romney is the nominee, for all intents and purposes. We've been told of the impending surge (or "rally") for Romney once his primary opponents were defeated. It hasn't really materialised. In fact, undecided Republicans are only 2.2% of the electorate in VA. How do you overcome an eight-point lead by picking up 2.2% of the electorate? Magical thinking, that's how. Why is Romney still so unpopular if Republicans are "rallying" to him? 

This isn't some one-time phenomenon. Obama has showed a lead in VA of four points or more since 11/10:

Romney has held steady in the low 40's, while Obama has been moving into a slender majority. And this has happened during a bad economy with the GOP mercilessly attacking him. Yet, Republicans think that mercilessly attacking Obama, combined with a bad economy, will win the State for them. How? Magical thinking, that's how.

Tom Jensen again: 

Obama's winning 57-33 with voters under 30, which is not unusual. But he's also up 56-37 with voters between 30 and 45 which suggests the GOP has a problem in Virginia not just with the very young but also with the somewhat young. That generational gap speaks to the days of Virginia as a solid red state in Presidential elections probably being over.

 How about Ron Paul?

Q6 If the candidates for President this year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron
Paul, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 50%
Ron Paul ......................................................... 39%
Undecided....................................................... 11%

Ron Paul even loses those who voted for McCain in 2008 by 36/46 to Obama. He loses moderates 61/24 to the President. He loses women 55/35 in a match-up. He loses all age groups from anywhere from 7 to 13 points. Yeah, he's the one to save the day. 

In a match-up with Romney, Obama's worst case is a split with voters over 45. He splits Independent voters 44/46 (R +2), and wins women voters 55/38. Male voters aren't particularly strong for Romney, either. He splits them 47/48 (R +1), which is not a good way to overcome a gender gap. Obama also strongly wins over moderates in a match-up 62/28. Moderates were 31% of the sample, meaning that Obama gets 19.2% of the VA electorate here alone. 

Comparatively, Romney wins "somewhat conservative" voters (24% of the sample) very strongly in a match-up - 19/73. That accounts for 17.5% of the VA electorate. And "very conservative" voters (17% of the sample) break a bit more strongly for Romney - 13/82. But that's only about 14% of the VA electorate. So winning conservatives gets Romney 31.5% of the electorate, which is the bulk of his support. He really can't squeeze much more out of the conservative base. Undecided "very conservative" voters are less than 1% of the electorate (0.7%) in VA, and undecided "somewhat conservative" voters are only about 2% of the electorate. Even if Romney won over every single undecided moderate, that would only yield 3.1% of the vote. Add it up: 5.8% potential gain if Romney won every single undecided moderate, somewhat conservative, and very conservative voter. 

Even with this very unrealistic scenario, Obama would still narrowly win. 

With no strong advantage with any age group, either gender, Independent voters, or race, Romney is left with his base. He wins only a slim majority of white voters (51/42) for a mere nine-point lead in this crucial Republican base demographic. His "favourables" with white voters are 44/46, which means he already has 7% of white voters breaking for him who don't really like him. That's soft support. 

Obama's favourables with white voters are 41/55, which means that all of Obama's white supporters have a favourable opinion of him. That's strong support, even though it's less than Romney's. Take away that 7% of Romney's white supporters who don't like him, and Obama virtually breaks even with the demographic.

Even though Ann Romney thinks that she scored big over Rosen-gate, Romney's favourables with both genders are underwater. Women in VA see Romney unfavourably (35/44), as do men (42/50). That means that 6% of men break for Romney, although they don't like him.

For Obama, however, women see him favourably 53/41. Obama still has 2% of women that he could win over, at least in theory. The margin of error for these subgroups blurs these small distinctions. He doesn't even do badly with male VA voters in his "favorables" (47/50), which means that all of his male supporters see him favourably. No soft support at all with either gender.

