Forecasting the Election

John Sides, Lynn Vavreck, Seth Hill, and Ezra Klein created a model for Klein's Washington Post blog to forecast the election outcome based on just 3 variables - incumbency, economic growth, and presidential approval. Since incumbency won't really "vary" for the 2012 election, there's effectively only 2 variables here. The model is similar to others like the one put together by Alan Abramowitz in advance of the 2008 election and the one put together by Nate Silver last November.

This new model is a bit more simple than Silver's model (the main difference is that it leaves Romney's ideology out of the equation) and it is quite a bit more simple than Abramowitz's model (insert math here).

The other interesting difference is the conclusions to be drawn from the Klein model. To put it most simply, Klein's model yields some pretty happy results from the Obama campaign's perspective. This is because Klein's model seems to count incumbency as more of an advantage than the other two. Just to give a sense of this, if we plug in some conservative (or even pessimistic) assumptions about the state of the economy (say 1.6% growth) and the President's job approval (say 46%), the President is a 78.4% bet to be reelected. Even at 0% growth and a 44% approval rating, the President has a 45.6% shot at re-election in the Klein model. The comparable numbers from Silver's model are 40% and 19%. Obviously, more optimistic scenarios (say, 3% growth and a 51% approval rating) make the President a very solid bet to win in either model (95.3% in Klein's model and 71% in Silver's model).

Are these models useful and, if so, which is likely more accurate? If you're having trouble sleeping at night because you have to know the outcome of the November election right now, these models are not going to help you. Even if they are done perfectly, they are only probabilities. And as someone who drafted Albert Pujols with the second overall pick in my fantasy baseball draft because he was a "very good bet" to be a fantasy monster, I would like to remind everyone that an event that has a 5% likelihood of happening like say, Albert Pujols hitting no homers in April, does happen ... roughly 5% of the time. But these models can tell us something useful. One useful piece of information is that, even though the models don't totally agree on the absolute likelihood of Obama being reelected under various circumstances, they do vary in roughly the same way. In other words, presidential approval and economic growth seem to have the same effect across these models as they move up and down.

As for which of them is most accurate, we really won't even know that after the election because (as these models demonstrate by providing probabilities) there are other variables that can and will affect the outcome. But I will say that Klein's model seems slightly closer to reality to me. One reason Klein's model seems like a better forecast is that Obama has some built in advantages in some of the key swing states like Ohio. I discussed this in more detail a couple of weeks ago and Chris Cillizza wrote about the problems Romney faces in the electoral math just yesterday. In addition, the incumbency effect that seems to be weighted more heavily in Klein's model really does matter. The President is, after all, the President. He has a really cool backdrop (the White House, the presidential seal, Air Force One, etc.) everywhere he goes and he has real presidential kind of accomplishments he can point to. As Mel Brooks would say, it's good to be the king.

Right now, Obama is ahead and Romney needs something to change whether it is the economy, some other intervening variable, or maybe a "game changing" VP pick. And since I have yet to see a single historical example of a VP pick delivering victory to a presidential candidate, I'm gonna rule that third option out.

These Kids Today

What's the matter with today's youth? Why don't they just borrow money from their parents and become vulture capitalists???

Gallup is Just Not Useful

There was a time when Gallup was the gold standard in polling. Today, their public polls are fairly bad in my view.

8 days ago, Gallup's tracking poll had Romney ahead of Obama by 2 points. Today, Obama is ahead by 7. Sorry, but no.

1) Romney was not ahead by 2 points 8 days ago.
2) Obama is not ahead by 7 points today (although I do think Obama is ahead by a "few" points (maybe 3-4?).
3) Obama did not move the needle by 9 net points in the last 8 days.

If this is Gallup's way of "tracking" the race, it is worse than useless. It is terribly misleading.

