State of the Race – October 27 (T-Minus 10 Days & Counting…)

We are now just 10 days from the election, and this week there was a flurry of new polls conduct-ed. Since last week's report, there have been 77 polls done in 26 states; including 53 polls in the 11 battleground states I have identified (CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NH, NC, 0H, PA, VA & WI). So with a week and a half until Election Day, here's where we stand:

	Safe	Likely	Lean	Total
Obama	172	65	40	277
Romney	143	48	44	235
Tossup				26

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. The photo above gives a visual breakdown of which side each states fall on. For a list of which states fall in which categories, I provide the following chart:

	Safe	Likely	Lean
Obama	CA, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA	CT, MI, MN, NM, OR, PA	IA, NV, OH, WI
Romney	AL, AK, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY	AZ, GA, IN, MO	FL, NC
Tossup	CO, NH, VA

Here are the changes from last week: New Jersey and Washington moved from “Likely” Obama to “Safe” Obama; Pennsylvania from “Lean” Obama to “Likely” Obama; Nevada from “Tossup” to “Lean” Obama; and Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee from “Likely” Romney to “Safe” Romney.

Most of these changes are insignificant and represent a return of some states to categories they were in the previous week – such as states on both sides of the margins moving from “Likely” back to “Safe.” At this point, I think the map has pretty much taken shape and I do not expect any more major changes as we get closer to Election Day unless there is some late “October Surprise,” but I don't even think anything major in this final week would be reflected accurately in any more polling that is done due to the time it takes to conduct the state-by-state polls.

As for the final debate, I thought it was clear that President Obama won the debate as it ended up playing much like the first debate except in reverse. President Obama was the one who was being aggressive and engaging his opponent and his positions, while Governor Romney was sitting back and playing it safe. However, the major difference with the first debate was that the third debate was not nearly as lopsided as the first. Additionally, since the debate focused on foreign-policy, it was largely expected that President Obama would have the advantage.

As we exit the debates, I believe the tally on who won the three debates was Obama 2, Romney 1. However, this is not like a baseball playoff series where it is a best-of-three. In fact, all the debates are NOT created equal – the first one is clearly the most important and the winner of that debate is generally seen to have won the debate series unless something extraordinary happens in the last two debates. This is especially true in this instance when Governor Romney won the first debate so convincingly. The final reason that this debate was less significant was due to the fact that it was also the least watched. The debate occurred on a Monday night opposite Monday Night Football and Game 7 of the NLCS baseball playoffs. While it still drew more viewers than the two sporting events, it was still watched less than either of the first two debates.

As for the debate itself, I think that Governor Romney's strategy to play it safe was an interesting one when considering what was on the line. Since I have been doing this analysis, Romney has consistently trailed in the Electoral College math and while his first debate win helped close this gap, the president has consistently remained in the lead. Also, except for one week immediately after the first debate, President Obama has remained above the magic number of 270. If Romney had a good final debate and was able to beat the President on foreign-policy, it very well could have tipped the scales in Romney's favor. It makes me wonder if the ending of the second debate made Governor Romney a little gun shy about attacking the President on foreign-policy. You might remember towards the end of the second debate a question came up about Libya. I believe that President Obama’s response was one of the strongest from either candidate in all three of the debates as he looked at Governor Romney in the eyes and said he took it personal when people he asked to serve were killed and that he found it offensive when people used those events for political gain. It seemed like Romney backed down a bit and became less aggressive in that second debate after that exchange. There may have been a carryover effect into the third debate as Governor Romney tried to avoid a similar situation by not attacking the president and his foreign policies.

Now we enter the final 10 days of the campaign as both candidates attempt to finish strong. I will try and do a midweek report this week and in doing so, I'll also take a look at the status of the Senate races and which party has the upper hand in controlling the upper chamber. Finally, look for my report next Saturday as I will be giving my prediction on both the presidential race and the Senate races.