This poll changes the average in HuffPo's electoral map to a narrow +3 lead for Obama in VA. If Rasmussen's results are removed from the average, Obama would show a 4.4% lead. 

If Obama holds all of the States that lean for him (WI, MI, OH, PA, and VA), he wins the election with 282 EV. He could lose every single "toss up" State, and still win. Even in those "toss up" States, Obama has shown leads in most of them in PPP's surveys. For example, PPP polled Obama with a five-point lead in FL (29 EV) less than three weeks ago. And PPP polled CO (9 EV) with 13 point Obama lead less than a month ago.

Can a "rally" save Romney in OH?

The current delusion from conservatives is that, after the nomination, Republicans will "rally" to their nominee and provide the edge needed for a Romney victory. 

I'm going to examine the recent polling of one swing State and determine how realistic this "rally" scenario really is. 

Quinnipiac polled OH (1246 RV, ±2.8% MoE, 3/20 - 3/26) and found Obama leading 47/41. The survey's demographics are here. The cross-tabs are here. 

The weighted numbers from the sample show 29% self-identify as Republicans. These Republicans break 83/7 for Romney when matched up against Obama. Beyond that, 4% "don't know", 2% "won't vote", and 3% will vote for "someone else". 

Let's assume that the 7% of Republicans saying they will vote for Obama flip to Romney, and that all 4% undecided Republicans also rally to Romney. This is 11% of the Republicans. 11% of 29% is a whopping 3.2% of the general electorate. Obama leads by six. 

This, then, is the conclusion: if every Republican in Ohio flips to Romney, and actually turns out to vote, Obama would still win the state by about three points. There is about 5% margin of error (MoE) in the Republican-only sample, which could go either way. The best-case scenario is that a Republican "rally" could put Romney ahead by two points, and that's stretching at the limits of reality here. 

Whatever it would take to rally every Republican would probably alienate Independent voters (33% of the sample). Even a five-point gain for Obama among Independents would make the race a virtual toss-up, and that would occur if half of the undecided Independents voted for Obama. If Obama won over the 5% of undecided Democrats (33% of the sample), that would also make the race a virtual toss-up. Again, this is taking into account the unrealistic assumption that all of the poll's margin of error falls to Romney's advantage. If only half of the MoE falls on Romney's side, then Obama narrowly wins.

Romney fails to win a majority of white voters (45/41), with 7% undecided. With the white vote as 83% of the sample, Romney would gain 5.8% of the general electorate if he could pick up every undecided white voter. This would make the race a toss-up. He would need the MoE of 2.98% to actually pull ahead, but it would be a narrow victory.

A Republican "rally" could make OH a "toss-up" at best, and that's a coin flip that Romney cannot afford to lose. Obama, on the other hand, can afford to lose it and pick up those electoral votes in other States.

Can a "rally" save Romney in FL?

The current delusion from conservatives is that, after the nomination, Republicans will "rally" to their nominee and provide the edge needed for a Romney victory. 

I'm going to examine the recent polling of one swing State and determine how realistic this "rally" scenario really is. 

Quinnipiac polled FL (1228 RV, ±2.8% MoE, 3/20 - 3/26) and found Obama leading 49/42. The survey's demographics are here. The cross-tabs are here. 

The weighted numbers from the sample show 29% self-identify as Republicans. These Republicans break 87/7 for Romney when matched up against Obama. Beyond that, 4% "don't know", 1% "won't vote", and 1% will vote for "someone else". 

Let's assume that the 7% of Republicans saying they will vote for Obama flip to Romney, and that all 4% undecided Republicans also rally to Romney. This is 11% of the Republicans. 11% of 29% is a whopping 3.2% of the general electorate. Obama leads by seven. 

This, then, is the conclusion: if every Republican in Florida flips to Romney, and actually turns out to vote, Obama would still win the state by about four points. There is about 5% margin of error (MoE) in the Republican-only sample, which could go either way. The best-case scenario is that a Republican "rally" could put Romney ahead by one point, and that's stretching at the limits of reality here. 