Gallup's polling was similarly volatile in 2008. In 2010, their final poll actually overstated the size of the Republican tied. And, if you remember the size of that Republican tide, you'll know that overstating the Republican tide in 2010 was actually pretty hard to do. Now, in 2012, Gallup is generating some negative buzz with their demographic weights and Gallup is suggesting there is a lot of volatility in the electorate that just isn't there, not in the last 8 days anyway.

I'd love for Obama to be up by 7 and I'd also love to be able to say that at the current trajectory, Romney will be in the single digits by the summer. But it is a little more likely that Gallup is producing very bad polls.

What's the Matter with Romney in Ohio?

Mitt Romney's got an Ohio problem. When Romney edged Santorum in Ohio, many in the Republican establishment breathed a sigh of relief similar to when Romney edged Santorum in Michigan. It was an important step on the way to Romney locking down the nomination.

But Romney's weakness in Ohio and, frankly, in many of these industrial midwest states like Michigan and Wisconsin seems to be enduring. I have noticed over several weeks and months that Romney seems to be doing a little worse in Ohio than he's doing in his national numbers.

Today, Rasmussen released an Ohio poll showing Obama ahead of Romney 46-42. A week ago, Fox News had a poll showing Obama ahead of Romney 45-39. Let's look at some data. Here is Pollster.com's summary of the race in Ohio:



There have been 10 polls of Ohio with this particular trial heat in 2012 and only one (a Fox Poll in February) showed Romney winning Ohio. The other 9 polls have shown Obama leading by between 2 and 12 points.

Nationally, Pollster's aggregation shows Obama with a smaller lead:



So what's going on in Ohio? I think we can posit a few possibilities: Ohio's anti-union ballot proposition has galvanized union voters to some extent. Additionally, Ohio is home to a lot of parts suppliers for the auto industry and Romney's opposition to the auto bailout hurt him there as much as it did in Michigan. Finally, Ohio's Republicans are more downscale than Republicans in say, New York or California and these are voters more likely to support Santorum than Romney. These same voters won't support Obama and the vast majority of them will vote for Romney in the Fall. But it is not easy for Romney to bring them around and some small number of them staying home can mean big trouble for Romney.

Regardless of the cause of Romney's Ohio struggles, one thing is clear. Ohio is critical for Romney. Romney CANNOT win without Ohio. Obama can win without Ohio though he'd probably have to win Florida and some other states that are tossups and he's not likely to win Florida if he loses Ohio. So Ohio is important and if Romney is going to consistently be weaker in Ohio than his national average, it makes his margin for error in the campaign to come quite a bit slimmer.

Ted Nugent

Some of the most vile rhetoric in American politics:

If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year.

If Mitt Romney has any decency, he'll repudiate it first thing in the morning.

Romney's Ground Game

There's an interesting piece by Zeke Miller of Buzzfeed out today pointing out the way in which a small number of Romney staffers have gone from state to state helping Romney win key primaries. The downside, according to Miller, is that when the primary ends, the staffers leave little behind and so the Romney campaign will effectively be starting from scratch in terms of their ground operation in many states.

Jon Keller and I have had a long-running argument about the importance of the ground game. To put it in the simplest terms, I have argued that the ground game is meaningful in primaries and caucuses, particularly early contests like Iowa, but it is far less important in the general election. I don't argue it is totally irrelevant. In a very tight contest, like say Indiana in 2008, where one campaign (Obama) has a very strong field operation and the other campaign (McCain) has a very poor field operation, the ground game can be the difference. It probably was in Indiana in 2008 and perhaps also in North Carolina. But beyond those somewhat rare situations, the ground game doesn't matter because 1) almost all voters have clear impressions and opinions about the candidates and are going to vote (or not) on that basis and 2) the benefits of the ground game of national level campaigns cancel one another out to a large degree.

The article by Miller is essentially disputing point #2 and Keller would argue I'm at least underestimating the role ground operations can play in shaping voter's opinions and that I'm underestimating the importance of GOTV efforts like the effort of the Bush campaign in Ohio in 2004.

