Lots of us have seen the media breathlessly portray the election as a dead heat, or tied, or within the margin of error. As a fairly avid political junkie, the media is doing us a disservice. If they honestly reported the state of the race, and the pollsters got their samples correct, I believe they would give Obama a small, 4-5 point lead nationally. There are several reasons for this, most statistical, and one even an apolitical individual can pick out with the naked eye.
Join me below the squiggle for some tea-leaf reading...
1. Follow the money, especially in Pennsylvania.
All of us sadly remember that George W. Bush won two terms to the White House, but what many in the media are forgetting is the battleground strategy his campaign used to make this possible. In both GWB elections, the major battlegrounds were generally confined to Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida, but most of the minor battlegrounds were in the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest, generally Democratic areas. In both those races, two of the three major battlegrounds were required (but in 2000, Gore could have won New Hampshire and won the Presidency. A lot of people don't remember that).
Bush's strategy was to win Ohio and Florida by hook or by crook and spend boatloads of money in Pennsylvania in order to tie the Democrats down. His strategy worked, unfortunately, and we sat through 8 years of horrendous government. Why is that relevant today?
Because last week, Romney and his SuperPAC allies have called it quits in Pennsylvania, and we don't know if they're coming back:
From Newsworks, a local PA source:
It seems only yesterday that Republican State House Majority Leader Mike Turzai was telling the GOP state convention that voter ID would "allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."
Now, with several polls showing Romney trailing in the Keystone State, his allies are walking away like Phillies fans with their team trailing in the eighth inning.
It emerged Monday that Americans For Prosperity, the conservative nonprofit associated with billionaires David and Charles Koch, had canceled some TV advertising planned for Pennsylvania.
I checked with Muhlenberg College political science professor Chris Borick, and he said if you want to see what campaigns really think about their chances in a swing state, follow the ad buys.
And now, thanks to a recent policy change by the Federal Communications Commission, you can do that online.
An "Ohio or bust" strategy, which seems like the course Romney is taking right now, requires heavy spending in Pennsylvania to force the Dems to play defense to hold the state. I've followed politics since Clinton and I do not remember the GOP EVER pulling out of PA at any point during a presidential campaign. The general rule in national campaigns is to compete in a state until you are at least 8-10 points behind, then pull out. To me, it's a sign that Romney's internal polls show him trailing by about 10 in Pennsylvania and pretty much suck in the other swing states.
2. Pennsylvania is a benchmark for where the country stands even though the state is slightly bluer than the nation at large.
The Pennsylvania pullout also debunks Rasmussen's national polling. Romney's averaged a lead of 1-2 points in Rasmussen's tracking poll. How does PA play into this? The Keystone State is an excellent state to use as a marker for the rest of the country because it has a demographic mix very similar to the nation at large and its Presidential election results are extremely consistent. Let's look at how consistently PA votes:
In 2008, Obama defeated McCain by 7.27% in the popular vote; he won PA by 10.32%. For this election, PA was 3.05% more Democratic than the nation as a whole.
In 2004, Bush defeated Kerry by 2.46% in the popular vote, but Kerry won PA by 2.5%. For this election, PA was 4.96% more Democratic than the nation as a whole. Keep in mind, Kerry's spouse was from PA as well.
In 2000, Gore defeated Bush by 0.51% in the popular vote, and also won PA by 4.17%. For this election, PA was 3.66% more Democratic than the nation as a whole.
In 1996, Clinton defeated Dole by 8.51% in the popular vote, and also won PA by 9.2%. For this election, PA was 0.69% more Democratic than the nation as a whole.
I could go all the way back another 5-6 elections, and this corollary generally holds true: Pennsylvania is about 3-4 points more Democratic than the country in Presidential elections. Romney's abandonment of Pennsylvania (indicating an 8-10 pt deficit there) is a solid indicator that he trails by 4-6 points nationally. Watch very closely to see if the GOP decides to dive back into the state; if they do, that is bad news; if not, it means Obama still leads nationally by a decent margin.
3. Ohio is slightly redder than Pennsylvania, but not drastically so.
Pennsylvania and Ohio share a very strong statistical relationship in Presidential elections. In truly close elections, Pennsylvania usually goes Democratic (by a close margin) while Ohio goes Republican (by a very close margin). However, Presidential results in Ohio and Pennsylvania share a VERY strong statistical relationship in terms of margin of victory. The two states are very similar demographically (Ohio has a slightly higher percentage of evangelical Christians, making it slightly more conservative). Otherwise, there is not much to separate the two states.
How much more Republican is Ohio than Pennsylvania? The last 4 Presidential elections give us a guide:
2008: Ohio was 5.74% more Republican than PA and 2.69% more Republican than the country.
2004: Ohio was 4.6% more Republican than PA and 0.36% more Democratic than the country.
2000: Ohio was 7.68% more Republican than PA and 2.1% more Republican than the country.
1996: Ohio was 2.84% more Republican than PA and 2.15% more Republican than the country.
When we average these numbers out, Ohio is usually about 5 percent more Republican than Pennsylvania, and this relationship holds in almost every Presidential election without major third-party influence. What we also see in the Ohio/PA numbers is that Ohio and Pennsylvania diverge less by percentage in Presidential elections with an incumbent than in open-seat Presidential elections (which is probably due to fewer undecided voters).
If I had to guess, with all this data in front of me, Obama leads consistently by 3-4 points in Ohio.
4. The "battleground" almost exclusively consists of states George W. Bush won twice.
After Romney's Pennsylvania pullout, we have 9 states that can be considered "battlegrounds", where both candidates are spending a lot of money (or will spend a lot of money). They are:
Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Iowa, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.
Bush won all those states twice except for Wisconsin (which he lost twice), Iowa (which he won in 2004 but lost in 2000), and New Hampshire (which he won in 2000 but lost in 2004). If we go back to those elections, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada were not even considered serious battlegrounds, but likely to solid Republican states. The battleground actually looks very similar to 2008 (except for Indiana and Missouri), and still very disadvantageous to the Republican candidate. If this election were tied or favoring a Republican, states like Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, and even New Jersey would be seeing far more anti-Obama attack ads than at present.
5. The behavior and general demeanor of both candidates on the stump and at the conventions is a significant tell as to where they stand in the polls.
I remember when Obama was going up against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, and there were times where he looked slightly uncomfortable, because that was a VERY close fight against a formidable opponent. Obama looks more at ease in this election than he did against Hillary (or against McCain). His stump speeches are filled with fire and purpose, and he's behaving like a candidate who is winning. He's definitely fired up and ready to go. He'll give a HUGE speech in Charlotte and I suspect he'll gain a couple of more points in the national polls that he won't lose barring scandal or disaster.
On the other hand, Romney's behavior on the stump ranges from tired to awkward to bizarre. The most noticeable thing I saw when watching Romney's convention speech was its meandering, lifeless nature. Mitt definitely looked fatigued up there, and acted like a candidate that saw how poor his Ohio and Florida polls looked before stepping on stage. Romney tends to be stiff on the stump on a good day, to the point where he makes John Kerry look charismatic. Lastly, when a candidate feels the need to crack tasteless jokes (like the birther joke) in Michigan, that's a clear tell that the candidate is desperate.
As much as we hate GWB, he was very comfortable giving stump speeches, and I see none of that comfort in Mitt Romney. He just can't make the sale, no matter how hard he tries.