Public Policy Polling Analysis: An Early Look at the 2012 Electoral Map

PPP’s first in depth look at the 2012 electoral math finds that a very thin line separates an Obama Electoral College landslide from a narrow loss:

Mitt Romney's victory in Iowa last night may not have been very impressive, but it still increases the chances he will emerge as the Republican nominee in the end and that makes it worth taking a first look at the 2012 electoral map.

Over the course of 2011 PPP did at least 2 polls in 15 major swing states.  Here's how the Obama/Romney numbers averaged out, from the places where Obama's strongest to where he's weakest:

State	Our Poll Average	# of Polls
New Mexico	Obama +13	3
Wisconsin	Obama +8	4
Iowa	Obama +7	5
Michigan	Obama +6	2
Virginia	Obama +5	3
Colorado	Obama +5	3
Ohio	Obama +3	4
North Carolina	Obama +2	12
Florida	Obama +2	4
Pennsylvania	Obama +1	4
Nevada	Tie	4
New Hampshire	Romney +1	2
Missouri	Romney +2	3
Arizona	Romney +6	3
Montana	Romney +9	2

Note: I'm excluding 2 polls from these averages: a Virginia poll right after the killing of Osama bin Laden and an Ohio poll conducted of likely voters for the November referendum election. The referendum drew out a likely voter pool that's probably different from who will come out this November and polls taken right after the bin Laden killing are not a realistic gauge of where Obama stands right now.

If you go strictly by the averages Obama's in pretty good shape for reelection. Ceding Indiana (which we can't poll) to Romney, Obama gets 337 electoral votes to 195 for Romney with the 6 for Nevada on the table.

Here's the thing though: our polls and probably everyone's polls are actually worse for Obama than they look right now.  That's because a disproportionate number of the undecideds in Obama/Romney polling are Republicans. Romney's not their first choice for the nomination so they're being stubborn and saying they're undecided for the general, even though it's pretty much a certainty that they'll end up voting for the GOP nominee in the end. 

We saw this situation in reverse in 2008, where strong partisans of Obama and Clinton refused to say in early polls that they'd vote for the party nominee if their favored candidate didn't get it. Of course pretty much all of those folks ended up voting for Obama in the end.

Right now when you look at the undecideds in Obama/Romney nationally only 18% of them approve of Obama while 63% disapprove. Let's assume that for those remaining undecideds their vote ends up being a referendum on their feelings about the President. 8% of voters were undecided on our last national poll- if they went for Romney by 45 points that would mean a gain of 3.6% in his current poll standing. That sounds about right to me- if the election was today and people really had to go ahead and choose between Obama and Romney I think Romney would do 3-4 points better than he is in current horse race polls.

So let's say Romney does 4 points better than his current poll standing- that would add Nevada, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina to his electoral vote column based on our 2011 polls in those states. That would put him ahead of Obama 283-255 in the electoral college.

The fact that you can take the same set of polls and use them to put Obama at either 337 or 255 electoral votes speaks to how up in the air this year's Presidential race is. But Obama should find this heartening- he has 255 electoral votes locked up in states where we found him with at least a 5 point average poll lead in 2011.  If he can win just one out of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina that puts him over 270.

It's funny that for all the talk of the changing electoral map that Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are still the key states.  But Obama's continued strength in Virginia and Colorado now makes it so that he only needs to win one out of that trio of states to get to 270 electoral votes, where John Kerry and Al Gore both lost because of their inability to carry two of them.

Clearly there is a very wide range of possibilities for what will happen this fall but Obama's pretty well positioned to get to 270.

Here's one other interesting chart: how Obama's current polling standing compares to how he did in 2008, listed in order from where he's fallen the most to where he's fallen the least:

State	2008 Result	PPP Poll Average	Shift for Obama
Nevada	Obama +12	Tie	-12
New Hampshire	Obama +10	Obama -1	-11
Michigan	Obama +16	Obama +6	-10
Pennsylvania	Obama +10	Obama +1	-9
Montana	Obama -2	Obama -9	-7
Wisconsin	Obama +14	Obama +8	-6
Colorado	Obama +9	Obama +5	-4
Iowa	Obama +10	Obama +7	-3
Missouri	Tie	Obama -2	-2
New Mexico	Obama +15	Obama +13	-2
Florida	Obama +3	Obama +2	-1
Ohio	Obama +4	Obama +3	-1
Virginia	Obama +6	Obama +5	-1
Arizona	Obama -8	Obama -6	+2
North Carolina	Tie	Obama +2	+2

This analysis is also available on our website:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/looking-at-the-2012-electoral-map.html

Public Policy Polling Media Alert: Romney continues to be GOP favorite in New Hampshire, but Trump competitive

Full Press release and Crosstabs from Polls

Mitt Romney's still the clear early front runner to take the Republican primary in New Hampshire next year but for the first time in our polling of the race PPP finds someone within single digits of him...Donald Trump.