Whatever it would take to rally every Republican would probably alienate Independent voters (33% of the sample). Even a five-point gain for Obama among Independents would wipe out that one-point Romney lead. If Obama won over the 4% of undecided Democrats (33% of the sample), that would also wipe out Romney's best-case lead. 

Romney wins only a slim majority of white voters (51/38), with 6% undecided. With the white vote as 71% of the sample, Romney would gain 4.3% of the general electorate if he could pick up every undecided white voter. He would need the MoE of 3.1% to actually pull ahead, and it would be less than a single-point lead. 

A Republican "rally" could make FL a "toss-up" at best, and that's a coin flip that Romney cannot afford to lose. Obama, on the other hand, can afford to lose it and pick up those electoral votes in other States.

PPP: Obama improves in NV, leads by eight

Nevada is a State that Obama won 55/43 in 2008 against McCain. It was "icing on the cake" as far as electoral votes (EV) went, with NV providing six of Obama's 365 EV. 

However, polling done by PPP in 2011 showed Obama's "favourables" down and "underwater" in NV. He was only tying Romney 46/46 in 10/11. In fact, PPP noted:

“There aren’t many states Barack Obama won in 2008 where he has fallen as far as Nevada,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “What was an easy win last time looks like it will be a very tough hold in 2012.”

Not even six months later, the situation has dramatically changed. PPP's latest poll of NV (553 RV, ±4.2% MoE, 3/29 - 4/1) shows Obama prevailing in a match-up with Romney 51/43. 

October 2011 Nevada Results:

April 2012 Nevada Results:

PPP sums up this survey in a more optimistic tone:

Nevada, more than any other state, symbolizes how much the Presidential race has changed over the last six months.

In October Barack Obama was unpopular there, with a 44/53 approval rating. That was the story in our Nevada polling through most of last year. In July Obama was at 47/50 and in April he was at 45/52.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, polled much better with voters in Nevada than he did in most of the rest of the country. His favorability on our last poll there was narrowly positive at 45/44, and he managed to tie Obama at 46% in a state where the President won by 12 points in 2008. PPP's other polls in the state in 2011 showed a similarly close Obama/Romney race- a 1 point lead for Obama in July, a 3 point lead for Romney in April, and a 1 point lead for Obama in January.

That's not the case anymore. Over the last 5 months Obama's approval numbers have recovered, Romney's favorability numbers have taken a strong turn in the wrong direction, and Obama's opened up an 8 point lead in the state at 51-43.

 Obama now shows a 50/46 job approval in NV. Romney is currently polling as well as McCain, who lost. Nevada already held their Republican caucus on 2/4, and Romney won. This did not result in Republicans "rallying" to Romney, nor did the campaign sway voters outside of the base. In fact, the opposite happened. Oddly, this same scenario, which did not materialise in NV, is what Republicans are counting on to happen nationally to turn things around for their nominee. PPP notes:

Romney's net favorability meanwhile has dropped by 14 points to -13 with 38% of voters seeing him positively to 51% with a negative opinion. Part of his strength in Nevada had been an unusual number of Democrats seeing him favorably, but that crossover appeal has dropped from 27% to 18%. With independents his favorability is 36/54.

 The Right's latest head-spinning narrative is that all of this will change after the RNC. Republicans will "rally" to Romney, and I would assume that this narrative sees Independent voters as eager to jump on the bandwagon at that point. Romney will, according to this narrative, take more moderate positions to broaden his base of support. The base will nod knowingly as Romney winks to them, as they 'know' that he believes none of it. And, of course, there will be massive ad campaigns telling voters that Obama is dangerous, too powerful, and not powerful enough. In spite of these ads simply repeating the same things that the GOP has been saying for years, this time it will change everyone's mind. Democrats will be overwhelmed by this onslaught, will sulk, and will decide not to vote. Romney wins, and the evil "libs" are defeated. If this sounds delusional, it is. 