State of the Race – October 20 (Why a Close Election May Mean an Obama Loss)

Last week we saw that the first debate yielded Governor Romney a large boost as he was able to cut dramatic-ally into President Obama's lead in the Electoral College vote. Since then, we have had another presidential debate, although much of the state polling that was done may not yet reflect any effects that the second debate will have. Since last week's report, there have been 87 polls done in 31 states; including 48 polls in the 11 battleground states I have identified (CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NH, NC, 0H, PA, VA & WI). With only 2 1/2 weeks to Election Day, here's where we stand:

	Safe	Likely	Lean	Total
Obama	146	71	54	271
Romney	115	76	44	235
Tossup				32

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. The photo above gives a visual breakdown of which side each states fall on. For a list of which states fall in which categories, I provide the following chart:

	Safe	Likely	Lean
Obama	CA, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT	CT, MI, MN, NJ, NM, OR, WA	IA, OH, PA, WI
Romney	AL, AK, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, ND, OK, TX, UT, WV, WY	AZ, GA, IN, MO, NE, SC, SD, TN	FL, NC
Tossup	CO, NV, NH, VA

Here are the changes from last week: Connecticut, New Jersey and Washington moved from “Safe” Obama to “Likely” Obama; Pennsylvania from “Likely” Obama to “Lean” Obama; Ohio from “Tossup” to “Lean” Obama; New Hampshire from “Lean” Obama to “Tossup”; and Georgia and South Dakota from “Safe” Romney to “Likely” Romney. Ironically, all of the movement this week except for Ohio was towards the middle which suggests that this race continues to tighten. However, Ohio moving from “Tossup” to “Lean” Obama does put the president back above the magic number of 270.

All in all, these results seem to indicate that President Obama has stopped Governor Romney's momentum and the close race I expected is getting ready to go down to the wire. Last week, I wrote about the inherent advantage that the president has with the electoral map, but this week I want to point out why a close election may point to a loss for the incumbent president. The reason why the map actually could cause the Obama campaign some concern is the fact that he is trying to do what has only been done one other time: win reelection with fewer electoral votes than he received in his first election.

In 2008, President Obama received 365 electoral votes. In doing so, he won some states that had been considered safely Republican over the last several presidential elections, including Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia. He also was able to pick up one electoral vote from Nebraska due to the apportionment system that they use. Except for North Carolina in 1976, none of these states had voted for a Democrat in a presidential election since Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory in 1964. Since the 2008 election, it has become apparent that Virginia and to a lesser degree, North Carolina have become swing states that the Democrats can compete in, but Indiana has gone back to being the red state it was prior to Obama's victory in 2008. Additionally, President Obama has been unable to put any states he lost in 2008 into play. Previously, the states that had been identified where he had lost, but might have been able to put in play were states like Arizona and Missouri. While this was discussed in theory, it appears the Obama campaign never tried seriously to go after these states and they remain safely in Romney's column.

That brings me to the history of President Obama is trying to make. There was only one occasion in US history where an incumbent president running for reelection for a second term ended up winning his reelection bid but received fewer electoral votes in his reelection than he did in his initial election and that instance deserves a large asterix. The occasion was 1916 when Woodrow Wilson was reelected with 277 electoral votes after receiving 435 electoral votes in his initial election in 1912. (It should be noted that FDR received fewer electoral votes in his third and fourth reelection, but that was obviously a unique circumstance and FDR did receive more electoral votes in his second election than in his first.) Wilson's reelection also has a major caveat to it as well. The circumstances that Wilson was facing for his reelection were very different than what he had faced in his first election in 1912. That's because in 1912 former president Teddy Roosevelt decided to run as a third-party candidate against the incumbent Republican president, William Howard Taft. This resulted in the Republican vote being widely split between Roosevelt and Taft and allowing Wilson to cruise to an easy Electoral College victory despite the fact that combined Roosevelt and Taft received more popular votes than Wilson did.

