The Polling Report [11.15.12]

Filed in National by on November 15, 2012

So you thought that since the election was over that the Polling Report would cease to exist? You thought you were rid of me? Muwhahahaha! Never. You see, polling never goes away. It merely takes little breaks. It’s true, the Polling Report will appear less frequently than before. I think I will start off on a weekly basis and see how that goes. But when I get a pile of polling news, I will post a polling report. Now, the polling we report can be on the 2013 state gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, the 2014 Midterm congressional election and gubernatorial elections, or the 2016 presidential primaries.

But before we do that, let’s look at some analysis of the ultimate 2012 poll, i.e. the election, showed.

First, let’s look at the final Polling Report map with all the color coded margins. For example, California and Illinois were listed as Strong Obama states and colored dark blue while Utah and Oklahoma were Strong Romney states and colored dark red or maroon. The lighter the color of the state, the closer the race was going to be, and thus you see the toss ups states (as they were referred to in the media but not here) were Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada. You also see a lot or red and blue, rather than dark red and dark blue, as the polling found those races to have a candidate leading between 5-10 points.

Now take a look at this map:

This map reflects the actual election results. Dark Blue and Dark Red show states where Obama and Romney, respectively, won the race by 10 points or more. Notice the absence of 5-10 point lead categories, and the presence of dark blue and dark red. Indeed, if you are a red state, chances are you are dark red.

STRONG ROMNEY: Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska (4 EC); North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Indiana, South Carolina.

LEAN and SLIM ROMNEY: Missouri, Nebraska (2nd CD), North Carolina, and Georgia.

You know what that tells me? Well, we know that Missouri can be a swing state, as it has swung before. Indeed, before the first debate debacle, when the President was cruising towards a landslide, we here were talking about some close polls about a Missouri that showed it was possible that it could fall to the Prez if this thing turned into a rout. Well, it didn’t. But in such a polarized year, when the red states became really red, that Missouri remain relatively get-able in the end shows that it will be up for grabs in an open race, especially if our nominee is Hillary Clinton. And Georgia. Hmmmm.

Kavips is right, as always:

As of today Obama’s lead stands at more than 3.4 million votes – a victory margin a Republican presidential candidate hasn’t posted since George H.W. Bush in 1988. The final results show Warren soundly beating Scott Brown by 8 percent. Virginia! Tim Kaine ultimately won by 6 percent (over 186,000 votes). Meanwhile, President Obama won the state by 3 percent. The Montana Senate race wasn’t called until late Wednesday morning, but the final tally has Democrat Jon Tester beating Republican Denny Rehberg by 4 percent! In Montana! Today the story is of a Democratic House of Representative’s pickup. Democrats have already gained 6 House seats and are leading in 4 of 5 uncalled races. It was no where near as close as election night pundits led us to believe.

And here is a county by county map that shows that. The bluer the county, the larger the Obama lead, and vice versa: the redder the county the larger the Romney lead. Look at all the blue.

Send that map to your conservative idiot friends. It might be the thing to finally drive them over the edge.

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds most Americans support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, 57% to 39%, an issue that may be gaining traction in Congress in the aftermath of the elections. Meanwhile, 51% support gay marriage, slightly more than half for the fifth time straight in ABC/Post polls since March 2011.

Chuck Todd at First Read on how the Republicans got crushed on the issues too:

“For all the talk about how Mitt Romney and the Republicans lost when it came to demographics, the turnout, and the tactics, the exit polls also show that they lost when it came to the issues.”

“For years, the GOP has branded itself as the party that supports low taxes (especially for the wealthy) and opposes abortion and gay marriage. But according to the exit polls from last week’s presidential election, a combined 60% said that tax rates should increase either for everyone or for those making more than $250,000. Just 35% said the tax rates shouldn’t increase for anyone.”

“What’s more, 59% said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. And by a 49%-to-46% margin, voters said that their states should legally recognize same-sex marriage.”

Charlie Cook:

“It’s certainly true that 51 percent (rounding up from 50.5) to 48 percent is close, but since the end of World War II, five elections have been closer. Mitt Romney won only two more states (Indiana and North Carolina) than John McCain did, and even if he had won Florida, the GOP nominee would still have needed to win Ohio, Virginia, and either Colorado or Iowa, based on the sequence of the election margins.”

“The danger for Republicans clinging to that solace is that it sidesteps the inconvenient truth that they have now lost the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections, from 1992 on. For the GOP, this was more than one bad night.”