The strongest selling point of this narrative is that it buys the GOP another five months until they have to seriously evaluate things. Until 8/27, at least, no one can disprove this narrative. And this supposed "rallying" could take a month to 'solidify', so now we are up to late September.

Let's look at the results of the 4/12 PPP NV survey.  The sample is 42% conservative and 71% white.

Q12 Would you describe yourself as very liberal,
somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat
conservative, or very conservative?
Very liberal ...................................................... 10%
Somewhat liberal ............................................ 17%
Moderate......................................................... 30%
Somewhat conservative.................................. 26%
Very conservative ........................................... 16%

Q15 If you are Hispanic, press 1. If white, press 2.
If African-American, press 3. If other, press 4.
Hispanic.......................................................... 15%
White .............................................................. 71%
African-American ............................................ 8%
Other............................................................... 6%

 These are the highlights:

• Among moderates (30% of the sample), Obama's job approvals are strongly positive (63/32) with 5% unsure. Romney breaks negatively (32/56) among this same group. Outside of the Republican base, Obama is seen pretty favourably.
• Among voters who describe themselves as "very conservative" Romney has positive "favourables" (55/35). This is probably the floor for Romney, and it's not strong.
• Romney, among all registered voters, breaks negatively 38/51 with 10% unsure. As the campaign progresses, both candidates will see temporary dips in popularity as well as sudden rises. By starting with such high disapprovals, Romney can't afford the dips in his "favourables".
• Ron Paul is seen about as favourably (35/53) as Romney is, which is not a good position to be in. He's negative with moderates (50/36), and barely popular with "very conservative" voters (51/39).
• In the match-up with Romney, voters who describe themselves as "moderate" break strongly for Obama (67/29). Obama even picks up 21% of voters who describe themselves as "somewhat conservative". This leaves only 4% of "soft support" with moderates: 67% vote for you, 63% approve of you.
• There isn't really a "gender gap" in these numbers. A slim majority of both men (51/41) and women (51/44) break for Obama in a match-up with Romney. The "favourables" for Obama with men (52/46) and women (48/45) don't leave more than 2% "soft support" compared with the match-up.
• Romney is seen a bit less favourably by men (36/56) than women (40/47). There aren't enough "undecided" voters to sway for Romney to get him in positive territory with a single gender.
• Independent voters see Obama positively (50/46), and they break for him more strongly than that (54/39). There's still 4% "soft support", but Romney's in no position to take advantage of it by breaking negatively (36/54) in approval with Independent voters.
• Republicans break for Romney 78/12, with 10% undecided. Republicans are 39% of the polling sample. That means if Romney won every single Republican in a "rally", it would only gain him 8.6% of the general electorate, assuming 100% voter turnout. The best that Romney can hope for is a "toss-up" here, and he really needs the EV. Obama can spare them.
• Hispanics see Obama favourably (65/32), and favour him in a match-up with Romney (69/30). Only 1% are undecided, which doesn't leave a lot of room for Romney work with.
• If you think that Obama's job approval (50/42) is bad, how good is Romney breaking 50/42 with white voters in a match-up against Obama? This is the core demographic for Republican candidates, and he's not even winning a majority. With 8% undecided, the best that Romney can get is 6% of the general electorate - not enough to win.
• Obama is viewed negatively by voters over 65 (45/52), but this is another core demographic for Republicans where they barely show a majority. The match-up is almost identical (51/45), with Romney six points ahead. Romney is also seen negatively by this demographic (44/49), so it would seem that his support is not quite enthusiastic.
• Voters aged 18-29 see Romney somewhat positively (44/41), though they end up strongly breaking for Obama 62/35 in a match-up. Obama's approval of 59/32 with the youth vote aligns pretty closely with the match-up results. Only 3% are undecided in the match-up at this point. 