An argument could be made that President Obama's victory in 2008 should come with an asterix as well. This is due to the fact that the Obama/McCain race was an anomaly because Obama had foregone public financing while McCain accepted it. It was well documented in 2008 that Obama made his choice because he knew he would be able to out raise Senator McCain and therefore had a significant advantage in his campaign war chest and he used that advantage to advertise and campaign in many more states. As a result, McCain was unable to keep up and Obama was able to put states in play that he might not have been able to had the campaigns been evenly funded.

Whatever the reason for the size of Obama's victory in 2008, it's clear as we are this close to the election that he will be unable to repeat that number of electoral votes in 2012. As a result, President Obama is trying to do what has only happened once in our history – win a reelection with fewer electoral votes than he had previously. While this may seem like a rare occurrence that makes reelection for the president difficult, I'm reminded that just 12 years ago we all thought that we would never see an election again where one candidate won the popular vote but the other won the vote in the Electoral College. As such, just because it is a rare occurrence historically, doesn't mean it can't happen again.

Finally, I wanted to share my thoughts regarding the second presidential debate which occurred this week. Last week, I wrote “The pseudo-town hall format that will be used will not allow for the same kind of aggressive style that was used so effectively by Governor Romney in the first debate, so it will be interesting to watch and see how both candidates adjust as I think both will want to be aggressive, but they won't want to come off as attacking the citizens that are chosen to ask the questions.” Boy was I wrong! In many ways, both were overly aggressive and I agree with many commentators I heard afterwards who suggested that this style probably actually hurt both of them with undecided voters and it may point to a reason why the race continues to tighten. Clearly, the president was trying to overcompensate for his lackluster performance in the first debate and was very aggressive in going after Governor Romney, and when met with this aggression, Romney showed that he was not going to back down. As a result, I viewed it as a draw with possibly a slight edge going towards President Obama. I know there were many who thought the president won the debate, and while I don't necessarily disagree, I viewed it as a draw because I don't think either candidate did a good job of trying to appeal to any undecided voters.

This Monday night is the third and final debate and the focus is to be on foreign-policy. For those of you who know my thoughts on presidential elections, foreign-policy in my opinion is always the most important. While some people will look at the economy when deciding who to vote for and others may look to a variety of social issues, I simply remind you that foreign-policy is the one area where the Constitution gives primary authority to the executive branch. A president has limited say on economic issues and social issues, as he is bound to Congress and its whims. However, with foreign-policy the president is both the chief diplomat for our country and its Commander-in-Chief. As such, it is the area he can have the greatest influence on. So if for some reason you are still undecided, I would strongly urge you to watch this debate. Since the debate does occur at the beginning of the week, I'm hopeful that the state polls will be up-to-date next week and will include any effect that the third and final debate has.

State of the Race – October 13 (Debate Impact = Game Changer)

As I stated last week, the effects of the debate last Wednes-day would not be felt in the state-by-state polling until my report this week. It was obvious to all observers that Governor Romney had won the debate, but it remained to be seen if it would alter the track of the race which had been trending towards President Obama. Since my post last week, there were 63 polls conducted in 24 states, including 45 polls in the 11 battleground states that I have previously identified. After those polls, here is where the race stands currently:

	Safe	Likely	Lean	Total
Obama	179	58	20	257
Romney	134	57	44	235
Tossup				46

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. The photo above gives a visual breakdown of which side each states fall on. For a list of which states fall in which categories, I provide the following chart:

	Safe	Likely	Lean
Obama	CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA	MI, MN, NM, OR, PA	IA, NH, WI
Romney	AL, AK, AR, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, ND, OK, SD, TX, UT, WV, WY	AZ, IN, MO, NE, SC, TN	FL, NC
Tossup	CO, NV, OH, VA

To put it mildly, the debate clearly was the game changer that Governor Romney needed. From last week to this week, the following states changed categories: Wisconsin from “Likely” Obama to “Lean” Obama; Ohio from “Likely” Obama to “Tossup”; Colorado, Nevada and Virginia from “Lean” Obama to “Tossup”; Florida and North Carolina from “Tossup” to “Lean” Romney; and Montana from “Likely” Romney to “Safe” Romney. That is a total of eight states that moved in the direction from Obama's column towards Romney's column and these eight states total 103 electoral votes. Even if you take the red state of Montana out of the equation, it still totals 100 electoral votes. THAT is a game changer.