If I'm wrong, Miller's article is certainly bad news for Romney and it is absolutely the case that the Obama campaign has the advantage of a stronger operation at the grassroots generally that has remained in place from 2008 and has been building strength in recent months.

One flaw in my side of the ongoing argument with Keller is that, while I acknowledge the importance of the ground game in a state that is close, we don't know ahead of time which states will be so close as to allow the ground game to make a difference. North Carolina seems a good bet. Ohio and Florida are possibilities. But will Obama have a big enough ground game advantage in these particular states by the Fall to make that difference? I doubt it.

Obama: Mitt Romney is Weird

Romney's inability to connect is well-documented at this point.

Today, in the middle of his speech on the Ryan budget, Obama was busy tying Romney to it but he slid in this subtle dig.

And he even called it marvelous -- which is a word you don't often hear when describing a budget. That's a word you don't often hear generally.

The way he says it, you can really hear the sub-text ... "Man, that guy is a little off." Here is the video:

Nate Silver is Wrong Again ... I Think

Nate Silver has a piece out today that takes the counter position on what he calls the "counterintuitive" position on the politics of the Supreme Court's (potentially) striking down Obamacare. I think Nate Silver is wrong here. So, I am taking the counter position to his counter position of the counterintuitive position. Got that? Let me break it all down and then explain why I think Silver is wrong.

The debate begins with the claim made by many (Silver cites Mark Penn, Bob Shrum, and James Carville as just a few) that, if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, it will actually be a good thing politically for the President because he can rail against an activist Supreme Court and rally his base. There are some subtle nuances to the differing arguments but that's the basic theme of them.

Silver says there are three basic problems with this argument:

1. Mr. Obama does not face a major problem with his base, but his standing is tenuous with swing voters.
2. Among swing voters, the health care bill is not very popular.
3. The Supreme Court declaring the health care bill unconstitutional will not make it more popular among swing voters.

From there, Silver goes on to provide data to support these three points and he concludes

the argument that the bill being struck down would actually help Mr. Obama seems to have little grounding in the evidence — nor, frankly, in common sense. Among the voters that are most critical to Mr. Obama’s re-election prospects, the Supreme Court is more popular than the health care bill. If the justices declare one of the president’s signature accomplishments to be unconstitutional, it would not be a boon to him.

I don't think I want to go so far as to say the Court striking Obamacare down would be a "boon" but I do think there is some upside and I think Silver is wrong when he says that the claims of Penn, Shrum, and Carville defy common sense.

The evidence Silver provides for his "basic problems" with the argument is solid so let's stipulate all those things. But there are some logical problems with the argument he's making. First, it assumes public opinion on all these things including public opinion on the Court, is fixed. It is not and part of the argument being advanced by Penn, Shrum, and Carville is that the Court is over-stepping and that Obama will have the opportunity to make that case. Indeed, the President just warned the Court on this exact thing yesterday:



I can assure you these were not off-the-cuff remarks. This was a planned response and it was Obama firing a shot across the Court's bow and letting them know what they can expect to see from him in the Summer and Fall if they strike Obamacare down.

The larger point I want to make about why Silver is wrong has to do with Obama's campaign narrative and the way the Court striking down Obamacare would fit into it. The President has pretty much outlined his campaign message. He did so in Kansas a couple of months ago and he is outlining it again this afternoon in his criticism of the Ryan Budget. Obama is going to argue he's on the side of the middle class and the little guy and Romney is on the side of "fat cats" and Wall Street.