 Nevada's 6 EV have not been counted as part of Obama's solid core of 232 EV previously. If Obama only needs 38 EV above that, VA (13) and NV would be a great start. With both of the States favouring Obama by eight, that brings the target down to 19 EV. That means that Obama gets over 270 EV if he wins just one single State on this list: OH, PA, FL. He's (at least) narrowly leading in all of them, and some by as strong a margin as we see here. Just one is all he would need, and it wouldn't matter then if he lost CO (9), NH (4), NC (15), IA (7), AZ (10) or MO (11). Or, Obama could lose all three of the OH, PA, FL trio if he would win NC and CO. There are several possible paths to 270, and many fronts for Romney to defend.

Once more polling becomes available on CO, NH, MO and IA things will get considerably clearer. But, when you have "red" States like MO and AZ polling as a toss-up, it doesn't make a case for positive momentum.

Gallup: Obama reaches 50% approval

A great deal of the Right's narrative (and the punditry that pushes it) is based on low job approval for Obama with the pollster Gallup. Supposedly, the President's low job approvals make the Republican nominee look more competitive, and makes Obama vulnerable to virtually charge or flimsy scandal that the GOP puts forward.

Facts never get in the way of Republican narratives, of course.

Polling has shown that Romney is viewed unfavourably outside of the Republican base, and only grudgingly accepted within that base.Even worse, his numbers are declining. Those who see Romney rebounding after the Republican National Convention (RNC) fail to realise:

• The RNC will be very divisive, following very divisive State Conventions.
• Romney will have to go on record supporting very conservative positions, and endorsing ideas that most outside of the Republican think are kind of crazy.
• All of these statements will be on record and available for campaign ads against him.
• Romney will have to back away from these statements after the nomination.

It remains to be seen how much the Republican base will "rally" to Romney. One of the consequences of the 2010 election is that every faction of the GOP, from "sovereign citizens" to Libertarians to evangelicals, saw the results as some kind of national validation of support for their faction. Each faction sees this as "their time" and "their turn". Each faction sees some mythical Heartland majority as loyal to their agenda, and each sees their faction as the only hope to defeating Obama in the general election. Each faction sees themselves as "overdue" for its reward from the Party for its decades of support. And the strict message discipline of the GOP has been fractured for years now, with no one at the wheel. The GOP has basically been throwing out conflicting narratives for years and seeing which ones "stick", while abandoning narratives that get stale or fail to resonate. No one, including the base, knows what the GOP stands for -- other than the willingness to claim anything as indisputable truth that is seen to hurt Obama. And, how enthusiastic will this base be when Romney backs off from conservative positions in the general? Will they believe him when he winks to them, or will they remember how this guy stands for nothing at all?

Meanwhile, Obama is essentially a "known quantity". Outside of the Republican base, people are not afraid of him, do not hate him, and do not want to punish him. They wish he had been more successful, and they had higher hopes for his first term. That doesn't mean that "anyone" is seen as an acceptable alternative to him.

It's now clear that there will be no magical, hugely popular, messiah from the Republican Party who can fix everything with a wave of his hand. It's going to be Romney, and Romney is a blank slate. With selective reading of his shifting positions, he can either be a guy who believes in everything that you believe in, or nothing that you believe in. And, given the electorate's disenchantment with politicians (as well as the Republican Party), guess which of those two options most will go for.

In fact, the same cynical disappointment with Obama that the GOP is depending on is also the thing that makes voters project their worst assumption upon Romney's blank slate.

Now we get to see the very same pundits, strategists, and shills (who have invoked Gallup for years) go to great lengths to ignore Gallup's results.

GALLUP DAILY

Apr 3-5, 2012 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change

Obama Approval

50%  +1

Obama Disapproval

43%  -3

 So far, for the month of April, the President has polled at least 47% job approval nationally with Gallup.
The current figure of 50% approval is the highest all year. This is happening as the Republican primaries are testing out their attack narratives, and as the nation is supposed to be concentrating on what a 'failure' Obama is supposed to have been.

