2012 President

It’s pretty obvious who turned in a stronger performance in the first presidential debate last night. And it certainly wasn’t the incumbent. This may have been Mitt Romney’s best debate ever, and it almost certainly was Barack Obama’s worst. The question is, will it matter and, if so, how much will it matter? Romney, who has been persistently trailing by a few points in the national polls and in the key swing states, was more concise, focused and confident than President Obama on Wednesday evening. Obama, given several opportunities to counterattack on some of Romney’s points, appeared unwilling to do so, retreating to bland, small-bore, Clintonian talking points. Among the weapons that the president left on the stage was any reference to Romney’s now infamous “47%” comment. Perhaps the Obama campaign had a strategic reason for not using that line of attack, but whatever the reasoning was, it sure seems like a mistake. Even the president’s strongest allies didn’t bother to defend his exceptionally weak performance. This was not, however, a scintillating debate. Much of the back-and-forth centered on policy disagreements and references (“Dodd-Frank”) that many voters don’t know or, honestly, don’t care about. When debates become a battle of

Throughout this year’s presidential campaign, the competitive portion of the electoral map has been limited to about 12 or 13 states. There are the nine that flipped from Republican George W. Bush in 2004 to Democrat Barack Obama in 2008, plus four or so others — Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin come quickly to mind — that voted Democratic the last two presidential elections but narrowly so in 2004. That has left the remaining three-fourths of the country as essentially bystanders to this year’s presidential action. It is a number that includes the huge electoral vote prizes of California (55) and New York (29), which for the past 20 years have voted solidly Democratic, as well as the growing electoral powerhouse of Texas (38), which for even longer has been the cornerstone of the Republican presidential coalition. This constricted electoral map makes sense in light of our sharply divided nation — with the two coasts strongly Democratic and much of the interior outside the battleground states of the Midwest just as avidly Republican. But it is well to remember that it has not always been this way. A half century or so ago, the map was quite fluid, with

When the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was enacted a decade ago, many political observers predicted that the legislation’s soft-money ban would do significant harm to the national political parties, would reduce the role of political parties in American politics, and would lead to the creation of shadow political parties in the form of outside groups. Ten years later, it is becoming increasingly clear that the national political parties have done a better job adapting to a post McCain-Feingold world than almost anyone could have predicted as both the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Democratic National Committee (DNC) have raised more funds in the last decade than they did prior to McCain-Feingold. However, passage of the McCain-Feingold law, combined with recent court decisions permitting unlimited corporate, union and individual contributions to finance independent expenditures sponsored by outside organizations such as Super PACs and 501(c) organizations, have led to a rapid proliferation of third-party groups that are having a growing impact on federal elections. These outside groups, which have flourished on both the right and the left in recent years, are increasingly engaged in political activities that were once the province of political parties, such as voter registration drives, absentee ballot programs,

While the presidential race remains close, it’s becoming clear that one would rather be President Obama than Mitt Romney at this point in the race. That’s because Obama retains a small lead in the polls, and history tells us that candidates leading at this point in the race often keep their leads. As of Wednesday, Sept. 19, President Obama held a 47-46 lead in the Gallup tracking poll (his lead is a couple points larger in the RealClearPolitics polling average). What can history tell us about this? Take a look at Chart 1 below: Chart 1: Mid-to-late September Gallup polling, 1952-2012 Source: Gallup Presidential Election Center Notes: The three races with three poll results listed in parentheses account for George Wallace (1968), John Anderson (1980) and Ross Perot (1992). All polls listed are of registered voters. The most obvious conclusion we can make from these data is that it’s better to be ahead at this point. Of the 15 elections between 1952 and 2008, only twice has a candidate who held a lead around this time failed to win the election. However, Obama’s reelection isn’t exactly assured. A one-point lead is really nothing in a poll, and the economy remains

Most of us spend our campaign days eagerly devouring the latest public opinion polls, and there is no shortage of them. In the six days after the conclusion of the party conventions (through Wednesday afternoon), there have been three major national polls released — not including daily tracking surveys by Gallup, Rasmussen and Reuters/Ipsos — and 13 state-level surveys; RealClearPolitics lists 57 national polls since June 1. But polls are not predictive. As the pollsters always say, each poll is just a snapshot of an object moving in time. Moreover, the further one gets away from the actual election day, the more misleading polls can be, because it is difficult to figure out who will actually show up to vote, and many events that might influence the horserace (such as debates or crises) have not yet occurred. A better way to forecast the election results — potentially, at least — is to uncover the underlying fundamentals that propel an electorate to vote the way it does, and to combine them in some rigorous, standard fashion based on America’s voting history. Quite a number of political scientists have done so, creating models that use statistical techniques such as regression analysis —

