Presidential prediction: The candidate who defies history and wins will be . . .
History and the numbers say Barack Obama will be re-elected tomorrow. History and the intangibles suggest Mitt Romney will unseat him. Which will prevail?
Let’s look at each.
The numbers have moved solidly in Obama’s favor. He caught Romney in the Real Clear Politics average of national opinion polls on Halloween after trailing for the better part of the previous three weeks. More importantly, he holds leads — usually narrow leads, but leads nonetheless — in enough swing states to push him past the threshold of 270 electoral votes (EVs).
There’s been much parsing of the polls this year, much of it focused on the partisan-ID breakdowns that various pollsters were using. A poll of “likely voters” inherently tells us something about who the pollster believes will actually bother to vote, and that’s as much art as it is science. Many pollsters have been forecasting an electorate similar to that of 2008, a wave election that saw Obama rack up 365 EVs and the Democrats claim a huge majority in the House and, eventually if briefly, a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate.
It strikes me as very unlikely that the electorate will tip so heavily in favor of self-identifying Democrats again. That said, the pollsters would have to be very wrong for Romney to win enough states to capture the presidency. If you look at the RCP average for the swing states, he has a lead in states with a total of 235 EVs. For him to surpass 270, the polls would have to have been wrong by more than 2.8 percentage points on average — bumping his total to 285 EVs.
One of the last states that would flip to him in that scenario would be Ohio. That’s ominous because no Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio.
On the other hand, Obama arguably has an even tougher historical precedent to overcome. Only two presidents have won re-election with a smaller number of EVs. The first was Woodrow Wilson in 1916, who had captured an excessive number of states in 1912 because William Howard Taft and Teddy Roosevelt split so many votes on the right. That won’t be the case in this year’s election. In the event, Wilson did increase his share of the popular vote, from 41.8 percent in 1912 to 49.2 percent in 1916.
The second was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won a larger margin in both the popular vote and the Electoral College in his first re-election (1936) but tapered off in his third and fourth presidential victories (1940 and 1944) — situations that aren’t really analogous to Obama’s seeking a second term.
Barring a huge turn of events, Obama is not going to repeat his 2008 performance in terms of EVs or the popular vote (he won 52.7 percent of the latter four years ago). So his re-election would be fairly historic.
Why do presidents almost never win re-election with smaller majorities? Maybe it’s a matter of a small sample size; only 15 men have ever been elected to two or more consecutive terms as president. Or maybe voters tend to decide the incumbent either deserves re-election or doesn’t, and move either decisively in his direction or away from it.
If it’s the latter, almost every other measure of this contest favors Romney. Enthusiasm has been higher among Republicans almost uniformly. Obama breaks even in approval ratings — at best — and has lost his edge in favorability. Self-described independent voters have favored Romney — often by double-digit margins — in most polls, regardless of the top-line leader.
The states that moved into the “tossup” category during the past month are states the Democrats once considered comfortably in Obama’s column: The action toward the end of the campaign, in terms of spending and appearances by the candidates and their surrogates, has been in traditionally blue states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Early and absentee voting totals in most swing states, particularly in the specific areas of those swing states he’s counting on the most, point to a shift away from Obama compared to his totals in 2008. Seven of the 10 swing states according to RCP have elected GOP governors since 2008, and an eighth (North Carolina) is expected to do so Tuesday.
In short, the numbers are what they are — but anyone looking for reasons not to believe the poll numbers can find plenty of them.
My head tells me Obama will be re-elected. My gut tells me this hasn’t looked like the kind of campaign an incumbent wins.
My gut tells me the surge Obama has seen in national polls during the past week comes from voters he wasn’t going to lose to Romney, but could have lost to apathy, who will show up and cast ballots for him — but mostly in states he was going to win anyway. My gut tells me we might be seeing a repeat of 2000, when it looked like the Democrat would win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote, only for the scenario to flip in the final days.
My gut tells me Romney picks up North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Colorado and at least one of Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania — and will become the 45th president of the United States.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
487 comments Add your comment
mike
November 5th, 2012
8:16 pm
EVERYBODY’S HERE! Welcome to the land of wishful thinking! Let’s all polish up our spin machines for tomorrow night. OK, everybody! Repeat after me: ROMNEY’S GOING TO WIN! ROMNEY’S GOING TO WIN! ROMNEY’S GOING TO WIN! If that fails, you might try a few incantations. SOMETIMES that helps. What a pathetic farce!
Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American
November 5th, 2012
8:16 pm
No one blamed Obozo for the Dodd-Frank recession. Americans blamed him for his failed, idiotic, Marxist response.