Actually, you would have to go back to late May 2011 to find a higher job approval rating, or early June 2011 to find a lower disapproval with Gallup. State polling from other pollsters has also shown Obama's "favourables" improving over that time frame. His positions in match-ups has also improved for states that are considered to be "in play".

There is a sharp drop-off in negative opinion of Obama between conservatives and moderates, and the Republican base is increasingly isolated in opinion compared with the rest of the electorate. There is almost a palpable scorn, a "you are either with or against us" attitude, coming from conservatives toward non-conservatives.

One of the consequences of so much of the Republican electoral strength being limited to solid "red" States is that these Republican voters live in a world where no one supports the President. This reinforces the mistaken idea that they are much more popular than they really are, and encourages them to dismiss those outside of the Republican base as a small minority that will be steamrollered in the general election. This fist-shaking rage, and the implied promises of "payback" for not jumping on the bandwagon, just serve to drive Independents and swing voters away from them and towards the President.

Rasmussen: let's poll Montana again

 Check out Rasmussen's new poll of Montana, the second survey of a State that no one has ever thought would flip, and which has gone to the Republicans for the last 20 years on the Presidential race. It's also a State with a mere 3 electoral votes (EV). Even tiny Rhode Island has 4 EV.

I guess when Scotty is having a hard time coming up with good news for his right-wing narrative, he can always poll Montana.

Romney receives 49% support from Likely Voters in the Treasure State to Obama’s 40%. A new Rasmussen Reports statewide survey finds that nine percent (9%) prefer some other candidate, while two percent (2%) are not sure.  (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey of 500 Likely Voters in Montana was conducted on April 2, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Much to no one's surprise, Romney is leading by nine points in a state that has no bearing at all on the acquisition of 270 EV by Obama.

When Obama has a solid lead like this in a State, wingnuts point out that he's under 50%. Well, Romney is under 50% here. Does anyone really think that he might lose MT?

When it comes to swing States, Rasmussen likes to combine them together so that no one can point to his polling in one of those States. Of course, anyone evaluating his shoddy polling after the election can simply combine those states and prove how much of an outlier his polling has been so far.

Gallup: Obama leads nationally by 4

Gallup has been the most pessimistic pollster for Obama this election cycle, with Rasmussen now relegated to the role of noise-maker. Gallup doesn't do a "daily tracker" of election match-ups, just daily Presidential approval. So, when Gallup does a national match-up, it's worth looking at. And, when Gallup shows Obama leading, it means something. At the very least, it should mean something to right-wing pundits who have placed such emphasis on Gallup's results.

Gallup's latest national poll (901 RV, ±4% MoE, 3/25 - 3-26) shows Obama leading Romney 49/45. They also surveyed twelve swing states, which I will examine after looking at the national poll. We see that Romney is at his lowest percentage in the match-up since 8/11, in spite of a national primary campaign that has given him dramatic media exposure, and Super PAC-funded ad campaigns in many states.

Obama leads both Romney and Santorum among independent voters, faring slightly better against Santorum than he does against Romney. Romney and Santorum currently fare about equally well among Republican voters.

 In fact, Independent voters are breaking 48/40 in Obama's favour in this poll.

And, let's look at today's daily job approval figures from Gallup:

GALLUP DAILY

Mar 30-Apr 1, 2012 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change

Obama Approval

47%  +1

Obama Disapproval

44%  -1

Once again, the President is on positive ground in job approval nationally. 

I've written about Romney's "soft support" previously. The numbers of those who say they would vote for him in a match-up are higher (by double digits) than those who say that they have a favourable opinion of him. Most worrisome, perhaps, is this gap among men, voters over the age of 65, and white voters. These are usually core demographics for the GOP, but Romney's numbers do not show strong support from those who are willing to vote for him. Usually, this means lower enthusiasm for a candidate with "soft support".

