Thursday, June 28, 2012
FYI ... Roberts Did NOT Uphold the Individual Mandate
I'll have more to say on the politics of the Supreme Court's ruling on health care later today or tomorrow but one thing that strikes me as worthy of note is how the vast majority of the media's coverage is (predictably) wrong.
I'm not talking about the really, really initial reads of the ruling from CNN and Fox that were really, really wrong.
I'm talking about the general takeaway that most everyone seems to have (like this story from CNBC) that the individual mandate was upheld. I'm sorry but I just don't see Roberts saying that in his opinion ... and his is the one that counts.
Roberts spends many, many pages of his decision outlining why the Congress does not have the ability to impose the individual mandate under its commerce clause power. Then, he turns to the government's alternate argument, that Congress can compel people to buy insurance or face a penalty in the form of a tax. Roberts buys this argument and says that provision of the law passes constitutional muster. But he is careful to point out that it passes constitutional muster precisely because purchasing insurance under the law is a "choice." Let's look at one key passage of Roberts's opinion in detail:
Putting all this together, Roberts did NOT uphold the individual mandate. Indeed, he says quite explicitly such a mandate would not be constitutional. Fortunately, Roberts continues, the law doesn't impose a mandate! It provides individuals with a choice. You can buy insurance or you can pay this penalty over here. It is absolutely legal not to buy insurance.
Just to make this a little more confusing, Roberts himself seems to suggest I'm wrong about what he's up to by saying in a few places he is "upholding" the individual mandate. See page 42 of his opinion where he uses this kind of language twice in one paragraph:
I'm not talking about the really, really initial reads of the ruling from CNN and Fox that were really, really wrong.
I'm talking about the general takeaway that most everyone seems to have (like this story from CNBC) that the individual mandate was upheld. I'm sorry but I just don't see Roberts saying that in his opinion ... and his is the one that counts.
Roberts spends many, many pages of his decision outlining why the Congress does not have the ability to impose the individual mandate under its commerce clause power. Then, he turns to the government's alternate argument, that Congress can compel people to buy insurance or face a penalty in the form of a tax. Roberts buys this argument and says that provision of the law passes constitutional muster. But he is careful to point out that it passes constitutional muster precisely because purchasing insurance under the law is a "choice." Let's look at one key passage of Roberts's opinion in detail:
While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that the failure to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law. Brief for United States 60-61; Tr. of Oral Arg. 49-50 (Mar. 26, 2012). Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance. See Congressional Budget Office, supra, at 71. We would expect Congress to be troubled by that prospect if such conduct were unlawful. That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws. It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insuranceRoberts goes on to point out that those who wanted the law struck down have misinterpreted the language in the law that says that individuals "shall" obtain insurance as meaning it is criminal not to obtain insurance. But there is no criminal penalty. Indeed, in a key footnote (#11), Roberts makes this distinction even more clear.
Of course, individuals do not have a lawful choice not to pay a tax due, and may sometimes face prosecution for failing to do so (although not for failing to make the shared responsibility payment, see 26 U.S.C. S5000A(g)(2)). But that does not show that the tax restricts the lawful choice whether to undertake or forgo the activity on which the tax is predicated. Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax.What Roberts is effectively saying here is that there is NO mandate even though the law says individuals "shall" purchase health insurance. He is reading the two provisions (the mandate and the penalty) holistically and saying they pose a choice to individuals. You can do one or the other but you cannot do neither.
Putting all this together, Roberts did NOT uphold the individual mandate. Indeed, he says quite explicitly such a mandate would not be constitutional. Fortunately, Roberts continues, the law doesn't impose a mandate! It provides individuals with a choice. You can buy insurance or you can pay this penalty over here. It is absolutely legal not to buy insurance.
Just to make this a little more confusing, Roberts himself seems to suggest I'm wrong about what he's up to by saying in a few places he is "upholding" the individual mandate. See page 42 of his opinion where he uses this kind of language twice in one paragraph:
Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power.So, it seems the media is saying Roberts "upheld" the individual mandate and it seems Roberts it saying he's "upholding" and "sustaining" the individual mandate ... but he didn't. Pretty tricky!
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
We Ask America ...
... you just made my list of pollsters that are suspect.
They have Romney ahead by 2 in Michigan in large part because Obama only leads 45-42 among women. No other demographic data was released to the general public but this was a poll of likely voters and they do indicate they weighted for demographics.
Pollsters pretty much have to weight for demographics these days given the poor and biased response rates they are getting but the devil is in HOW you weight for demographics. Mark Blumenthal made this point the other day in explaining why Gallup tends to underestimate the President's support.
I don't know what it is yet but something is wrong with their sample.
They have Romney ahead by 2 in Michigan in large part because Obama only leads 45-42 among women. No other demographic data was released to the general public but this was a poll of likely voters and they do indicate they weighted for demographics.
Pollsters pretty much have to weight for demographics these days given the poor and biased response rates they are getting but the devil is in HOW you weight for demographics. Mark Blumenthal made this point the other day in explaining why Gallup tends to underestimate the President's support.