A new Quinnipiac poll in Virginia finds that if Sen. Mark Warner (D) wants his old job as governor back next year, he’s the overwhelmingly favorite. Warner beats Lt. Bill Gov. Bolling (R), 53% to 33%, and tops Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R), 52% to 34%. If Terry McAuliffe (D) is the Democratic candidate, he edges Bolling, 38% to 36%, and Cuccinelli, 41% to 37%.

Potential candidates in Massachusetts “are quietly scrambling to position themselves to run for Sen. John Kerry’s seat if President Obama appoints Kerry to be his next secretary of state, or secretary of defense,” the Boston Globe reports.

A Senate vacancy would probably create a comeback scenario for Senator Scott Brown, the Republican who lost the seat to Democrat Elizabeth Warren in last week’s election. He has sent clear signals in his concession speech and in recent interviews that he has an eye on another run.

Among the high-profile Democratic officeholders who are expressing interest are three of the state’s congressmen: Edward J. Markey of Malden, the 66-year old dean of the congressional delegation; Michael E. Capuano of Somerville, who ran second to Martha Coakley in the 2009 Senate primary; and Stephen F. Lynch of South Boston, a conservative Democrat who won his seat in a 2001 special election in which several liberals divided the vote on the left.

Unless the law is changed back to allowing the Governor to appoint the Senator, who would then serve until 2014, if Kerry resigns to become a Secretary, there will be a special election in 2013.

Less than 12 hours after his concession speech to Tammy Duckworth (D), Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) told the Daily Herald he was not ruling out a future bid for governor or U.S. Senate.

Said Walsh: “You know that I believe fervently in that vision. I don’t know of many other candidates who articulate that vision. Am I going to do something? Oh gosh, I don’t know. People approach me every day and ask, ‘Walsh, are you going to run for the governor? Are you going to run for Senate?’ I want to do my part to lead a movement to present a vision to this. I’d rather go down fighting. Democrats have ruined this state but they’ve been able to do it because the Republicans have allowed them to.”

What horrible evil polling organization is punishing us (or in my case) delighting us with these early polls? Why, it is PPP, the most accurate polling organization in the United States. In Iowa, Hillary Clinton gets 58% in the Democratic caucuses, with Joe Biden coming in second at 17%, New York governor Andrew Cuomo coming in third at 6%, and senator-elect Elizabeth Warren at 3%. Nobody else hit 1%. If Clinton decides to sit it out, Biden jumps to 40%, with Cuomo at 14% and Warren at 9%. In New Hampshire, location of the first primary, Clinton’s lead over Biden is even larger: 60% to 10%.

Missing from this list is any mention of Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, the one candidate that we know is running. The reason for that is name recognition. He has none and Clinton and Biden have it all. The upside of the Democratic polls in Iowa and New Hampshire is that if Clinton wants it, the nomination is hers. And yes, some said that in 2008. But it wasn’t true then because a lot of Democratic Party activists and voters had doubts about her. I was one of them. I don’t have any doubts any more. While the field will not be cleared, if Hillary runs, she wins this time. End of story.

On the Republican side, in Iowa, Mike Huckabee is at 15%, followed by a three-way tie at 12% for Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie. Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum came in at 11% and 10% respectively. In New Hampshire, it’s Christie with 21%, Rubio 14%, Condoleeza Rice 13%, Bush 11%, Ryan (10%).

About the Author ()

Comments (37)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jason330 says:

    Democrats need to do three things:
    1) Get out the vote in 2014 midterms
    2) Get out the vote in 2014 midterms, and
    3) Get out the vote in 2014 midterms

    “If Clinton decides to sit it out, Biden jumps to 40%,”

    I hope Biden isn’t reading these polls. Great VP, awesome ticket-mate. Terrible top of the ticket.

    Go Hillary!

  2. Delaware Dem says:

    Here’s the thing about 2016:

    1. I think President Obama has promised that he will gift his campaign operation and all its bells and whistles and turnout operation to Hillary.

    2. I think Joe Biden will not run.

    3. I think Hillary will run.

    4. If Hillary doesn’t run, I still don’t think Biden runs.

    5. Without Hillary in the race, I think we are left with a Cuomo-O’Malley-Schweitzer-Warren race, with Cuomo the likely winner. Cuomo-Warren?

  3. Dave says:

    And along the way, I would like to have effective governance. I mean winning is cool and all, but there needs to be a purpose to it.
    1. Immigration reform
    2. National debt reduction
    3. Getting government out the marriage business and establishing standards for civil/contractual unions between parties
    4. Anti terrorism activities
    5. Reducing unwanted pregnancy

    Stuff like that.

