State of the Race – September 15 (And Where We Were This Time in 2008)

Last week I was bemoan-ing the lack of new polls in the states. That isn't the case this week. There have been 40 polls conducted in 20 different states, including in 8 of the 11 battleground states I identified last week. Of those battleground states I identified last week, the only three that we don’t have polling data on as of this week are IA, NV & WI. So with that new data, here's where we stand halfway through September:

	Safe	Likely	Lean	Total
Obama	158	83	85	326
Romney	144	47	15	206
Tossup				6

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 the first “State of the Race” post I did on August 11 which can be found here.

Recently, the national polling has indicated a slight break towards President Obama and this is showing in the state-by-state polls as well. The most significant move in the past week was Florida moving from “Tossup” to “Lean Obama.” Additionally, Michigan and New Hampshire moved from “Lean Obama” to “Likely Obama.” Finally, Montana has been moved from “Safe Romney” to “Likely Romney.” This leaves Iowa as the only state still in the Tossup category and it is actually predicted at exactly a 50/50 proposition, although it should be noted that it is one of the states that has not had any state-by-state polling done this month. At this point the map continues to favor the President, but what does that mean going forward and how much movement can we expect?

Well, September 17, 2008 was the first time I did this analysis using the data from 270towin.com, so let's take a look at where things stood in mid-September 2008 versus where they stand in mid-September 2012. I reviewed the spreadsheet I had done on September 17, 2008 and here was the breakdown using the same categories and criteria that I've been using for my 2012 analysis.

	Safe	Likely	Lean	Total
Obama	126	70	59	255
McCain	106	110	31	247
Tossup				36

For a visual break-down, you can check out the photo to the right that shows the map as it stood in mid-September 2008. (Note: the total on the map reflects state electoral votes as they stand in 2012 where the chart above reflects where they were in 2008 before the 2010 census.) As I looked at the spreadsheet as it stood on that date, I find a few things remarkable. First, as I looked at McCain's states where he had at least a 90% likelihood of winning, those were all the states that he won. All the states below that threshold went to Obama – meaning that the demarcation line for the states was pretty well-established. In other words, states weren't leapfrogging over one another to move to the other side. What does this mean for 2012? It means that the likelihood that states are going to switch sides can be predicted by the other states on the continuum. For example, since Pennsylvania is my original home state, let's take a look at the likelihood it would switch and go for Governor Romney. The chances that it would go for Romney are directly related to all the states that are in Obama's column currently but are less likely to stay there. So if Pennsylvania goes for Governor Romney, we can also expect states like Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia to go for Romney as well.

There was another thing I found remarkable as well and that is how spread out the states were across my spreadsheet. There were several states that were in each category and there appeared to be more of a likelihood of movement within the states. This was obviously seen over the next month and a half leading up to the election. The spreadsheets I've been doing for the 2012 election have never looked like that. There is certainly a cluster of states that are closer to the center, but the states on the edge have been numerous and have stayed fairly consistent. There's been a lot of talk in this election about polarization of politics in America and I think this is a reflection of that trend. This data also supports the commentators who believe that the majority of people have already made up their minds about this election and there isn't much that could happen that would change their minds at this point. Whether this is true remains to be seen.

This brings me to my final point and my final reflection on the 2008 data: there was quite a bit of movement in the 2008 election from mid-September until Election Day. Obviously, the financial crisis that hit in the second half September had a lot to do with that along with Senator McCain's reaction. Plus as I posted before, I believe the debates played a large role as well. All this means that a lot can happen between now and November 6^th and all those things could very well make the map change dramatically. This includes the debates that will be coming up and it is also making me follow the situation in the Middle East and how both President Obama and Governor Romney react to that evolving situation. In other words, no matter how rigid the electorate looks now, all of that could change in the blink of an eye – which is why I will keep monitoring the trends as we proceed through the campaign calendar.

Footnote to the State of the Union

After watching some of the news coverage following the State of the Union, I was struck by how much coverage was given to one part of it – President Obama’s criticism of the recent Supreme Court decision which potentially will change the way campaigns are run and financed. You can click here to read my whole analysis of the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, but in essence the Supreme Court held that corporations are free to use their own money to run advertisements in support or against a candidate that is running for election.

In his speech, President Obama said, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.” At he same time, the cameras apparently caught Justice Samuel Alito (who voted with the majority and was appointed by President George W. Bush) mouthing the words, “that’s not true” or something of the like.

The next day both Republicans and Democrats predictably lined up to criticize one and defend the other (Obama or Alito). Republicans were critical of the President for criticizing the Supreme Court as they sat right there and said that he did step over the bounds of separation of powers. Democrats criticized Alito for reacting in an unprofessional manner for a Supreme Court Justice. While the Supreme Court routinely attends the State of the Union Address, they are seen as the non-political branch of the government and therefore, they sit there and just listen without any reaction. Part of a Judge or Justice’s disposition is such that they are not supposed to pre-judge issues and simply decide cases on their own merits completely outside the world of politics. As such, they are supposed to be a-political. Well, both parties struck me that their criticism and or defense smacked of hypocrisy.

For the Republicans to say that the sitting President should not criticize the Supreme Court during the State of the Union, what do they say about all the times Republican Presidents have criticized justices for being “activist” and especially during the State of the Union, I can recall Presidents Reagan and both Bush’s criticizing Roe v. Wade and President Reagan routinely asked for a constitutional amendment to overturn it. I never heard any criticism then. Also, what if the Republicans had won in 2008? Do they really think that “President McCain” would have avoided the red hot issue when he has been a champion of campaign finance reform for much of his career? As a Senator, he has been critical of the decision and I expect, “President McCain” would have had something very similar to say.

As for Democrats, they were critical of Justice Alito for saying that the President wasn’t correct. As a side note, there is a lot of chatter in the legal community as to whether President Obama was right regarding the issue of foreign corporations. There is a debate whether or not the Supreme Court decision would extend to foreign companies or be limited to American corporations, so for Justice Alito to say that the President was wrong, could be right when it comes to the foreign corporations possible involvement.

So what do I think? I think they were both wrong, but for slightly different reasons. Justice Alito should have some composure as a Justice on the highest court on the land and be able to keep his thoughts to himself. Meanwhile, I have said since the case was decided that President Obama’s criticism is completely hypocritical as he has been the biggest campaign fund raiser by far in American politics. Also, one other thing that I have failed to mention in my prior posts on this Supreme Court decision is that it applies to labor unions as well. You don’t think that will help the President and his fellow democrats? As I’ve said, politics and money go hand in hand and the more the politicians try and separate the two, the more their OWN supporters will try and find the loopholes. If that’s not hypocrisy, what is?

Unfortunately, in a speech where the President tried to reach out to Republicans by espousing many of their ideas (tax cut and credits, off-shore drilling, earmark reform, etc.) and attempted to engage them on some of his issues like health care reform, the parties found something in the speech that could drive them farther apart. In a speech that was an attempt to set up bi-partisan talks, the partisans found a way to make a partisan issue. That’s why I am losing faith in national politics as a whole. It seems like even when there are a few individuals who will try and work together, most of the partisan players are more willing to try to bring the others down then they are in trying to enact meaningful legislation.