I don't know what it is yet but something is wrong with their sample.
Friday, June 15, 2012
More Rasmussen
I picked on Rasmussen a bit the other day. Today, Rasmussen has a Michigan poll out that has Obama up 50-42 among likely voters.
So, you've got Romney up by 3 in Wisconsin and Obama up by 8 in Michigan? An 11-point spread? Sorry, but no. One or both of those is wrong and, as I said the other day, there's some reason to believe that Wisconsin poll is just off.
As I've said before, Michigan is not remotely a tipping state. Nate Silver agrees giving Obama (currently) a 91% chance of winning the state and a 0.2% chance Michigan will be a tipping state.
As I said the other day, Rasmussen is generally a decent pollster but there's something wrong with that Wisconsin survey.
So, you've got Romney up by 3 in Wisconsin and Obama up by 8 in Michigan? An 11-point spread? Sorry, but no. One or both of those is wrong and, as I said the other day, there's some reason to believe that Wisconsin poll is just off.
As I've said before, Michigan is not remotely a tipping state. Nate Silver agrees giving Obama (currently) a 91% chance of winning the state and a 0.2% chance Michigan will be a tipping state.
As I said the other day, Rasmussen is generally a decent pollster but there's something wrong with that Wisconsin survey.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Rasmussen!
Generally, Rasmussen is a decent pollster. Nate Silver says Rasmussen has a Republican lean but that is largely because of the likely voter model they use. So long as they are somewhat consistent in what they do and open about their methodology and assumptions, we can assume their results tell us something meaningful.
Today, Rasmussen released a poll of Wisconsin that had Romney up by 3. Those who read here know that is a result that raises my eyebrows so I wanted to take a closer look. I am not a Rasmussen subscriber so I tried to read between the lines of the press release and I did find a few things that jumped out at me.
First, the press release says this:
But there's a potentially bigger problem here. I don't know where in the poll this question was asked relative to the topline question. If the pollster points out that the auto bailout has lost billions of dollars and then asks whether the respondent supports Obama or Romney, that's really problematic.
A week ago, voters in the recall election were asked (in exit polls) whether they support Obama or Romney and Obama came out ahead 51-44. The turnout in November is likely to be a little better for Obama than it was last week. So, either there has been about a 10-13 point shift in Wisconsin in a week or the exit polls were very wrong or the Rasmussen poll is very wrong or some combination of these. The least likely of these explanations is a 10-13 point shift in the last week. I've provided some reasons the Rasmussen poll may be suspect above. That's probably the best explanation but we'll see what other pollsters find in the coming days.
Today, Rasmussen released a poll of Wisconsin that had Romney up by 3. Those who read here know that is a result that raises my eyebrows so I wanted to take a closer look. I am not a Rasmussen subscriber so I tried to read between the lines of the press release and I did find a few things that jumped out at me.
First, the press release says this:
Though a plurality (46%) of Wisconsin voters recognizes that the government lost money in the bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, 45% consider the auto industry bailouts a success. Thirty-six percent (36%) regard the bailouts as a failure. However, when told that the government is expected to lose billions of dollars on those bailouts, just 33% consider them a success, and 56% see them as a failure.Now, there are a couple of issues here. One is that it really isn't quite a sure thing that the federal government has lost money on the auto bailout. To really measure that, you'd have to consider what the counter-factual would be. What would revenues look like if the bailout hadn't happened for instance? There's also another problem with this claim. The federal government still owns 500 million shares of GM. If the government sold them all today, the government would have lost close to $15 billion. But we're not selling today. Not only that, the price of the stock is artificially depressed because voters know Treasury will need to exit. The bottom line is we don't know when Treasury will exit and at what price. So it is not quite right to say this money is lost quite yet.
But there's a potentially bigger problem here. I don't know where in the poll this question was asked relative to the topline question. If the pollster points out that the auto bailout has lost billions of dollars and then asks whether the respondent supports Obama or Romney, that's really problematic.
A week ago, voters in the recall election were asked (in exit polls) whether they support Obama or Romney and Obama came out ahead 51-44. The turnout in November is likely to be a little better for Obama than it was last week. So, either there has been about a 10-13 point shift in Wisconsin in a week or the exit polls were very wrong or the Rasmussen poll is very wrong or some combination of these. The least likely of these explanations is a 10-13 point shift in the last week. I've provided some reasons the Rasmussen poll may be suspect above. That's probably the best explanation but we'll see what other pollsters find in the coming days.
Why Aren't Obama's Numbers Dropping?
There has been a lot of bad news for the President recently. The jobs numbers were very bad. The President compounded the problem with a bad gaffe. Karen Tumulty reports Democrats are starting to panic. Global opinion of Obama has started to slip. Carville and Greenberg are convinced Obama has the wrong message on the economy. Indeed, independent voters do not like what Obama is saying on the economy. Meanwhile, Eric Holder is under renewed fire and Obama's Secretary of the Commerce had a strange health episode over the weekend that led to several hit-and-run accidents.
