by C. Moult, Publisher, Cliffology.com.
The 2012 presidential race has had some of the
most up-swings and down-swings in presidential polling history. The polls have been so volatile that
political pundits on both sides of the political spectrum have resorted to
political spin to make the case that their candidate is in the lead.
Mr. Romney’s campaign has frequently pointed to huge
voter enthusiasm among republicans especially after the first debate in Denver
and a surge among independent voters as a guide to why their candidate will
win.
On the other hand, president Obama’s campaign
has frequently pointed to changing demographics and decent numbers among early
voters as a driving force for an Obama victory on November 6.
Thus, the central question of this presidential
cycle is how true the predictions are from both campaigns based on the polls.
There are essentially two different ways to look
at the presidential polling; one being the national polls and the other being
the swing state polls.
When we dive into the national polls, we tend to
get a more competitive race where in some polls Mr. Romney seems to be doing quite
well and in other polls in this late stage of the race, Mr. Obama seems to be
doing quite well nationally just before the election.
The Real Clear Politics average of polls as of noon
Monday, November 5th currently shows a 0.4% lead among likely voters
nationally in favor of Mr. Obama. This is not a big lead by any means, but it
represents an improvement for Mr. Obama from his averages during the aftermath
of the first presidential debate in Denver, Colorado where he performed poorly.
The swing state polls are quite competitive as
well. According to the polling averages
from many polling organizations such as: Real Clear Politics, Talking Points Memo,
Five Thirty Eight and Princeton Election Consortium, Mr. Obama
seems to be doing well in enough of the critical swing states to achieve
270 electoral college votes.
Many of the political calculations are centered on
why there seem to be such a divergence between the national polls which show a
much competitive race between the two candidates and the swing state polls
which show a much more favorable race for the president.
One way to look at this is that the Obama
campaign had spent much of the summer painting Mr. Romney in the key
battleground states as a corporate raider who does not care much for ordinary
working people, but who only cares about the rich.
This onslaught of negative advertising in the
swing states has left Mr. Romney somewhat scarred and bruised in these states
while nationally he has improved in the states where little or no advertising
were conducted -- essentially the states that do not matter electorally.
For that reason, polls have shown Mr. Romney
improving quite a bit in some southern states where he is already the favorite
to win and in some traditional blue states where he is not likely to win such
as California, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota.
Mr. Romney’s improvement in some traditional
blue states and his improvement in some of the southern states seem to give a
fair assessment of why he seems to have the lead or tie with Mr. Obama in some
of the national polls.
However, the problem for Mr. Romney is that this
does not necessarily offer up an advantage in the race because the winner of
the presidential race will be decided on the Electoral College and will come
down to a hand full of key swing states.
Nonetheless, Mr. Romney’s campaign would attempt
to mute this argument by pointing to their lead among independent voters nationally
and in some of the swing states as a reason for why they have the advantage.
In many polls, both nationally and in some of
the critical swing states, Mr. Romney does have an advantage among voters who
identify themselves as independents and often by double digit leads.
Because of this decisive lead, we are left to
ask: why is the race essentially a tie nationally?
Frankly, there is a reasonable explanation:
voters who classified themselves as independents typically lean to one party or
the other and in many cases are not true swing voters.
A study done by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has shown that a good sum of adults who
are traditionally republicans now classify themselves as independents while
many more democrats still consider themselves as democrats and not
independents. This seems to explain why
many polls are showing more democrats in their samples than republicans.
To quantify this, let’s look at the fact that
both men (Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney) are essentially tied nationally and square
that with the fact that on average pollsters tend to give democrats a +7 edge
over republicans in their surveys of likely voters. Also, bear in mind that the +7 edge that
democrats typically have over republicans in likely voter surveys, also equates
to the exact edge that republicans typically have over democrats among likely independent
voters in many of the recent surveys. Thus, if you keep the +7 democratic
samples that show up on average in most likely voter surveys and then factor in
the +7 republican lead on average in most recent surveys among likely
independent voters then you will see that the race is essentially a tie.
The conclusion is that independent voters may
not be the deciding factor in this election.
The election will more than likely come down to who can turn out most of
their supporters to vote. The polls this
cycle have been extremely volatile and in such a way that each candidate can
point to something in the polls to state why their candidate is in a more
commanding position to win the election. For Mr. Romney to win, the national
polls and battleground state polls must be biased toward him. On the other hand, for Mr. Obama to win, the
national polls and the battleground state polls in this late stage of the race
must be accurate as they continue to show him as the slight favorite to win.