As for the electoral vote totals, I would point out that this is the first time that President Obama has been below the magic number of 270 in my analysis. All this points to the fact that this is a brand new race. I've read some commentators who have suggested that all the debate did was returned the race to the preconvention status. In other words, the debate wiped out the bump that the President got out of the DNC. I disagree. It seems clear to me that this has tightened the race much more dramatically, and not to toot my own horn, but it was what I had expected and predicted when I first started doing this analysis in August.

Obviously, looking at the changes from last week to this week, the biggest changes were Florida and Ohio. With Florida moving to “Lean” Romney, it represents the first time in my analysis that a state which had been in one candidate's column earlier in the cycle, moved to another candidate's column. In the case of Ohio, it had been in the “Likely” Obama category and skipped right over “Lean” Obama to “Tossup.” This is very significant for Romney because I still believe that these are the two states that hold the key to him winning the election. While it is technically feasible for Romney to win without these states, it would be very improbable for him to do so. In other words, Romney needs to win both of these states if he wants to win the election.

This leads me to my next point that despite the fact that Governor Romney had some success in moving states away from President Obama’s column, the one thing he has not done is put any new states in play. For instance, Michigan and Pennsylvania still remain in the “Likely” Obama category. In addition, if you look at where the advertising dollars have been spent, it almost seems that Romney's campaign has not made a push for Michigan and Pennsylvania. (In fact, as I've traveled back to Pennsylvania the last six weeks, I found it curious how there was a lack of commercials for the presidential campaign on television; while in the DC market, we are inundated with them as we are so close to Virginia.) If his campaign is conceding Michigan and Pennsylvania, this means that Governor Romney's path to victory remains very narrow, and is why Florida and Ohio become must wins for him. Look at it this way: with Michigan and Pennsylvania in President Obama's column, he stands at 237 electoral votes or 33 electoral votes short of 270. Florida alone has 29 electoral votes, meaning that the President could win reelection by winning Florida and only one other swing state, including New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes. In the case of Ohio, it has 18 electoral votes meaning if the president wins Ohio, he would only need a combination of two or three other states to win, such as Virginia (13 EV) and New Hampshire (4 EV). As we are now three and a half weeks from the election, it will be very interesting to see how the campaigns react to the electoral map and where they put their resources both in terms of advertising dollars and visits from the candidates.

A few final notes on the remaining debates: you will note that I did not mention the vice presidential debate at all. That is due to the fact that I did not watch it because I view them as largely unimportant in the broader context campaign. On Thursday night, I made a joke on Facebook about the fact that I wasn't watching it, but rather was watching something more civilized in football. I then followed up with a further football analogy likening the vice presidential debate to preseason football in that both are meaningless. However, that is not the case with this Tuesday's second presidential debate. Most people view the first debate as being the most important and I would tend to agree with them, but that does not mean that there is no significance to the remaining debates. Both candidates clearly have clear goals with this second debate as Governor Romney will want to continue the momentum he got during the first debate, while President Obama will want to thwart that momentum. The pseudo-town hall format that will be used will not allow for the same kind of aggressive style that was used so effectively by Governor Romney in the first debate, so it will be interesting to watch and see how both candidates adjust as I think both will want to be aggressive, but they won't want to come off as attacking the citizens that are chosen to ask the questions. Once again, we'll see how the candidates fare and I will report back with my analysis next week.