It's been a rough patch ... and yet,
What's going on here? Some possibilities:
1) Maybe the bad news for Obama is just not yet reflected in these polls. Perhaps, but there are several polls out in the past couple of days that do take most all of these stories into account. If this is the best explanation, we should see Obama's numbers decline in the next few days at the latest.
2) People dislike Romney too much to turn to him. Possible, but that would at least cause Obama's numbers to drop a little more than they have with some voters moving into the undecided category.
3) What I think is going on here is that there are just fewer voters than usual that are "persuadable." There just aren't very many people who have not already made up their minds about the November election. Most voters have very clear, fixed views of the Democratic and Republican brands, Obama personally, his leadership, etc. If there is one area where at least some voters are still movable, it is focused on Mitt Romney. Some voters (a small number) do not yet know enough about him to render a final verdict.
Because of that last point, the campaigns are now going to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars defining who Mitt Romney is, what his policy proposals mean, and what a Romney presidency would look like. Sure, Romney will spend a lot of money explaining how Obama has done a very bad job. Most of this spending is a waste. The vast majority of voters have already come to their own conclusions on that and the few that might change their minds will change their minds based on events (the economy, etc.). They will not be moved by Romney's ads.
UPDATE: Nate Cohn makes virtually the same point.
It's been a rough patch ... and yet,
What's going on here? Some possibilities:
1) Maybe the bad news for Obama is just not yet reflected in these polls. Perhaps, but there are several polls out in the past couple of days that do take most all of these stories into account. If this is the best explanation, we should see Obama's numbers decline in the next few days at the latest.
2) People dislike Romney too much to turn to him. Possible, but that would at least cause Obama's numbers to drop a little more than they have with some voters moving into the undecided category.
3) What I think is going on here is that there are just fewer voters than usual that are "persuadable." There just aren't very many people who have not already made up their minds about the November election. Most voters have very clear, fixed views of the Democratic and Republican brands, Obama personally, his leadership, etc. If there is one area where at least some voters are still movable, it is focused on Mitt Romney. Some voters (a small number) do not yet know enough about him to render a final verdict.
Because of that last point, the campaigns are now going to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars defining who Mitt Romney is, what his policy proposals mean, and what a Romney presidency would look like. Sure, Romney will spend a lot of money explaining how Obama has done a very bad job. Most of this spending is a waste. The vast majority of voters have already come to their own conclusions on that and the few that might change their minds will change their minds based on events (the economy, etc.). They will not be moved by Romney's ads.
UPDATE: Nate Cohn makes virtually the same point.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Gotcha
Yesterday, the President made the mistake of saying something technically correct but politically sinful. The President was making the point that the reason job growth has been so slow has been layoffs in the public sector at the state and local level. This is ... true. Private sector job growth (800,000 jobs this year so far) has actually been "fine" to quote the President but states, counties, and cities are facing tremendous deficits and have been laying off workers fairly steadily. This not only reduces job growth in the short term by offsetting private sector job gains, it also makes it harder for the private sector to create jobs in the longer run because the multiplier effect of those government jobs is lost.
So ... the President said,
And Mitt Romney quickly jumped on the out-of-context portion ...
Just as an aside, Romney proves himself to be a very, very bad candidate at every turn. Notice, in the middle of the gift the President gave him, he sort of gives one back by arguing
Anyway, the President felt the need to walk back his remarks:
It is fair to say some damage has been done and the Republicans will use this quote over and over I'm sure. I know and you know this is a "silly season" issue to use the President's common phrase. There is nothing actually at stake here. The President is aware that the jobs issue is job #1 and he's not misunderstanding it so much as Mitt Romney is mischaracterizing it. But being right isn't what wins elections when it is this close. He's got to be more careful and I think he's got to start engaging the campaign a bit more directly than he has been.
So ... the President said,
As I've said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last two (years), 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weakness in our economy have (sic) to do with the state and local government, often times cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government. And who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.Within context, the President's remarks are true but politically unwise. Out of context, the President's remarks are a nightmare. Here's the first ad cut by the RNC using the quote:
And Mitt Romney quickly jumped on the out-of-context portion ...
Just as an aside, Romney proves himself to be a very, very bad candidate at every turn. Notice, in the middle of the gift the President gave him, he sort of gives one back by arguing
He [Obama] says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did.Now, this is not a mistake on the order of Obama. But this is also not the argument you want to be making Willard. The American people DO want more firemen, policemen, and teachers.
Anyway, the President felt the need to walk back his remarks:
It is fair to say some damage has been done and the Republicans will use this quote over and over I'm sure. I know and you know this is a "silly season" issue to use the President's common phrase. There is nothing actually at stake here. The President is aware that the jobs issue is job #1 and he's not misunderstanding it so much as Mitt Romney is mischaracterizing it. But being right isn't what wins elections when it is this close. He's got to be more careful and I think he's got to start engaging the campaign a bit more directly than he has been.