While usually the realm of sitcoms, game shows and sports, politics became part of the TV ratings discussion during the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. Breathless reports recounted how 35.7 million people watched Barack Obama’s acceptance speech while just 30.2 million tuned in for Mitt Romney’s. And don’t forget, Michelle Obama topped Ann Romney by a score of 26.2 million to 22.3 million. But do the ratings mean anything? If we look back at the total ratings for every political convention from 1960 to 2012, it’s quickly apparent that the side whose convention receives the most viewers doesn’t necessarily win. Chart 1 tells the tale. Chart 1: Nielsen total rating for conventions, 1960-2012 Source: Nielsen Notes: Ratings represent the percentage of households with televisions watching the convention during primetime hours (click the Nielsen link for more details). Bolded numbers indicate the party that won the election that year. Out of 13 elections during this period (not including this year), there have been seven where the party whose convention got lower ratings won the election in November. So it’s safe to say that ratings have little to no electoral meaning. In some cases, it’s easy to explain why the losing party’s

(CHARLOTTE, NC) — Whenever the Library of America — the publisher that releases those elegant volumes with white, cursive writing on black covers — comes up with its next book of classic political oratory, we’ve got a pretty good idea of two speeches that won’t be included. After Mitt Romney gave a bland, workmanlike speech stating the case for change in Tampa last Thursday, President Obama followed it up with a glorified stump speech last night in Charlotte. Neither address will stand the test of time. Rather, they were statements of both party’s basic principles, setting up an election that is, in essence, Democratic base versus Republican base — and thus, a battle of turnout. Obama’s speech was mainly a laundry-list recitation of Democratic positions, stressing familiar themes about the role of government with nods to liberal positions on social issues. It’s been Obama’s standard message since 2008, when his lofty, post-partisan dreams helped to propel him into the White House. Just because Obama’s address inspired yawns among journalists, who have heard versions of it many times before, doesn’t mean that it was bad. The speech drew a dividing line with Republicans on issue after issue, not unreasonable considering the

Every reelection campaign is different because every president and the circumstances of each election are diverse. Barack Obama’s challenges are more unusual than most, but so are his advantages. Obviously, the problems for Obama are mostly economic. Below, Chart 1 shows the 11 presidents who have run for reelection since World War II and their key economic statistics — second quarter GDP growth and August unemployment figures — at this point in the race. Chart 1: Economic numbers for presidents seeking reelection, post-World War II Source: Trading Economics It is immediately apparent that Obama’s task isn’t easy. Although other incumbents have had it worse — the economies under Herbert Hoover in 1932 and Jimmy Carter in 1980 were basket cases, leading both to landslide defeats — a low growth rate plus high unemployment make the president quite vulnerable. Since 1948, only Carter’s glaring -7.9% slump was worse than Obama’s 1.7% GDP growth rate in the second quarter. What should be even more disconcerting for Obama is the fact that two incumbent presidents with higher second quarter GDP growth figures have failed to win reelection. Both Gerald Ford in 1976 and George H.W. Bush in 1992 had to run with tepid

Today, the Virginia State Board of Elections ruled that former Rep. Virgil Goode has qualified for the state’s presidential ballot. The news immediately prompted discussion of what impact Goode will have on the presidential result in November as well as some ambitious declarations that Goode’s place on the ballot hands the Old Dominion, and thus the entire election, to President Obama. The truth of the matter is a bit more complicated, and not just because Republicans asked the election board to have the attorney general investigate Goode’s ballot petitions for alleged fraud. Back in early July, Public Policy Polling asked Virginia respondents how they would vote if Goode made the ballot. The poll found Goode winning 9% of Virginia’s presidential vote, pulling Mitt Romney down to 35% while Barack Obama held relatively steady at 49%. With Goode on the ballot, it seems there is only one word to describe him: spoiler. But is this really true? Maybe. Goode’s history as a conservative Democrat-turned-Independent-turned-Republican makes him far more likely to “steal” votes from Mitt Romney than Obama. But the reality is, it would be a shock if Goode won 9% in November, or even close to that. Recent American history has

“On the day before Major McKinley was nominated for the presidency, an artist distinguished for the fetching touch of his pencil in catching and fixing likenesses in a few lines, stood in the door of a room where the Major was seated, and never having before seen the famous face, was regarding it with personal and professional intensity, when an acquaintance approached him and said, ‘Have you been introduced to the Governor?’ ‘No,’ said the artist; ‘not yet, presently gladly. Let me study him a moment unbeknown, just as he is. Why there is no picture that does him justice’… The artist perceived at a glance what all who study Major McKinley find out — that he is a strong man and a great man.” — Murat Halstead Esq., Life and Distinguished Services of Hon. Wm. McKinley, 1896 (TAMPA, FL) — It’s common to complain that presidential campaigns are heavy on style and light on substance. That may be a fair critique, but it’s not a new one; just re-read the rather preposterous passage above, from a campaign book about William McKinley in 1896. The same sentiment that animated the pen of Murat Halstead to elevate McKinley to such Olympian