  4. socialistic ben says:

    This data tells me that in 2 or so presidential elections, North Carolina will be a reliable blue state. It is a lot like PA, as its sane population centers grow, and its inbred middle areas vanish….. we’ll Ol’ Dixie is fading indeed. I also think texas is about 14 years away from true blue.

    I hope Biden either retires, or runs against the Smooth Criminal…. how great would THAT be?1 i dont even really know how he would do as NCC exec, but it would still be a fun race. I also dont want to have to nominate Hillary. Same feelings as in 08 that caused me to really take a serious look at Edwards… then decide he was too charming, and then get behind that senator with the unfortunate middle name. She was a great senator, has been a fantastic Sec of State, and although people think im crazy… I would like to see her on the Court. It’s just the idea of ANOTHER Clinton, i fear it would make people OK with the idea of another Bush… not the people who read THIS blog, butt-hurt people who are going to get offended by that, but your “average joe” who has a 3 year memory span. We need ot be pushing the idea of new blood and fresh leadership. That “next in line” BS is for the GOP.

  5. Jason330 says:

    I’d love to see Clinton (Bill) be offered a seat on the court. Hillary… She wants to run for Prez and win. I get that she would make it too many people named either Clinton or Bush, but I’m getting to be okay with it.

  6. Jason330 says:

    “2. National debt reduction” is a bogus issue. Bring back a rational progressive tax and it takes care of itself. We learned that from Bill Clinton.

  7. puck says:

    Bill Clinton is disbarred from the Supreme Court, which seems kind of quaint now. Wrong job for him anyway.

  8. Delaware Dem says:

    @Jason. NO! Bill Clinton is 66 years old and too old for the Court now. All nominees have to be in the late 40’s-early 50’s age group so that they get to serve a good two to three decades. Bill will make a fine First Gentleman.

    @Dave. Yes, yes. But it is not as fun to talk about.

    @Ben. Agree on North Carolina. With regards to Texas, 14 years away, which by the way will be 2026, not a presidential year, but sweet Jesus, it is the year I turn 50. Holy shit. Way too far away to make predictions.

  9. puck says:

    “1. Immigration reform”

    I’m for some type of amnesty but only if we also turn off the jobs magnet with strong employer sanctions. Without that then nothing is reformed – no deal.

    We need to rebuild American participation in our low-skilled blue collar jobs, and put the illegal employers either on the straight and narrow, or out of business.

    The only safe harbor for employers should be a clean E-Verify ticket; otherwise the business gets the hammer. None of this “He showed me a fake ID” crap anymore.

    I’m also for full and immediate rights under any amnesty. None of this “pay a fine, halfway second-class status” where workers can still be exploited, lowering standards and wages for everyone. If we legalize the illegals, employers must have to deal with them having full rights under US law including labor law, and full access to representation.

  10. puck says:

    Also a stronger, larger, and well-supervised migrant farm worker program separate from any amnesty status.

  11. Linda says:

    I vote for puck!!!!

  12. Steve Newton says:

    Polling!! Cool. Is Romney still losing?


    1. Path to citizenship for those here now
    2. Green cards automatically to college grads
    3. Easier/quicker cheaper citizenship for everybody
    4. Gradually (or even rapidly) increase quotas, particularly from Latin America

  13. cassandra_m says:

    Bill Clinton is 66 years old and too old for the Court now.

    HOWEVER — Bill Clinton on the Supreme Court might make most of the “conservative movement” spontaneously combust. That would be totally worth it, IMO.

  14. Delaware Dem says:


    I agree with all your points. There really is a libertarian/liberal coalition or agreement on a number of issues.

  15. Liberal Elite says:

    @DD “Bill Clinton is 66 years old and too old for the Court now.”

    I think we’re more likely to see Hillary on the USSC.

    The Republicans won’t block that nomination out of fear…

  16. V says:

    I think this discussion of Hilary on the SCOTUS is insane. It’d be the Harriet Meyers move of the Obama administration if she did it. Sure she was a lawyer another lifetime ago (and technically you don’t need judicial experience) but we’ve come to expect a certain level of judicial scholarship from our candidates that Hilary ain’t got. Politics is what she’s good at.

  17. jason330 says:

    It would also seem like President Obama is trying to work some nomination shenanigans.

  18. Liberal Elite says:

    So what? If she’s blocked, she runs for President and wins.

    What this move does is raise her visibility and keeps it high. And there are a whole lot of people who would be MORE likely to vote for Hillary if it perceived that the GOP is treating her unfairly.