Friday, June 8, 2012
We Got Beat
Most of us received the fundraising email from the Obama campaign this morning with the subject line "We got beat." The email explains that the Romney campaign combined with the RNC outraised the Obama campaign combined with the DNC $78 million to $60 million in the month of May. The story has also been running on the 24 hour news networks as a big deal and some further indication that the Obama campaign is in some kind of death spiral. They don't say those words but that is the feeling they clearly try to evoke (before they run the "comeback kid" stories like clockwork next week).
All this has a lot of people on the left quite spun up. My own particular bellwether (my dad) called me a couple of days ago upset about the Wisconsin recall and the fact that Walker outspent his opposition by 8 to 1 and ... this means Obama is going to be outspent the same way and come up just short.
Look, I think people should give money to the Obama campaign and to Democratic House and Senate campaigns as much as they can. It does help. But I'll also tell you what I told my dad. Obama could lose but he's not going to lose because of money. I do think that Obama plus DNC plus left-leaning superPACs will ultimately have less money than Romney plus RNC plus right-leaning superPACs. But you should know a few things about that:
1) Right now, the left has more money for the presidential race.
2) Money means less in presidential races than all other contests. So much is spent and so much of it is a wash.
3) Even if I'm right that Team Obama will be outspent overall by Team Romney, it is not going to be some geometric difference.
Steve Kornacki has a great piece out about this today that you should read if you don't believe me.
The bottom line is that Obama may win or lose but fundraising is not going to make the difference. But if you want to be extra-sure, stop wringing your hands and send Obama $100.
All this has a lot of people on the left quite spun up. My own particular bellwether (my dad) called me a couple of days ago upset about the Wisconsin recall and the fact that Walker outspent his opposition by 8 to 1 and ... this means Obama is going to be outspent the same way and come up just short.
Look, I think people should give money to the Obama campaign and to Democratic House and Senate campaigns as much as they can. It does help. But I'll also tell you what I told my dad. Obama could lose but he's not going to lose because of money. I do think that Obama plus DNC plus left-leaning superPACs will ultimately have less money than Romney plus RNC plus right-leaning superPACs. But you should know a few things about that:
1) Right now, the left has more money for the presidential race.
2) Money means less in presidential races than all other contests. So much is spent and so much of it is a wash.
3) Even if I'm right that Team Obama will be outspent overall by Team Romney, it is not going to be some geometric difference.
Steve Kornacki has a great piece out about this today that you should read if you don't believe me.
The bottom line is that Obama may win or lose but fundraising is not going to make the difference. But if you want to be extra-sure, stop wringing your hands and send Obama $100.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Nate Silver's Tricky Math Is Cool
Nate Silver's presidential race model is now out and the writeup is worth a full read. Lots and lots of really interesting and clever ways of looking at the race.
A couple of quick reactions on things that jump out at me:
1) Silver's model generates probabilities that look an awful lot like the things I've been saying here throughout the campaign. I think you can fairly summarize what I've been saying as "Obama is a modest favorite." Silver summarized his model's message this way:
2) If you read what I wrote yesterday about Wisconsin, you won't find much different in what Silver's model had to say today about Wisconsin.
A couple of quick reactions on things that jump out at me:
1) Silver's model generates probabilities that look an awful lot like the things I've been saying here throughout the campaign. I think you can fairly summarize what I've been saying as "Obama is a modest favorite." Silver summarized his model's message this way:
The first look at the 2012 FiveThirtyEight presidential forecast has Barack Obama as a very slight favorite to win re-election. But his advantage equates to only a two-point lead in the national popular vote, and the edge could easily swing to Mitt Romney on the basis of further bad economic news.So, I'd sum that up by saying that Silver's model is just a hair less bullish on Obama's prospects than I am.
Mr. Obama remains slightly ahead of Mr. Romney in most national polls, and he has had a somewhat clearer advantage in polling conducted at the state level. Mr. Obama would be about 80 percent likely to win an election held today, according to the model.
However, the outlook for the Nov. 6 election is much less certain, with Mr. Obama having winning odds of just over 60 percent. The forecast currently calls for Mr. Obama to win roughly 290 electoral votes, but outcomes ranging everywhere from about 160 to 390 electoral votes are plausible, given the long lead time until the election and the amount of news that could occur between now and then. Both polls and economic indicators are a pretty rough guide five months before an election.
2) If you read what I wrote yesterday about Wisconsin, you won't find much different in what Silver's model had to say today about Wisconsin.
although Republicans might be tempted to make a play for Wisconsin after winning the gubernatorial recall election there on Tuesday, the model suggests that it is over-hyped as a swing state. Mr. Obama has had a fairly consistent lead in the polls there, including in the exit poll among voters who turned out on Tuesday. Although Mr. Obama is unlikely to win Wisconsin by 14 points, as he did in 2008, all indications from the polls are that the state remains somewhat more favorable to him than the country as a whole3) One of the more interesting things about Silver's model is that it estimates the likelihood that a state will be the "tipping point," the state that tips the election. If you've been reading here, you're familiar with this general idea and I was just pointing out the other day that Florida is highly unlikely to be the state that ultimately determines the winner of the election. How unlikely? Silver's model provides a number and it is 3.7%. I've been saying Ohio is the whole ballgame and Silver's model agrees ... at least it is the state that is most likely to be the tipping point at 31.0%. Virginia is next most likley at 24.3%. In other words, there is a greater than 50% chance Ohio or Virginia will determine the outcome in November.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
What is Wisconsin's Message?