This message seamlessly transplants itself into the debate over health care reform if the Court strikes it down. The 5-person majority that would strike it down (and it won't be more than that as Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan seem to be solidly against striking it down) would be made up of 5 unelected conservative justices who will have gone out of their way to take health insurance away from middle class and poor people who have either already gotten health care because of this law or who would get health care under this law. The public does not know these justices and the public does not understand how the Court operates. Indeed, the justices purposefully avoid the spotlight even when landmark cases reach their chambers. It will not be hard for Obama to paint the conservative majority on the Court as akin to the shadowy Wall Street figures donating massive amounts to the campaign against him. The President can also subtly equate the impenetrable processes of the Court with the impenetrable processes and financial instruments of Wall Street. "Hey, how did Mitt Romney make all that money anyway?!?"

Etch-a-Sketch

Some gaffes are bigger than others. The gaffes that matter only matter because they confirm and reinforce some pre-existing negative narrative or view of the candidate.

Eric Fehrnstrom's etch-a-sketch metaphor is damaging because it comes from someone who presumably knows Romney and his campaign plans well and because some conservative voters already suspect Romney's policy positions are as malleable as an etch-a-sketch screen.

The Romney campaign's damage control message has been that Fehrnstrom was referring to the campaign's need to "re-organize" and transition to a general election mode. This damage control effort is both untrue and unhelpful. It is patently untrue that that is what Fehrnstrom was talking about. He was asked about how Romney had been pulled to the right and how he would appeal to independent voters and Fehrnstrom was clearly saying that Romney would simply clear the etch-a-sketch screen of his previous policy positions and come up with new ones that match the general election electorate better.

The correct response from the Romney campaign was to treat the situation ... like an etch-a-sketch. Say that Fehrnstrom misspoke and used a poor metaphor. If Mitt Romney is so good at running organizations, why does his campaign look like amateur hour?

"Enormous" Shot of Momentum

Jeb Bush is endorsing Mitt Romney providing what Thomas Roberts in MSNBC calls an "enormous" shot of momentum ... a few days before Romney loses Louisiana. Not to be outdone, Mark Halperin (who I continue to believe is the least insightful media personality out there) declared:

Mitt Romney’s Illinois win could be the beginning of the end of the Republican nomination fight.

That's right. It "could be" the "beginning" of the end ... of this one phase of the process. Or it "could not" be. Who knows? Thanks for the insight Halperin.

Does Romney Want Gingrich Out?

The conventional wisdom (and I agree with it) is that Romney will be worse off if Gingrich gets out of the race or if Gingrich stays in the race but fades as I argued last night he is likely to do.

But there is a counter-argument to be made that Gingrich actually hurts Romney more by staying in the race. It is exceedingly unlikely that anyone will catch Romney in terms of the number of delegates he accrues. But it is also increasingly possible (not likely but possible) that Romney could get to the convention without a majority of delegates in hand. Here is some data posted by Kos on the number and percentage of remaining delegates the candidates would need to win to get an absolute majority of delegates:

This was prior to last night's contests but Romney won about half the delegates last night so his percentage has not been significantly affected. He still needs to keep winning about half the delegates from here on out.

The argument for Gingrich staying in the race is that it might be harder for Romney to win half the delegates with Gingrich in the race than with him out of the race. Patricia Murphy argues this is exactly Gingrich's strategy. Gingrich figures that, like in Alabama and Mississippi, the number of delegates Santorum and Gingrich will win combined will be more than what Santorum could win on his own. But, for the reasons I pointed out last night, it is as stupid a Gingrich idea as his moon colony.

Gingrich's support among voters is drying up as we speak. His cash is basically all gone. He will be a more and more distant third place in future contests. That means he won't be winning delegates at all. Indeed, he'll likely be costing Santorum delegates in places by splitting just enough of the anti-Romney vote.

Democrats and possibly most Republicans would love for Mitt Romney to get out of the race as Paul Begala requests:

Let me be the first to call on Mitt Romney to get out of the race. By placing third in Alabama and Mississippi, losing to Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich in both states, Romney has gone from inevitable to unelectable. Somebody strap him to the roof of one of his Cadillacs and drive him off to one of his many mansions.