If Trump actually run 21% of New Hampshire GOP voters say they'd vote for him, compared to 27% for Romney. The key to Trump's relatively strong showing? He does well with birthers and Tea Partiers, two groups he has seemed to actively court with his public comments of late. 42% of primary voters firmly say they do not believe Barack Obama was born in the United States to 35% who believe that he was and 23% who aren't sure. Trump leads Romney 22-21 with the birther crowd, but Romney holds the overall lead because he's up by a much wider margin with the folks who dismiss the birther theory.

Trump also leads Romney 23-21 with the Republican primary voters who consider themselves to be Tea Party members but that's only 30% of the electorate and Romney's up by a good margin with the folks who don't identify with that movement.

If you take Trump out of the picture Romney maintains the customary wide lead he has shown in most polling of the state. On the standard Republican primary question we ask in every state Romney gets 31% to 15% for Mike Huckabee, 13% for Newt Gingrich, 10% for Sarah Palin and Ron Paul, 4% for Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty, and 2% for Haley Barbour.

We also asked about three other permutations of the race in which 1) Palin didn't run, 2) Huckabee didn't run, and 3) neither Huckabee nor Palin ran to get some idea of whether their supporters would consolidate around a single candidate and make that person a threat to Romney. That did not prove to be the case though. With Huckabee out of the picture Romney's lead just widens with him at 37% to 14% for Gingrich and Palin and 13% for Paul. It's a similar story with Palin out of the mix- Romney's support climbs to 35% with Huckabee at 14% and Paul and Gingrich at 13%. And even with both Huckabee and Palin out Romney leads with 40% to 18% for Paul and 17% for Gingrich.

There is one huge warning sign for Romney in this poll despite the leads he posts in every permutation though: 61% of primary voters say they would not be willing to vote for someone who supported a bill at the state level mandating that people have health insurance. In 5 of the 6 horse race questions we asked Romney still leads with those voters, suggesting that most Republicans who follow politics and the 2012 race only casually are not really aware of 'Romneycare.' It's safe to say they'll be well aware of it 9 months from now, and it's going to be interesting to see if Romney can sustain his support once he's been endlessly bashed over the head with it.

Your winners in this poll:

1) Romney- signs of vulnerability down the road notwithstanding you can't argue with leading every possible match up and by double digits in most cases.

2) Trump- it has to drive the people who've been running or at least laying the groundwork for a run for months nuts that he can just spout off some birther rhetoric and earn the best New Hampshire poll support anyone other than Romney's shown to date.

3) Paul- his favorability numbers are better than Gingrich, Huckabee, and Palin's and he has a double digit level of support in almost every match up we looked at, including a second place finish over Gingrich when you take Huckabee and Palin out of the mix.

Your losers in this poll:

1) Huckabee- these numbers give little indication that he's been able to build much on his weak 11% showing in the state in 2008, or that he would be particularly competitive with Romney even if Palin sat it out. His favorability is under 50% and not even that far above water at 48/36.

2) Palin- the fact that the best she can muster is a tie with Paul doesn't bode well for her prospects in the state if she ends up making a bad. Even if you take Huckabee out of the mix she still runs 23 points behind Romney, and her favorability of 51% is nothing to write home about.

3) Gingrich- his only real shot would seem to be if Palin and Huckabee don't run and their supporters unify around him against Romney. That's not happening at this point though- he only gains 4 points from 13% to 17% with them out of the mix while Romney actually sees a 9 point bump from 31% to 40%. And his favorability is weak as well at 45/36.

Bottom line in New Hampshire- Romney remains your favorite but there are some cracks there and the Donald could make things very, very interesting.