I didn't catch the name of the analyst on MSNBC last night who made this general point that I think is correct: Walker surviving the recall is very bad from a policy perspective but there was certainly a lot of bad news for Mitt Romney in electoral terms.
After hearing this, I quickly flipped over to CNN to hear Gloria Borger making the opposite case for the electoral message. Borger argued that Wisconsin was a test-run for the Republican ground game for the Fall and Walker's victory means their ground game is in great shape.
I'll outline this more in full below but the short version is that Gloria Borger is just dead wrong as the exit poll numbers revealed very, very bad numbers for Mitt Romney. Now, the longer explanation.
I have been ranting quite a bit about how many pundits insist on calling Pennsylvania a swing state when it just isn't. See here, here, and here for examples. And, by the way, there's a new poll out in Pennsylvania this morning that has Obama up by 12 there. Since some have complained that I need to stop ranting about that, perhaps I should re-focus my rants on Wisconsin ... which is also not all that swing-statish. Let's go to the tape:
Obama won Wisconsin by 14 in 2008. Kerry eked out a victory by less than half a point in 2004. Gore won Wisconsin but the margin was even closer in 2000. But, unlike Pennsylvania, which Republicans last won (narrowly) in 1988, you have to go all the way back to 1984 (almost 30 years) to find a Republican candidate who won in Wisconsin. I must admit, I found it curious that Jim Messina recently put out a video from Obama HQ indicating that the Obama campaign sees Wisconsin as a tossup. In the video, Messina discusses the electoral map and puts 243 electoral votes (solidly or leaning) in Obama's column with 191 for Romney and he points to 8 states for a total of 104 electoral votes in the tossup column ... including Wisconsin. Take a look at Pollster.com's latest trend estimate on Wisconsin:
There have been 16 publicly-released polls of the Obama/Romney trial heat in Wisconsin in 2012. One has them tied and one has Romney ahead by 1 (back in mid-January). The rest have Obama ahead by 4 to 17 points. The three most recent polls are all of likely voters and they have Obama ahead by 8, 6, and 10 points respectively. Finally, last night's exit pollsters asked respondents how they would vote in the presidential race in the Fall and Obama was ahead by 7 points.
So, if I'm right that Wisconsin is not as much of a swing state as everyone seems to be saying, why did Walker survive? There are two reasons both of which are pointed out by a very smart piece by First Read this morning. On turnout, Gloria Borger is right that Republicans turned out a lot of voters ... but so did Democrats. First Read provides turnout numbers for the 2012 Recall, the 2010 race that first elected Walker, and for the 2008 presidential race in Wisconsin:
2012: 2,503,745 (Walker 1,331,076- Barrett 1,158,337)
2010: 2,160,832 (Walker 1,128,941- Barrett 1,004,303)
2008: 2,983,417 (Obama 1,677,211- McCain 1,262,393)
Turnout was better last night than in 2010 but not as good as 2008. The better the turnout, the better the Democrats will do. The exit polls last night suggest Obama would win by 7 with last night's turnout. Turnout in November is likely to be closer to 2008 levels than last night's levels. Putting all that together, I think Obama's 7 point lead in last night's exit probably has some upside for November.
The second thing First Read points out about Walker's victory last night is that exit pollsters asked respondents about the legitimacy of the recall mechanism. 60% of respondents said that recalls are only legitimate for official misconduct. Another 10% said that recalls are NEVER appropriate. So, 70% of voters just didn't think this was an appropriate way to deal with policy differences. Now, Scott Walker will ignore those numbers and claim a mandate but the reality is that that means a very small number of voters did not approve of Walker's position on unions but voted to keep him in office anyway. He survived the recall because of a coalition of voters who agree with him on his changes to labor laws (52% according to the exit polls) and voters who disagree with him but think the recall is not an appropriate mechanism.
One thing First Read got wrong in their analysis was this line:
And, since they mentioned Iowa ... well, I'll have more to say on that at another time.
After hearing this, I quickly flipped over to CNN to hear Gloria Borger making the opposite case for the electoral message. Borger argued that Wisconsin was a test-run for the Republican ground game for the Fall and Walker's victory means their ground game is in great shape.
I'll outline this more in full below but the short version is that Gloria Borger is just dead wrong as the exit poll numbers revealed very, very bad numbers for Mitt Romney. Now, the longer explanation.