  19. V says:

    I honestly think that a failed nomination would HURT a future presidential campaign. “who does she think she is? she hasn’t practiced law in decades and she wants to skip ahead of everyone because she’s a clinton?” etc.

    She’s done a FABULOUS job building up a solid foreign policy resume and street cred these last four years. I think a much better way to keep her in the public eye is to do some serious work for the clinton charity and raise money like nobody’s business.

    the GOP will treat her unfairly regardless, so those people will get that feeling anyway.

  20. Delaware Dem says:

    Hillary won’t be nominated for the Supreme Court. It’s just not going to happen.

    But here is an interesting thought: the most likely retirement this year at the end of the Court’s session in June will be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I think the President takes pride in appointing two women to the Court, and in the fact that there are three women on the Court now, and so I wonder if he will be under pressure, from himself or others, to appoint another woman. I think he will.

    The frontrunner then would be California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris. She is 48 years old. And she is African American, and is also of Asian and Indian heritage.

    Justice Stephen Breyer is 74 and will also likely retire.

    So Obama will get the chance to completely refresh the liberal wing of the Court. The question now becomes, will Kennedy and Scalia retire? Both are 76. Both would probably want a Republican President to nominate their replacement, especially Scalia. But who knows. If either one retires, Obama could usher in a new Liberal Era for the Court.

  21. duty says:

    “The Republicans won’t block that nomination out of fear…”

    Fear of what?

    “What this move does is raise her visibility and keeps it high. And there are a whole lot of people who would be MORE likely to vote for Hillary if it perceived that the GOP is treating her unfairly.”

    Aahhh, the ole sympathy vote or the victim vote or the war on women vote. People are more inclined to vote for a person that is perceived to be a strong leader or as Chris Matthews says looks presidential. Of course perception is the new reality.

  22. Liberal Elite says:

    Retire? Probably not willingly.

    Based on current US mortality rates by age, there’s a better than 50% chance that at least one of the four conservative justices won’t survive to the next presidential election.

    But that analysis ignores the fact that they have access to the best healthcare available.

  23. Liberal Elite says:

    @duty “Aahhh, the ole sympathy vote or the victim vote or the war on women vote.”

    …not just that. Has losing to Obama made Hillary look weak? Has fighting with the GOP over healthcare and losing made Hillary look weak?

    Fighting with the GOP is not going to hurt Hillary. Anyone who thinks so is ignorant of modern political realities.

    And not fighting with the GOP and showing deference? That’s like Obama’s first debate performance.

    In Obama’s first debate, he “looked” more “Presidential” than he did in the later debates, but we all know how that turned out. Looking presidential isn’t worth as much as you think.

  24. kavips says:

    Well, if we demolish Republicans in the 2014 elections, we could get a Constitutional amendment out to the states allowing for a three termed president.

  25. Aoine says:

    @puck…… The world stopped rotating…… I . Agree. With . You. Prettyi much all the way

    With ONE exception…..

    Just make eVerify a lot more accurate…… and the issue with it is … although the documents presented maybe valid

    You have no way to ensure that the presenter is the person on said documents… eVerify has some flaws

    But I got your drift and like it…..

  26. Dave says:

    eVerify is already 99% accurate and no system will ever achieve 100% accuracy. As long as there is a recourse system when it spits out the wrong answer then the system of systems can achieve 100% accuracy.

    Amnesty can only be discussed in context of violation of the law. Entering the U.S. illegally is a crime. The justice system can choose to not prosecute, arrange a plea deal (i.e. a nominal fine), or any number of other alternatives. That resolves the crime aspect of the equation.

    Now you deal with the immigration aspect. You provide immediate green cards? Green cards with a path to citizenship? Worker visas? and other various options. It does not have to be one size fits all. Some illegal immigrants are just here for work. They may eventually want to stay or may return home to their family and friends. So any program needs to accomodate the desire of the illegal immigrant and their families integrated with the needs of the nation.

  27. Liberal Elite says:

    @Dave “Entering the U.S. illegally is a crime.”

    And even that can be misleading. Does a child commit a crime if his parents bring him in?

    I don’t think that meets the definition of crime… certainly not for a young minor. A crime has to be a deliberate and willful act.

  28. puck says:

    Steve and DD – Under your liberaltarian coalition plan, is there anybody in the world who can’t come to America (legally or not), get a job, and eventually become a citizen? Should our labor market be completely unprotected?