One of the great legends of political consulting is the Dog Food Problem: an apocryphal tale of a company that had the best packaging, the best advertising, the best marketing. But there was only one problem: the dog wouldn't eat it. Forevermore we should no longer call it a Dog Food Problem. We should call it a Mitt Romney Problem.

But that's not going to happen.

If the Republican primary electorate really doesn't want Mitt Romney, the best way for them to realistically avoid that is for Newt Gingrich to get out of the race.

Deep Trouble in the Deep South

Santorum's wins in Alabama and Mississippi are really quite bad news for Romney. They are not a problem in the sense that something major has changed. The problem is that nothing has changed. The tweet of the night goes to Chuck Todd:

In Sept '11, we said we didn't know how Romney gets the nomination and we don't know how he's denied it. Nothing has changed.

Precisely. Well, if nothing has changed, why is the result tonight such bad news for Romney?

It is bad news because Gingrich is now going to fade away. Gingrich may or may not get out of the race. He said tonight he won't. Sometimes, candidates reevaluate the day after. And sometimes (I'm looking at you Rick Perry), candidates even re-reevaluate. But it sorta doesn't matter as much in Gingrich's case. Santorum has clearly become the anti-Romney and Gingrich's cash is drying up. John Harwood reported on MSNBC tonight that Sheldon Adelson is not writing any more checks for Gingrich. Voters who do not like Romney have seen all they need to see. Romney outspent Santorum 5 to 1 in Alabama and even Gingrich outspent Santorum in Alabama ... and Santorum still won ... in a state that borders Newt's stronghold of Georgia. If Gingrich cannot win Alabama, he cannot win anywhere.

So, even if Gingrich stays in, voters will abandon him. Where do these voters go? PPP tweeted this tonight:

Our NC GOP poll coming out tomorrow shows an 8 point shift toward Santorum if Newt was out. Nothing but a spoiler at this point

And I think we'll see he's not a very good spoiler at that.

Next week, Illinois votes and the latest poll has Romney nominally ahead. So far, Romney has spent approximately $3.2M in Illinois and Santorum has spent exactly ZERO. How many times in this race have we said, "If Romney loses [insert state name here], then it will cause panic!!!" Well, let's all say it together then ...

If Romney loses Illinois, then it will cause panic!!!

The Bummer Victory

Joe Klein summarizes the problem with Romney's victories:

In 2008, Barack Obama was able to turn his primary-night victories, and even a few of his defeats, into operatic gusts of wonderment. Eventually he went too far, slouching toward pomposity: 'We are the ones we've been waiting for' was a rhetorical bridge to nowhere. But watching him win was fun. Watching Mitt Romney win is as joyous as arthritis. And like Obama, Romney now has his own election-night brand: the bummer victory. He has had nights of sheer triumph, as in Florida. But more often, it's been like Super Tuesday: a handful of expected wins, on home turf like New England and the Mormon West; a handful of dreadful losses, in places like moderate-conservative Tennessee; and a signature squeaker, in Ohio, following similar performances in Iowa and Michigan.

Taegan Goddard described Romney's problem similarly in one word: Asterisk. You can see the video of the conversation with Mark McKinnon, Goddard, and John Avlon here:



I really like Goddard's characterization. Every Romney victory has an asterisk. He is the Roger Maris of presidential politics. He's going to be the nominee but it feels like there is an asterisk next to it. Everyone who is asked "who will be the Republican nominee?" says, "Romney, of course, but ..."

Was Michigan a Crippling Blow for Santorum?

I think it really was but first, let me tell you all the reasons why you might think I'm wrong.