This analysis is also available on our blog:

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/04/romney-leads-in-nh-trump-makes-things.html

House Republican Office - Statement on House Vote to Kill Bill to Stop Cell Phones in Cars

CONCORD – House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon) and House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) offered the following statement following the House of Representatives vote to kill legislation (HB 546, sponsored by Rep. Laura Pantelakos [D-Portsmouth]) that would have outlawed cell phone use while driving.  New Hampshire currently has an existing law governing distracted drivers.

House Speaker William O’Brien

“We are the ‘Live Free of Die’ state for a reason.  New Hampshire citizens have consistently opposed these types of Nanny State laws that suggest that the state knows better than the people how they can run their lives.  The House has rightly rejected this intrusion into the lives of our residents.  We know how to drive responsibly without government telling us not to use a cell phone.”

House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt

“Once again, the Democrats have tried to take away our freedoms with a law to tell how we can or can’t drive.  That’s why the voters demanded change and gave Republicans a supermajority last November.  The House Republicans are making sure that we protect the liberties of New Hampshire residents and we will continue to stop these assaults when the Democrats bring them forward.”



Sponsor Of New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary Law Asks Democrats To Support Republican Position For 2012

(Republicans met earlier this month - Democrats meet later this week)

 

The Republican National Committee has approved a schedule for the 2012 Presidential election that respects New Hampshire's First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary, and the Democratic National Committee should follow them.   The RNC approach recognizes New Hampshire's state law which requires our Secretary of State to set our primary date "...7 days or more..." before other contests to guarantee our "first" status. 

 

The RNC adopted a schedule that respects New Hampshire's primary law at a meeting in early August.  It sets aside all of February of 2012 for four states to hold their primaries or caucuses:  New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada.  The Republican plan does not set specific dates.  That flexibility is crucial.  It allows the NH Secretary of State to apply NH law on the primary to maintain the traditions of our "First-In-The-Nation" status.  A Democratic National Committee panel has proposed that the Iowa Caucuses be held Monday, February 6th.  They then try to require the New Hampshire Primary to be on Tuesday February 14th, and the Nevada Caucuses would occur on Saturday, February 18th.  The Democrats meet later this week to finalize that proposal.

 

The Democrats meet later this week to finalize that proposal.  With the Democratic plan, we're guaranteed to have a challenge to New Hampshire's traditional First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary since it schedules the Nevada Caucus just four days after New Hampshire.  The mandate of our state law would have to be enforced by our Secretary of State and he would set our date at least a week before the Nevada Caucus, which means that Iowa, and perhaps other states, would then engage in a reshuffling of their schedules similar to the nightmare that occurred in 2008.  The Republican plan respects New Hampshire's law.

 

The DNC panel's recommendation creates a situation similar to 2008 where there was uncertainty as to what the primary and caucus schedule would be until late fall of 2007, resulting in reshuffling.   The traditional role of the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary has been that there is a period of seven days or more after New Hampshire before other nominating events are held, and our Secretary of State has used the mandates and authority of our state's first-in-the-nation primary law to set our date at a time that guarantees that tradition. 

 

That window of at least seven days after New Hampshire has been important to preserve the impact of our vote, which thereby makes participation in our Primary meaningful.  In 2008, since Iowa came just three days before New Hampshire, the relevance of their caucus was greatly reduced because New Hampshire Republican voters gave the nod to John McCain, who hadn't even taken part in the Iowa Caucus, and Democratic voters turned around the Iowa vote for Barack Obama by endorsing Hillary Clinton.  The New Hampshire Primary results were national news for two weeks after our vote, and the impact of NH was felt for the next five months as the campaigns continued.  In 2008, New Hampshire's impact was felt more than it had in decades.

 

The historic tradition has been that since 1920, New Hampshire has had its presidential primary at least seven days ahead of any other state.  When other states try to piggy-back on New Hampshire, we respond.  In 2012, we will have to do so again if the DNC schedule is not changed.  Our state law that we have a date a week or more ahead of other states must be followed by the Secretary of State.  He has no option.

 

We cannot allow the Democratic Party's Nevada Piggy-Back to occur, and we need to encourage our New Hampshire Democratic national party representatives to hold to a position that there will not be another major nominating event within a week after New Hampshire.  They should adopt the Republican approach.