I have been ranting quite a bit about how many pundits insist on calling Pennsylvania a swing state when it just isn't. See here, here, and here for examples. And, by the way, there's a new poll out in Pennsylvania this morning that has Obama up by 12 there. Since some have complained that I need to stop ranting about that, perhaps I should re-focus my rants on Wisconsin ... which is also not all that swing-statish. Let's go to the tape:
Obama won Wisconsin by 14 in 2008. Kerry eked out a victory by less than half a point in 2004. Gore won Wisconsin but the margin was even closer in 2000. But, unlike Pennsylvania, which Republicans last won (narrowly) in 1988, you have to go all the way back to 1984 (almost 30 years) to find a Republican candidate who won in Wisconsin. I must admit, I found it curious that Jim Messina recently put out a video from Obama HQ indicating that the Obama campaign sees Wisconsin as a tossup. In the video, Messina discusses the electoral map and puts 243 electoral votes (solidly or leaning) in Obama's column with 191 for Romney and he points to 8 states for a total of 104 electoral votes in the tossup column ... including Wisconsin. Take a look at Pollster.com's latest trend estimate on Wisconsin:
There have been 16 publicly-released polls of the Obama/Romney trial heat in Wisconsin in 2012. One has them tied and one has Romney ahead by 1 (back in mid-January). The rest have Obama ahead by 4 to 17 points. The three most recent polls are all of likely voters and they have Obama ahead by 8, 6, and 10 points respectively. Finally, last night's exit pollsters asked respondents how they would vote in the presidential race in the Fall and Obama was ahead by 7 points.
So, if I'm right that Wisconsin is not as much of a swing state as everyone seems to be saying, why did Walker survive? There are two reasons both of which are pointed out by a very smart piece by First Read this morning. On turnout, Gloria Borger is right that Republicans turned out a lot of voters ... but so did Democrats. First Read provides turnout numbers for the 2012 Recall, the 2010 race that first elected Walker, and for the 2008 presidential race in Wisconsin:
2012: 2,503,745 (Walker 1,331,076- Barrett 1,158,337)
2010: 2,160,832 (Walker 1,128,941- Barrett 1,004,303)
2008: 2,983,417 (Obama 1,677,211- McCain 1,262,393)
Turnout was better last night than in 2010 but not as good as 2008. The better the turnout, the better the Democrats will do. The exit polls last night suggest Obama would win by 7 with last night's turnout. Turnout in November is likely to be closer to 2008 levels than last night's levels. Putting all that together, I think Obama's 7 point lead in last night's exit probably has some upside for November.
The second thing First Read points out about Walker's victory last night is that exit pollsters asked respondents about the legitimacy of the recall mechanism. 60% of respondents said that recalls are only legitimate for official misconduct. Another 10% said that recalls are NEVER appropriate. So, 70% of voters just didn't think this was an appropriate way to deal with policy differences. Now, Scott Walker will ignore those numbers and claim a mandate but the reality is that that means a very small number of voters did not approve of Walker's position on unions but voted to keep him in office anyway. He survived the recall because of a coalition of voters who agree with him on his changes to labor laws (52% according to the exit polls) and voters who disagree with him but think the recall is not an appropriate mechanism.
One thing First Read got wrong in their analysis was this line:
Wisconsin still looks a lot more Pennsylvania (a state floating between Lean Dem and Toss-up) than Iowa (which is a battleground where Obama has some work to do)Yes, Wisconsin looks a lot like Pennsylvania but Pennsylvania is NOT "floating between Lean Dem and Toss-up." Pennsylvania is hovering around "Likely Dem" and Wisconsin is certainly at least leaning towards the President.
And, since they mentioned Iowa ... well, I'll have more to say on that at another time.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Obama Leads in Florida
Maybe. PPP says he's got a small lead at least. One poll that is this close and is within the margin of error doesn't frankly tell us too much. But it is enough to generate a few thoughts on the subject of Florida ...
1) I'm going to say something sort of provocative and tell you that Florida sort of doesn't matter. Of course, if Obama wins Florida, Romney can't win. That's true. But it is also true that if Obama wins Florida, he's probably already won Ohio. And if Obama wins Ohio ... Romney can't win. So, while a win in Florida would guarantee an Obama victory, it would sort of be like hitting a grand slam in the top of the 9th when you're already ahead by 5. It's nice but you were very likely to win already anyway.
2) PPP also asked respondents how they would vote if either of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio was added to the Romney ticket. Obama's lead was still 3 with Rubio on the ticket and it was 5 with Bush on the ticket. Now, I'm skeptical that a question like this really does a good job of simulating the impact of adding Bush or Rubio to the ticket. That said, I do think adding Bush would be utterly insane. That name is radioactive and Romney just couldn't do more to make Obama's case that electing Romney is like going back to the Bush policies that produced the current mess. Has anyone noticed the Obama campaign has changed their one-word slogan from "Change" in 2008 to "Forward" in 2012? If Obama's watchword is Forward and you add Bush to the Republican ticket, I think the Obama campaign would just gleefully issue a press release saying, "We have nothing to add your honor. The prosecution rests." As for Rubio, I do not think he would change the dynamic of the race much at all. I don't say that because of anything about him. I just don't think any running mate helps dramatically. They can only hurt (see Palin, Sarah and the preceding discussion of Bush, Jeb).