First, Romney's victory in Michigan was not a blowout and he had to employ some messy backroom dealings to win the most delegates. Furthermore, it is likely that Romney will lose badly in Georgia, the biggest Super Tuesday prize in terms of delegates. Indeed, when you look at the Super Tuesday map, there are a few other delegate-rich states where Romney will likely lose including Oklahoma and Tennessee. Finally, the latest polls seem to indicate Romney is still just a couple of points behind in Ohio. Romney will surely win more delegates in Ohio because of the ineptness of the Santorum campaign but a popular-vote loss in Ohio would really look bad. As for the delegates, I suppose one would rather win more delegates than not but (and I've argued quite a bit with Jon Keller about this) the delegate count is really irrelevant in just the same way that the Super Delegates really didn't matter in the end in 2008. There was simply no way the person "perceived to win" more states and more delegates was going to have the nomination taken away from him (or her) in 2008 because of elites in the party and it isn't going to happen in 2012 either.

In addition to all of that, there is the possibility that Gingrich will bow out of the race after Super Tuesday because he'll only win his "home" state of Georgia and won't be very competitive elsewhere. A little more than a month ago, John Sides and Lynn Vavreck posted some data to support their argument that Gingrich or Santorum dropping out would not help the other. In other words, they argue quite a bit of the "not Romney" vote would go to Romney rather than just coalescing behind the last "not Romney" standing. Nate Silver presented at least some data to contradict Sides and Vavreck.

So, that's a lot of reasons to think Romney has not quite locked down the nomination. But here's why the race for the nomination really is over.

1) The Narrative - The way Romney won Michigan was more important than the fact that he only won by 3 points. He was trailing in most polls (by a lot in some) until about a week before the primary. Because Michigan is one of Romney's "home" states, the race there became a key test of his campaign. So, expectations were set low (ie, "he may lose") and it was viewed as important (ie, "he has to win"). By winning, even by a little bit, Romney emerged with something a lot more important than delegates. He emerged with momentum and the sense that his campaign had exceeded expectations.

2) Organization - Ohio is not the only place the Santorum campaign's lack of organization has hurt them. Virginia votes on Super Tuesday and both Gingrich and Santorum failed to get on the ballot there. More generally, the Santorum campaign has been remarkably inept in its messaging. Santorum himself has a tendency to say things that are controversial. In some senses, this is what many of his supporters like about him. But it would help a lot to have a real campaign organization that would put the candidate's comments in context or put the right spin on them and it would help to have a campaign organization that can respond to Romney's criticism's of the candidate. These are all but absent.

3) Gingrich - Does Gingrich leave the race after Super Tuesday? My prediction is that he won't. Alabama and Mississippi vote one week later on March 13. I'm not a psychologist but Newt Gingrich's ego doesn't need much in the way of evidence to convince him America fundamentally needs him. His "big" win in Georgia might be enough and, if Santorum does even a little worse than expected on Tuesday, Gingrich will have even more reason to believe he is the alternative to Romney everyone has been waiting for. I know this is silly. But it is really how Gingrich thinks. He's silly.

4) Money - You may have heard that Mitt Romney is independently wealthy. Even with his fundraising troubles, Romney has the money to go on and the others simply don't. They can go on in the technical sense but they don't have much money and that gap is going to grow after Super Tuesday as fewer and fewer people believe there is a path to victory for Santorum or Gingrich. How bad is the money situation for Gingrich? To date, he's still raised less money than Rick Perry ... who quit the race for the second time before South Carolina and endorsed Gingrich. How bad is the money situation for Santorum? Even accounting for the $4.5M he's raised so far in the first quarter of 2012, he's still raised less money than Michele Bachmann and about the same amount as Jon Huntsman ... who quit the race after New Hampshire because nobody outside of New Hampshire supported him. The trickle of money Gingrich and Santorum were raising is going to dry up further after Tuesday.

I'm not saying Santorum (or Gingrich as I've stated above) will drop out after Tuesday. But the race is likely to be effectively over. And, when we look back, I think it will be the case that Michigan was where the race really ended. Before Michigan, Romney was in some trouble and there was a lot of discussion of whether someone else would jump in the race if Romney was defeated there. After Michigan, Romney has been viewed as back in the driver's seat and he followed up with a win in Washington where polls suggested he was losing just a week and a half ago. The worst-case scenario (losing Ohio by a small margin) on Tuesday still has Romney winning most of the states and the vast majority of delegates across all 10 states. There is simply not likely to be any more oxygen for Santorum or Gingrich.