 

Our state law mandates that our Secretary of State move our primary "...7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election..." .  Legislation that I sponsored this year that was signed by Governor John Lynch became effective August 8th (cut-and-pasted below) further requires the Secretary of State to "protect the tradition of the New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary." 

 

I expect that Secretary of State Bill Gardner will enthusiastically follow the requirements of our state law, and if the national Democratic Party doesn't join the Republicans in supporting our tradition in their rules, we will again have to comply with the mandate of our law to keep our state's tradition.  That "tradition" is AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS.  That uncertainty for 2012 about when our primary will be held can be largely solved by action by the national parties now.  The Republicans have acted positively.  Now the Democrats need to.

 

The decision about when the Iowa Caucus will be held eventually is to be determined by the people of the State of Iowa.  The decision about when the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary will be held is determined by our Secretary of State as he follows the mandates of our state law.  We need to ask the Democrats to join the Republicans in appreciating all the traditions of our primary.   

 

Jim Splaine

NH State Representative

Rockingham District 16

Portsmouth & Newington

Portsmouth, NH  03801

 

----------------------------------------------------

Rule #15(b) Adopted By The Republicans:

 

1.  No primary, caucus, or convention to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates to the national convention shall occur prior to the first Tuesday in March in the year in which a national convention is held.  Except Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada may begin their processes at any time on or after February 1 in the year in which a national convention is held ..."

 

The above is the part of the rules adopted by the Republican National Convention which affect the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary.  This language should be adopted by the Democratic National Convention as well.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

New Hampshire's Updated First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary Law:

 

House Bill 341, Signed by Governor John Lynch on June 9th, 2010, effective August 8th (the paragraph in the bill repeats the current long-standing NH First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary Law, which I originally sponsored in 1975 and to which I have authored three other updates since then):

 

CHAPTER 121 - HB 341 – FINAL VERSION - 2010 SESSION

HOUSE BILL 341

AN ACT relative to the date selected for the presidential primary election.

SPONSORS: Rep. Splaine, Rock 16

COMMITTEE: Election Law

ANALYSIS

This bill modifies the statute relating to the date for the presidential primary election.

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics (and underline).

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Ten

AN ACT relative to the date selected for the presidential primary election.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

121:1 Election Dates; Presidential Primary Election. Amend RSA 653:9 to read as follows:

653:9 Presidential Primary Election. The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose. The purpose of this section is to protect the tradition of the New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary.

121:2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

Approved: June 9, 2010

Effective Date: August 8, 2010



Rep. Bill O'Brien running for Speaker of the State House in January

Everyone, attached to this email is a copy of a recent letter sent out by Rep. Bill O'Brien (R - Mt. Vernon), a leader of the House Republican Alliance in the NH State House. The letter announces his run for Speaker of the House, and is well worth reading. O'Brien is a "New Republican." That is, he hearkens back to "Old Republican" values, with a philosophical grounding in Republican principles that were and are upheld by real Republicans of the past and present, including Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, as well as today's Jim DeMint, Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and, yes, Ron Paul.

O'Brien has a 100% House Republican Alliance score for both 2009 and 2910. He was awarded an A+ score by the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance (NHLA) for 2009 (and I would expect will get the same grade for 2010 when the scores are released at the NHLA annual dinner in July). He comes from a state house district that in 2008 had one Republican and four Democrats, with NHLA scores of "B" (the Republican), "F", "Constitutional Threat," and "F". Then O'Brien and his co-candidates engineered a victory in that district (Hillsborough #4) in the 2008 elections where only one Democrat remained. The 2009 NHLA scores for the district are "D-" (the one remaining Democrat), "A", "A+", and "A+". 

Rep. O'Brien speaks in his letter of the Republican Party becoming "the party of our promise --- one that will first and foremost govern this state according to the highest standards, and with fiscal prudence and respect for the rights of individuals." He also pledges to reverse the repeated rules violations that State House Democrats have repeatedly used to get excess spending and other harmful laws passed. "With respect to process, there can be no favorites and no violation of rules," says O'Brien. "That must end."

Finally. An honest Representative who will clean up the cesspool of lies, financial gimmicks and political scams that have been utilized by Gov. Lynch and the state legislature over the past six years in Concord. I highly recommend to everyone that you read Rep. O'Brien's attached letter, send him some money for his own campaign, and urge your own representatives---whether Republican or Democrat---to support and vote for him for Speaker of the House in January 2011.