3) I tend to think quite highly of PPP as a polling organization. They rated quite well in Nate Silver's pollster ratings for one. We'll get an interesting test this evening. PPP had a poll out yesterday showing Walker up 50-47 in Wisconsin's recall. We Ask America had a poll out yesterday as well that had Walker up 52-44. Let's see what happens.
1) I'm going to say something sort of provocative and tell you that Florida sort of doesn't matter. Of course, if Obama wins Florida, Romney can't win. That's true. But it is also true that if Obama wins Florida, he's probably already won Ohio. And if Obama wins Ohio ... Romney can't win. So, while a win in Florida would guarantee an Obama victory, it would sort of be like hitting a grand slam in the top of the 9th when you're already ahead by 5. It's nice but you were very likely to win already anyway.
2) PPP also asked respondents how they would vote if either of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio was added to the Romney ticket. Obama's lead was still 3 with Rubio on the ticket and it was 5 with Bush on the ticket. Now, I'm skeptical that a question like this really does a good job of simulating the impact of adding Bush or Rubio to the ticket. That said, I do think adding Bush would be utterly insane. That name is radioactive and Romney just couldn't do more to make Obama's case that electing Romney is like going back to the Bush policies that produced the current mess. Has anyone noticed the Obama campaign has changed their one-word slogan from "Change" in 2008 to "Forward" in 2012? If Obama's watchword is Forward and you add Bush to the Republican ticket, I think the Obama campaign would just gleefully issue a press release saying, "We have nothing to add your honor. The prosecution rests." As for Rubio, I do not think he would change the dynamic of the race much at all. I don't say that because of anything about him. I just don't think any running mate helps dramatically. They can only hurt (see Palin, Sarah and the preceding discussion of Bush, Jeb).
3) I tend to think quite highly of PPP as a polling organization. They rated quite well in Nate Silver's pollster ratings for one. We'll get an interesting test this evening. PPP had a poll out yesterday showing Walker up 50-47 in Wisconsin's recall. We Ask America had a poll out yesterday as well that had Walker up 52-44. Let's see what happens.
"Democracy" in CA is Destroying Democracy in CA
I just went to vote in the “primary” here in California and it was an even more frustrating and absurd process than it has ever been here in California and, as I was muttering angrily to myself about it, I decided I should write an post about it. Perhaps I'll turn this into an article but it is really more of a book idea as there is so much here to write about but I can’t write a book right now.
The fact is that “democracy” in California has destroyed democracy in California. The “democracy” in airquotes refers basically to all the ways in which the Progressive impulse in California starting with the Progressive era but continuing all the way to today has made it utterly impossible for citizens to reasonably have their desires expressed much less felt in government.
Today’s election had several new ways in which this is brought to my doorstep. For starters, my voting precinct has changed among at least 3 different locations every time I vote. Sometimes it is in the local Radisson. Sometimes it is at a local nursing home. Sometimes it is at the firehouse. I have learned to check my voter guide every time and I did that this morning but ended up driving to the wrong place because I couldn’t remember where the particular firehouse was. Then I called home for help and Jennie was able to recall so I drove over there. This added much frustration and time to my effort to vote.
The substance of voting today had lots of new awful Progressive wrinkles too. You probably know that today is the first election with California’s new non-partisan primary system. All candidates from every party are listed on one ballot and the top two move on to the general election in November. Of course this is terrible in so many ways. Voter turnout today will be VERY low. 15% - 20% is my guess but maybe I’m too pessimistic. Whatever it is, it is not very reflective of the citizenry or even a general election voter pool. My congressional district happens to be one of the hottest races in the country with two popular Democrats facing off against one other (Sherman vs. Berman) and this is happening, of course, because of another Progressive-inspired absurdity – the Citizens Redistricting Commission. Republicans who pushed for this are now suing because the commission drew lines that favor Democrats even more than the Democratic-controlled state legislature ;). What fun! Of course, the non-partisan primary rules do not apply to the presidential primary occurring today … which of course doesn’t matter. But the fact that one part of one’s ballot contains only Democrats and another part has people from all parties just makes this all the more confusing.
Move down the ballot and you get to the non-partisan judicial elections. There are no party labels for these candidates and there are more races for judicial officers than the rest of the ballot combined. Voters, even savvy political scientists like me, have NO idea who they are voting for or what they stand for. Finally, at the end of the ballot you get to the initiatives. There were 4 on the ballot today which is a fairly low number compared to recent elections. My default position is to vote no on all propositions because I object to the whole idea of ballot propositions. And yet I voted yes on all 4 as 3 of them were efforts to raise taxes (you effectively can’t do that in the legislature anymore because of the absurdity of the 2/3rds rule for raising taxes) and the fourth was an effort to provide a tiny bit more flexibility in the term limits rule. One of the initiatives proposed a new $1/pack tax on cigarettes to fund cancer research. The last I heard opponents (read: the tobacco industry) had outspent proponents by a 3 to 1 margin. Not surprisingly, polls have gone from strong support for the idea to a very close race.