Will Romney Be a Credible Alternative?

Presidential campaigns in which there is an incumbent running for re-election are really about whether people want the incumbent to stay in office for 4 more years. There are generally two pre-conditions that must be satisfied in order for an incumbent president to lose: First, the incumbent needs to be unpopular. The most obvious measure of this is the president's job approval rating. When President Bush was re-elected in 2004, 51% of voters that day approved of the job he was doing (according to exit polls) and he received 51% of the vote. But job approval over 50% is not the only pre-condition. Even if the president is unpopular, the challenger must be a credible alternative. Generally, the party out of power does a good job of choosing someone who is a credible alternative. That, after all, is what the primary process is about. John Kerry satisfied that condition in 2004 but Bush was just popular enough to win a second term. Bob Dole was certainly a credible alterative in 1996 but President Clinton was quite popular. Bill Clinton was a credible alternative in 1992 and 41 was quite unpopular so Clinton won. A fair argument can be made that the last two major party nominees to not quite be credible alternatives facing incumbent presidents were McGovern (1972) and Goldwater (1964). Both lost in blowouts and both were facing presidents with strong approval ratings.

Let's take a quick look at where we are on these two measures. First, job approval:



Obama's job approval has improved steadily since the summer of 2011 and the improvement has arguably been driven by two things - improving consumer confidence and the ramping up of the Republican primaries which have made Obama look pretty darn presidential. Forgetting about the positive trajectory, it seems as if Obama is at a point right now where he would be likely to be re-elected if job approval were the only thing that mattered. But he's not a tremendous distance from a place where the second question, the credibility of the alternative, would matter. So let's take a look at the favorability ratings for one Willard Mitt Romney:



This is not good. Romney's unfavorables have shot up in the last few months. To give that the most negative spin, we might say that just as the American public has gotten to know Romney better and just as the American public has had to start digesting the idea of Romney as a potential nominee and a potential president, they have found more and more to dislike about him.

UPDATE: First Read posts favorability numbers for some recent party nominees. Romney compares rather badly. Most notably, John Kerry (also trying to beat a somewhat vulnerably incumbent) was at 42/30. To be fair though, Kerry already had the nomination effectively locked down for a few weeks by this point. I expect Romney's numbers to improve at least a little once the party rallies around him. But he still won't be where Kerry's numbers were and Kerry ... ya know ... lost.

A more sympathetic read of Romney's numbers might be that this has been a bruising primary and, when it is over, Romney's numbers will start to improve. That's probably true to some extent. But one thing about unfavorable numbers is that it is particularly hard to move the unfavorable numbers down. Voters who don't have a strong impression can certainly be brought over. Voters who do have a strong impression are hard to move. And negative impressions are harder to change than positive impressions.

The 2012 election is going to be about Obama ... as long as Mitt Romney is a credible alternative. If he's not, then Obama has a bit more room for error with the economy, Iran, gas prices, whatever. In 1980, Jimmy Carter lost because voters did not approve of the job he was doing but that was not enough. It was Reagan's credible performances in the debates and in the campaign generally that allowed voters to vote for him in the general election. It is a long way to go until November. But Romney has not yet passed that threshold and he seems to be moving in the wrong direction right now.

Romney's Other Problem

President Obama came out swinging today speaking to the UAW. It was a good day to give a speech pointing out how wrong Mitt Romney was on the auto bailout ... and everything else. More generally, if Romney is struggling to beat Santorum among Republicans, how's he going to beat this guy in the Fall?

Democrats for Santorum

Will Democrats give Michigan to Santorum? The final night of the PPP poll in MI has Santorum nominally in the lead 38-37 and Santorum did better than that on the final night of polling (39-34) so perhaps Santorum is finishing strong.