Unsurprisingly, Gallup finds that Romney's supporters are losing enthusiasm:

Forty-two percent of registered voters nationwide say they are "extremely" or "very enthusiastic" about voting for president in this year's election. That is down significantly from 52% in January and 47% and 48% in December and October, respectively.

The decline is especially apparent among Romney voters, whose enthusiasm has fallen 13 percentage points from January, and now is on par with Obama voters' enthusiasm. Prior to the latest poll, at least half of Romney voters were extremely or very enthusiastic about voting, and their enthusiasm exceeded that of Obama voters.

 Okay, so even the people who say they will vote for Romney in November are less enthusiastic, and there are fewer of them than before. Gallup finds that Democratic enthusiasm has dropped seven points over the same period, but Obama's match-up numbers have gone up in response.

Now let's look at the match-ups in the twelve swing states. Gallup polled (933 RV, ±4% MoE, 3/20 - 3/26) CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NH, NM, OH, PA, VA, and WI as a composite.

Obama has a 51% to 42% lead over Romney in USA Today/Gallup polling of registered voters in 12 key swing states, conducted March 20-26. This is the first time in five measurements that Obama has held an advantage over Romney in those states.

That's a nine-point lead, with only 7% undecided. These results from the swing states are even more impressive than the national polling results, because the strong majority of states are already solidly on one side or the other. The margins of victory in those solid states is meaningless to the electoral vote (EV) count, but the 12 states that Gallup polled are still "in play". Some are more "in play" than others, however. WI and MI, for example, have been found solidly for Obama already by other pollsters, Still, these twelve states are the ones that will basically decide the election. Together, they total 139 EV out of 270 needed to win. Polling has shown Obama to be competitive in all of them, when examined individually. He has shown leads in most of them in surveys by various pollsters.

And now Gallup, the pollster that Beltway pundits and Republican strategists have been clinging to for several months, is saying that Romney is currently losing those twelve states. 

Conventional wisdom says that Obama can't win with his current low job approval numbers. For example, Ann Selzer wrote:

No president has been re-elected with a national approval rating under 49 percent, according to Gallup polling dating to 1964. It’s a watershed mark, and about 8½ months from the election, Gallup national polling Saturday had Obama at 46 percent — underwater.

Selzer, of course, did not take into account that Romney's "favourables" are much lower than Obama's. Nor did she consider that Romney's "favourables" are on the decline, while Obama's are on the rise. Gallup, in fact, says:

The momentum in the 2012 U.S. presidential election appears to be going in Obama's favor; he now enjoys his best positioning against likely Republican nominee Romney nationally and in key swing states to this point in the campaign. Obama's improved standing may result from Americans' improving confidence in the economy and satisfaction with the way things are going in the United States.

So far in March, Obama has been above water (approval higher than disapproval) more than he has been underwater. In the period that this survey was conducted, Obama had job approvals of 47% and 48%, while he wins 49% in the match-up with Romney. That leaves a negligible amount of "soft support" for the President.

Certainly, things can change. But I am at a loss to see how Romney's position will improve significantly after he wins the nomination. The Republican base may "rally to him", but he's already got 84% of Republicans breaking for him in this poll.  Even if he wins the remaining 16% of Republicans, that's only about 5% of the general electorate. And Romney's losing Independents by eight points. Why should Independent voters "rally" to Romney once he is nominated? They aren't Republicans. And, whatever it would take to win that remaining 16% of Republicans is almost certain to alienate Independent voters. The Super PACs can run ads, but everything that they are going to repeat ad nauseum has already been said before, and it hasn't made a difference. 

This is the same stupid assumption that McCain made in 2008. If only the Republicans scream that Obama is a terrorist Muslim radical who will take away your guns...blah, blah, blah... then the voters will side with McCain. We saw how that worked. You can say the words "failed President" all that you want, but people have already heard that, and they are still breaking for Obama. The "magic words" that Republicans are relying on just don't work on people outside of the Republican base.