It has now been one week since Governor Romney chose Paul
Ryan as his running mate, so let's see where the race stands and what, if any,
impact this choice has made. The chart below shows the breakdown on electoral
votes as I calculate them as of this weekend:
Safe
|
Likely
|
Lean
|
Total
|
|
Obama
|
158
|
85
|
32
|
275
|
Romney
|
144
|
47
|
0
|
191
|
Tossup
|
72
|
If you want to see a visual breakdown of where states
fall, see the photo above or click here
for a map. Obviously, the darker the shade of blue or red, then the safer that
state is for that candidate. (If you want to see how I arrived at these
categories, I would encourage you to review last week's post which can be found
here.)
Obviously, the biggest change is the addition of Florida
and Virginia from Lean Obama to tossup. This puts four states with a total of
72 electoral votes in the tossup category. Although the president is still
above the magic number of 270, it is by a very slim margin which shows that this
election is still very close and as I expected, the race is tightening up. The
other visible change is Wisconsin moving from the Likely Obama category to the Lean
Obama category. In addition, there were other states that made changes in their
percentages, but did not change categories – specifically, Ohio moved closer to
the tossup category while Missouri moved closer to the Lean Romney category. In
fact, all of the changes from last weekend to this weekend were states that
were moving closer to the center, so to speak.
What does this say about the race and the selection of
Congressman Ryan? Well first of all, I think it tells us that Governor Romney
got a little bit of a bounce from the selection of Congressman Ryan as his
running mate. I think this is largely due to the fact that the conservatives in
the Republican Party are now really getting behind Romney's campaign and Congressman
Ryan goes a long way in winning those voters over. As I said last week, Governor
Romney's biggest fear would be that the conservatives would not get behind his
candidacy and as a result, he would lose their enthusiasm. The conservatives
clearly believe that Romney has chosen one of them with the selection of
Congressman Ryan, so I think this goes a long way in helping Romney put any
leftover troubles he had from the primary season behind him.
However, I also think that the tightening in the race and
the movement of states towards the center speaks about the tone that this
campaign has taken so far. Anyone who lives in a state or market that is
considered one of the swing states has already had to deal with the constant
barrage of advertising in this campaign and we're not even to Labor Day yet.
Here's an interesting fact I read this week: the entire advertising spending in
the 2008 general election was approximately $512 million. So far this year, the
advertising spending in the general election in this presidential campaign has already exceeded that amount. Most
commentators who study politics and elections generally say that the campaign
doesn't start in earnest until after Labor Day. In other words, this will only
get worse.
The insane amount of money being spent on this election
is a clear byproduct of the Citizens
United Supreme Court decision in 2010. I hate to say I told you so, but
this was something that I did predict. In a blog
post I did immediately after the Citizens
United decision, I wrote “Why is this significant? It completely changes
the way elections will now be run. Candidates will not only have to worry about
ads that their opponent will run, but ones that corporations may run against
them. It will also open up the amount of money that will be spent on political
campaigns to heights never imagined.” The amazing thing about the amount of
money I listed above is the fact that most of this is being spent by outside
forces, i.e. not the campaigns themselves. You'll hear the news organizations
refer to them as the Super-PACs. The other interesting thing about the
so-called Super-PACs is that their advertising cannot be in coordination with
the campaigns. In other words, they can't be promoting the candidacy of one of
the candidates, so they are only left with one option – to go negative against
the other side. If you're watching the political advertising, it is clear that
both campaigns have been negative in their ads thus far, but what compounds
this is the fact that all of the ads run by the Super-PACs are negative. For
those of you who live in one of the battleground states and dislike political
advertising, you better just avoid TV for the next 11 weeks because it's going
to get really ugly.
What is this doing to the polls? There are a lot of
studies that have gone into the effect of negative advertising and it's no
surprise that they show that negative ads generally turn voters off. So why do
campaigns run the negative ads? Unfortunately, it's because they work. While it
turns voters off, it also has the consequence of depressing turnout for your
opponent’s supporters and making undecided voters less likely to vote at all. This
allows you to win not by winning undecided voters, but rather by making less of
your opponent's voters show up at the polls. As a result, it should be no
surprise that the percentage of eligible voters who actually participate in the
electoral process continues to go down. So when we see the polls in these
various battleground states getting closer, I think a lot of it can be
attributed to the unprecedented negative ad wars that are going on in these states.
Anyway, as we proceed through the campaign, another interesting
thing to monitor will be where both the campaigns and the Super-PACs are
spending their money on advertising. I think that will say a lot about what are
the true tossup states and which ones are not. As we get further into the
campaign, this will be something I'll also look at and track as I continue to
blog about the status of the election.
Is it really true that super pacs can't produce ads that are for a canidate, they can only produce ads that are against another canidate? If so, what is the reasoning behind this rule? Do you agree or disagree with it?
ReplyDelete-Stephen
Stephen:
DeleteLegally they are not allowed to coordinate their message with the campaign which makes it difficult to make "pro" ads. It's just easier to make negative ads against the other side. As for whether I agree with it, I think most rules when it comes to campaign laws are ridiculous. I really think we should go to one extreme or the other. Either have campaigns that are completely publicly financed where there is no option to go outside it or they need to have no rules but 1: disclose all your contributors so at least we know who is bankrolling each side.
PS - remember when Simeon used to comment on my blog posts all the time??
I am unclear regarding the Super-PAC ads. Are these the negative ads that have the candidate voice-over saying: "I am so-and-so and I approve this message."? Thank you for the clarification, Karl!
ReplyDeleteNo, they're not. If the candidate is saying that, then those are from the campaign directly & yes, they are VERY negative as well. The Super-PAC ads are the ones that will say "ABC Group is responsible for the content of this advertisement." FYI - Two of the more prominent ones are Restore Our Future which is Pro-Romney and Priorities USA Action which is pro-Obama.
Delete