But buried in the numbers was this nugget: Democrats, who make up a very small portion (8%) of likely voters in the Republican primary, favor Santorum 47-10. This 37-point lead among 8% of voters amounts to a 3-point edge in the topline numbers. If PPP's poll is an accurate snapshot of what will happen tomorrow, Democrats will have given Michigan to Santorum. My official prediction for Michigan tomorrow?

Santorum - 40
Romney - 38
Paul - 14

If that is roughly the outcome, we're in for a very long primary fight. Santorum has a bunch of states he can win on Super Tuesday.

Michigan, the Nomination Fight, and NASCAR

This is not quite what is meant by "being the NASCAR candidate." Asked today whether he follows NASCAR, Romney said:

Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans, but I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners.

NASCAR Fail

The latest PPP poll has Romney up 2 in MI. I suspect Romney will win a close race in MI on Tuesday night and he'll blow Santorum out in Arizona. What should Santorum do? Santorum should spend some time on Tuesday night asking Republican voters a simple question. "Do you want a candidate who can only win the nomination by tearing others down?" That's what Romney appears to have done again, this time in Michigan. According to PPP, in the last week in MI, Santorum's net favorability has dropped from +44 (67/23) to +15 (54/39).

I'm not being all pollyannish about this. I know negative campaigning is not exclusive to the Romney camp. But I'm not sure I've ever seen a candidate get as far as Romney has on negative campaigning alone. He has no positive message branding. Quick ... what is Romney's economic plan? What's his plan for Afghanistan? I don't know his position on anything. I don't think Republican voters do either. Santorum should ask those questions. What is Mitt Romney for? When will he win a significant state without tearing down everybody else?

The advice is free Rick.

Thud

Good Lord. Mitt Romney is such a horrible, horrible candidate. He gave a big speech today that landed with a ... thud. First, the quote that sums this guy up perfectly:

This feels good being back in Michigan. You know, the trees are the right height, the streets are just right. I like the fact that most of the cars I see are Detroit-made automobiles. I drive a Mustang and a Chevy pickup truck. Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs.

"Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs." Oy.

Then, there's (as Paul Harvey used to say) "the rest of the story." Romney spoke to an empty stadium, his jokes fell flat, and his proposals were the same tired ones he's already put out there. The Hill provides details here.

I was getting ready to write a blog post today about how Romney is likely to win Michigan despite the polls showing a statistical tie but now ... who knows? This guy just can't seem to do anything right.

Where Are We?

Nate Silver points out what you probably were already sensing:

Mr. Santorum’s bounce has already had considerably more staying power than those of some of his rivals. Newt Gingrich’s surge in the national polls, for instance, peaked just 24 or 48 hours after his victory in South Carolina, whereas Mr. Santorum’s has now persisted for more than a week.

Mitt Romney may really be in some trouble this time. His inability to connect just seems to be getting worse and worse.



Nationally, Romney appears to have lost his lead to Santorum:


Rick Santorum, the guy who lost his re-election bid in Pennsylvania by almost 20 points, is beating Mitt Romney.

The numbers at the state level are not good for Romney. He's losing in Michigan. He's losing really, really badly in Ohio, by 18 points according to Rasmussen. He's not only losing badly to Gingrich in Georgia but Santorum is about tied with him for second there so Gingrich + Santorum in Georgia is truly horrific for him. Romney is not up by much in Arizona. Rasmussen has a new poll out there that has him ahead by just 8 and PPP is polling the state now. My guess is they will show a smaller lead for Romney by the end of the weekend.

Meanwhile, various polls have Obama moving ahead of Romney in trial heats nationally. CNN has Obama over 50% and ahead by 5. Democracy Corps has Obama ahead by 4.


The question right now is simply whether things are just bad for Romney or bad for Romney with a chance of rain.