Skip to comments.Michigan: Romney 45, Obama 43? (We Ask America Poll of likely voters)
Posted on 06/20/2012 2:28:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I thought about blogging the dumb new Bloomberg poll showing Obama leading Romney by a million gazillion points nationally but even I'm not enough of an eeyore to take it seriously. Show me an eight- or nine-point Obama lead and, yeah, I'll do a little pants-wetting over that; I won't really believe the numbers, but I'm enough of a pessimist to know that the worst-case scenario is always worse than you think. A thirteen-point lead, though? No sale, not when every other national poll taken over the last seven weeks (except one) has had O leading by seven points or less. (The one exception had Obama by eight.) I don't know what's more embarrassing, the fact that Bloomberg's pollster somehow arrived at that result or that Bloomberg itself decided to publish it. Traffic is traffic, I guess. If nothing else, the article’s worth reading for this line from a voter from Ohio on O's economic challenge circa 2009: "He was basically handed a sick drug baby and expected to make a genius out of it overnight."
Guy Benson posted some questions demonstrating just how absurd the Bloomy results are. What happened here isn’t complicated: It’s an outlier (a big one). It happens. Not worth worrying about. So let’s spend some time on something more pleasant. Dude:
The good news: 1,000+ likely voters is a solid sample, if the Democratic/Republican split is true to life. Is it? I can’t find the numbers anywhere at the last link. The bad news? This pollster, We Ask America, correctly predicted that Scott Walker would win big in Wisconsin — but they overestimated the final margin considerably. WAA’s last two polls before the recall had Walker beating Barrett by 12 points; in fact, he won by a little less than seven. If they’re overestimating Romney’s support by the same margin then O’s narrowly ahead, which would jibe with RCP’s poll average putting him up by 4.2 points. That’s okay, though; the goal right now isn’t to lead in Michigan but simply to make it competitive enough that Obama has to divert money earmarked for swing states in order to shore up his support there. And that’s not the only reliably blue midwestern state where Romney’s suddenly in the hunt:
Mitt Romney predicted earlier this week on his bus tour that he would win Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes in November, but a new poll released Wednesday shows he is still trailing President Obama in the Badger State.
Among likely general-election voters, Obama leads Romney, 49 percent to 43 percent, according to the poll, conducted last week by Marquette Law School in Milwaukee. Seven percent of voters are undecided or did not respond to that question on the survey.
Strange that Romney would be having a tougher time in Wisconsin, where the GOP just had its biggest victory since the 2010 midterms, while O would be having a tougher time in Michigan, which was supposed to be irreversibly blue after the auto bailout. Ah well. To further stoke your optimism, go read Stuart Rothenberg on why Obama’s now the (slight) underdog and Nate Silver on why O’s DREAM mega-pander might not be as successful as he’d hoped. Even if it locks up two-thirds of the Latino vote for him, there aren’t that many Latino voters comparatively in the swing states he needs in November. There are, however, plenty of white working-class voters who haven’t been thrilled with Hopenchange for awhile. Is the DREAM pander a net vote winner or loser for him in states like Ohio and Virginia?
Yeah but Doomburg said that OFudgePackula has a prohibitive lead.\s
This is the third recent poll showing that Obama’s lead in Michigan is gone. If he can’t win this state, with Detroit and govenrment workers galore, than it’s over.
Obummer is going to get skinned in the upper mid-west (WI, MI, IN, IA, OH, PA) and it is going to be his downfall.
If Obama loses those states on election night, it's probably lights out on his re-election bid. Certainly the results in 2010 in 2011 are a big setback for them and the GOP has turned the tables in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I know a liberal H.S. classmate who lives in Arizona now and think it's "in play" for Obama because of the "Hispanic vote". He's encouraging Hussein to spend lots of money there. I hope Obama is foolish enough to take his advice. Obama's donations are down considerably from 2008 and if he wants to blow his wad in heavily Republican Arizona when he's struggling in the upper Midwest, go for it!
Real clear politics had AZ as a “tossup” and recent PPP (good firm but democrat) polls have showed it close (and the Senate race featuring Bush’s pansy traitor Surgeon General). I don’t buy it. That’s a Republican state, if Obama is neck and neck with Romney nationally then no way it’s in play. Obama needs to be worried about holding CO and NV which are close. Clinton only won it in ‘96 cause of Perot and it would have been closer in 2008 if McCain wasn’t the nominee but still would have gone Republican.
The left/media seems to be desperate for a McCain state to be “in play” and Missouri isn’t doing it for them so...
What troubles me in AZ is 3 close House races made by the crappy congressional map. Rats could win 5 of 9.
The “Brown tide will sink the GOP” people said Texas would be a swing state by 2008. Maybe this is like the global warming claims.
It may be the reason for Nevada’s recent leftward movement, while I CO I look equally to liberal Anglo Whites in the Denver suburbs.
“Dems frequently outmaneuver them in the ground game” Yes, Bush won Ohio in ‘04 on the ground game, especially around Cincinati. The same is true in Senat and House races. Most often, a good ground game makes the difference. That is increasinly true with early voting, which gives the edge to the ground game.
But our professional political consultants are paid as a percentage of their media buy. They have every incentive to ignore the ground game and put all attention on TV and Radio, which are at a distinct disadvantage now that we have early voting.
Interesting how some threads like this one talk pragmatic tactics and other threads talk strategy at a level that can’t be implemented. One thread is debating whether Romney should go after the White vote or the Hispanic vote. That type of thinking is impractical and can’t be implemented, regardless of what the choice is.
Message and images via media go to all demographic groups, especially in this social media world. It is precisely because the ground game can target its audience to the individual that it is so valuable. But thinking you are going to tell a voter you want his vote because he is White, or Hispanic, or other identity group is not the way to win that vote.