  29. puck says:

    “Amnesty can only be discussed in context of violation of the law. ”

    Amnesty in this case is just shorthand for a number of things that do not really amount to the definition of amnesty. I know that. It’s not so much about avoiding prosecution; in this context it means illegals gain the right to work legally and freedom from the risk of being deported.

    Steve and DD – in your liberaltarian coalition, is there anybody in the world who can’t come to the US (legally or illegaly) to get a job and become a citizen?

    Should there be any protection at all for our labor market, or should it just be open to all global citizens?

  30. puck says:

    I have a few comments and a question for Steve and DD that were inexplicably marked as spam and failed to post.

  31. duty says:

    “Well, if we demolish Republicans in the 2014 elections, we could get a Constitutional amendment out to the states allowing for a three termed president.”

    That’s about as dumb as talking about seceeding from the states.

  32. pandora says:

    Found them, Puck. Sorry!

  33. Delaware Dem says:

    @Puck, you ask

    in your liberaltarian coalition, is there anybody in the world who can’t come to the US (legally or illegaly) to get a job and become a citizen?

    The path to citizenship, or amnesty, or whatever else you want to call it, is only for those undocumented people, or illegals, or aliens or whatever you want call them, that are here in the U.S. now. The regular immigration process, which Steve and I want to reform as well, would apply to everyone else.

    We want to reform it to make it more efficient, more streamlined, more “user-friendly” but not make it easy to immigrate. And in raising the quotas for Central and South America is long overdue. In fact the disparity between the quotas for Europe vs. Africa and Latin America is almost racist at this point.

    But a quota is a quota: it means once you reach it for a year, the doors close. Meaning no more for the year. So your rather xenophobic question is moot. Yes, there will be those who cannot immigrate.

  34. Dave says:

    @LE “And even that can be misleading. Does a child commit a crime if his parents bring him in?”

    No. Certainly not. That’s why I said it can’t be one size fits all. Amnesty would not apply to child brought here by their parents because they committed no crime. So, they don’t need amnesty. Yet, they are still here illegally. So now that needs to be made right.

    Generally, I don’t like the blanket use of the word “amnesty” broadly applied, because it is being used to encompass those for which amnesty is not required. I prefer to be more precise in the language because because in relation to immigration there are many types of situations to be dealt with.

  35. Steve Newton says:

    There are two questions inherent in your post: who (or how many) should come here and what do they represent?

    As for who should come here, it is important to note that immigration is always the result of both push and pull factors. Some factors (political repression, poor economic opportunity) push people to leave where they are; other factors (often the direct opposite) create the “pull” to go to a particular place. The US in a recession (or whatever we are calling our current condition) creates fewer “pull” factors because there is less disposable money in the gray or black market, and more competition for that which remains by American citizens. Remember the old canard, “they do the jobs Americans won’t, and accept the low pay that Americans won’t?” Not true during economic downturns.

    More to the point, what do immigrants represent? Someone put the dichotomy this way a few years ago: Do immigrants come here as one new mouth to feed (takers) or two new hands to work (makers). In areas like church outreach to immigrant populations and others, my experience with illegal/undocumented individuals is that they are overwhelmingly interested in working. Some people complain that “they send all their money back to Mexico” and therefore out of our economy. Many of them tell me that if they had any way to bring their families here legally, they would become American citizens.

    In a country build on immigration and the possibilities that new peoples and new cultures create, I am not willing to pull up the gangplanks and declare the boat full.

  36. puck says:

    So how do you keep from needing to legalize a new batch of 20 million illegal immigrants in another eight to ten years or so? Because word will spread around the world that you can illegally enter America and become an employed citizen. Who wouldn’t take advantage of that deal?

    I’m down with the humanitarian impulse, but I would like to save a little compassion for those low-skilled Americans who are now forced to compete with exploited labor and their lowered wage scales, and who are the subject of repeated political disruption over unemployment benefits. I don’t see how your tolerant policies would ease that situation.

    Republicans are halfway right on immigration. They are now grudgingly willing to accept an amnesty, but they also recognize the need to close the door once the amnesty period ends. Unfortunately they want to close the door by “securing the border” by building fences and harassing brown people.

    That’s where I disagree. I want to secure the border by harassing illegal employers.

    Is there anything in the liberaltarian policy that would close the door after amnesty? Or is it the intent to keep the door open for the next round of amnesty?

  37. puck says:

    Steve and DD – I’m OK with reforming legal immigration with some reasonable expansion of quotas. That is a good idea. But that’s not what “immigration reform” means today. If you don’t believe me, take amnesty out of the reform proposal and see who screams.