This is what the Progressive impulse has made of democracy in California. It is arguably the most dysfunctional state in the nation and I can assure you it is not for lack of governing talent or financial resources. We've surely got more of those than any state. The electoral and governing institutions of California have been utterly destroyed by the Progressive impulse that shows no signs of abating.
End of rant.
The fact is that “democracy” in California has destroyed democracy in California. The “democracy” in airquotes refers basically to all the ways in which the Progressive impulse in California starting with the Progressive era but continuing all the way to today has made it utterly impossible for citizens to reasonably have their desires expressed much less felt in government.
Today’s election had several new ways in which this is brought to my doorstep. For starters, my voting precinct has changed among at least 3 different locations every time I vote. Sometimes it is in the local Radisson. Sometimes it is at a local nursing home. Sometimes it is at the firehouse. I have learned to check my voter guide every time and I did that this morning but ended up driving to the wrong place because I couldn’t remember where the particular firehouse was. Then I called home for help and Jennie was able to recall so I drove over there. This added much frustration and time to my effort to vote.
The substance of voting today had lots of new awful Progressive wrinkles too. You probably know that today is the first election with California’s new non-partisan primary system. All candidates from every party are listed on one ballot and the top two move on to the general election in November. Of course this is terrible in so many ways. Voter turnout today will be VERY low. 15% - 20% is my guess but maybe I’m too pessimistic. Whatever it is, it is not very reflective of the citizenry or even a general election voter pool. My congressional district happens to be one of the hottest races in the country with two popular Democrats facing off against one other (Sherman vs. Berman) and this is happening, of course, because of another Progressive-inspired absurdity – the Citizens Redistricting Commission. Republicans who pushed for this are now suing because the commission drew lines that favor Democrats even more than the Democratic-controlled state legislature ;). What fun! Of course, the non-partisan primary rules do not apply to the presidential primary occurring today … which of course doesn’t matter. But the fact that one part of one’s ballot contains only Democrats and another part has people from all parties just makes this all the more confusing.
Move down the ballot and you get to the non-partisan judicial elections. There are no party labels for these candidates and there are more races for judicial officers than the rest of the ballot combined. Voters, even savvy political scientists like me, have NO idea who they are voting for or what they stand for. Finally, at the end of the ballot you get to the initiatives. There were 4 on the ballot today which is a fairly low number compared to recent elections. My default position is to vote no on all propositions because I object to the whole idea of ballot propositions. And yet I voted yes on all 4 as 3 of them were efforts to raise taxes (you effectively can’t do that in the legislature anymore because of the absurdity of the 2/3rds rule for raising taxes) and the fourth was an effort to provide a tiny bit more flexibility in the term limits rule. One of the initiatives proposed a new $1/pack tax on cigarettes to fund cancer research. The last I heard opponents (read: the tobacco industry) had outspent proponents by a 3 to 1 margin. Not surprisingly, polls have gone from strong support for the idea to a very close race.
This is what the Progressive impulse has made of democracy in California. It is arguably the most dysfunctional state in the nation and I can assure you it is not for lack of governing talent or financial resources. We've surely got more of those than any state. The electoral and governing institutions of California have been utterly destroyed by the Progressive impulse that shows no signs of abating.
End of rant.
Friday, June 1, 2012
The Jobs Report is Bad for ...
... everybody. It is just a very disappointing set of numbers.
It is also bad for Obama's electoral prospects. The only good news is that it is early and the jobs numbers are a bit better in key swing states like Virginia. But the problem with that latter positive spin is that the jobs numbers affect the election in two distinct ways. The real victims, people who are out of work and looking for work will feel pain and be apt to punish the President no matter what the jobs numbers are. The other impact is the perception that these poor numbers create. So, even if you live in Virginia where the numbers are not quite as bad, you still see pretty much the same news story (ie, "the economy is very sluggish") and feel the same pessimism about the direction we're headed.
All of that said, this is one data point that will be replaced by others that are more important (for instance, next month's jobs numbers). I suspect Obama's numbers will drop just a tiny bit on today's news. Tomorrow, next week, etc., is another day.
It is also bad for Obama's electoral prospects. The only good news is that it is early and the jobs numbers are a bit better in key swing states like Virginia. But the problem with that latter positive spin is that the jobs numbers affect the election in two distinct ways. The real victims, people who are out of work and looking for work will feel pain and be apt to punish the President no matter what the jobs numbers are. The other impact is the perception that these poor numbers create. So, even if you live in Virginia where the numbers are not quite as bad, you still see pretty much the same news story (ie, "the economy is very sluggish") and feel the same pessimism about the direction we're headed.
All of that said, this is one data point that will be replaced by others that are more important (for instance, next month's jobs numbers). I suspect Obama's numbers will drop just a tiny bit on today's news. Tomorrow, next week, etc., is another day.
Headlines That Are Maddening
From Political Wire:
Is Pennsylvania No Longer a Swing State?No, it isn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