$800 billion and unemployment higher today than when he took office.
Fail.
Candid Cameron
November 5th, 2012
8:17 pm
And if you think that the GOP lost in 2008 because of a LOUSY candidate and a NOVICE vice president, you obviously are too involved in your own party to see it objectively.
Palin was the darling of the tea party until the GOP grew tired of her embarrassing them….THIS YEAR.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 5th, 2012
8:18 pm
“So on the one hand, you rail against Obama, the socialist Marxist, and on the other, you admit that he cut taxes.”
And who are you addressing that to?
Cane89
November 5th, 2012
8:19 pm
Even as an Aftrican American man, I hope President Obaman does not win re-election; our economy is at a stand still and not getting any better. I am fortunate (blessed) to have used my God given talents to earn income sufficient enough to make charitable contributions and still pay too much money in federal taxes. Like Romney, if I given 30% of my income to charities that I support; the federal government should not ask me to pay more than others who make less to pay. To put the burden of the Nation of those who sacrifice, take more risks, and use their God given talents to earn an income for their families is wrong (both morally and spritually). Stop tyring to make everyone the same and applaud those who are favored and charitable.
Candid Cameron
November 5th, 2012
8:19 pm
I always get a chuckle when someone blames minority Congressmen for the demise of our nation. As if they didn’t need the GOP to pass the legislation, or the President not to veto it.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 5th, 2012
8:19 pm
“Tiberius, you know and I know that Democrats NEVER turn out the vote when the Presidency is not on the line.”
2000 and 2004 would say that you are very, very wrong, Cameron.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 5th, 2012
8:23 pm
“And if you think that the GOP lost in 2008 because of a LOUSY candidate and a NOVICE vice president, you obviously are too involved in your own party to see it objectively.”
First, you need to learn something about me. I’m not a Republican. In fact, I usually vote Libertarian or None of the Above in Presidential elections.
Second, a better set of candidates would have made it a much closer election than it ended up being. Obama would have still likely won, but he was blessed with McCain and Palin.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 5th, 2012
8:23 pm
And an electorate too dumb to know how inexperienced and unprepared for the Presidency he actually was (and remains).
Candid Cameron
November 5th, 2012
8:24 pm
That would be 2002 and 2006, Tiberius. Off-presidential election years.
And it looks like I had a Kyle moment. My gut told me that Dems have lost consistently in these elections, but the reality differs. My bad.
Candid Cameron
November 5th, 2012
8:27 pm
Sorry, Tiberius. Didn’t realize you weren’t a partisan. I don’t think much of Democrats, but I have no stomach for Republicans. In other words, I live my life in a perpetual state of political misery.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 5th, 2012
8:28 pm
“I always get a chuckle when someone blames minority Congressmen for the demise of our nation. As if they didn’t need the GOP to pass the legislation, or the President not to veto it.”
You need to brush up on your Congressional history, Cameron.
The House was in Democrat hands beginning in 2006. That means that “minority” congressman was Chairman of the House Banking committee for two years before the recession hit (blocking requested reforms of Fannie and Freddie, btw) and Dodd was a member of the Democrat majority party in the Senate as well – doing the same thing on that side of the aisle.
political arsonist
November 5th, 2012
8:29 pm
you are getting almost funny as noot. oh yeah, you voted for the chubby moon man
Stephenson Billings
November 5th, 2012
8:30 pm
As always, it will come down to turnout. If the Dem/Republican turnout is about 35/35 or close to it and Romney just gets half of the projected independent vote he’s polling to get, he’ll win in a landslide.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
November 5th, 2012
8:30 pm
Look before you leap
You and Finn are always castigating the red states.
My theory is, the difference is in the Democrat portion of these states, the GOP portion is about the same. Have you ever considered that the difference in income and education may be that our Dems are poorer and less educated than the Dems in the blue states. Blue states have more Dems, obviously they are blue, but a better paid more educated class of Dems(union folk), red states just have more government dole uneducated Dems.
The difference being poorer schools, less value put on education, and less unions equal less income for the uneducated.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 5th, 2012
8:30 pm
“Sorry, Tiberius. Didn’t realize you weren’t a partisan.”
Oh, I’m a partisan, Cameron, just not one tied to a particular party. I’m a social liberal and a fiscal conservative who would like nothing better than the smallest government possible.
td
November 5th, 2012
8:32 pm
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer’s ineptocracy
November 5th, 2012
8:11 pm
td
It is Scott Walker, in WI and Rick Scott in FL.
You are correct. Thank you for the correction.
Count Down
November 5th, 2012
8:35 pm
“The House was in Democrat hands beginning in 2006.”
100% false
The election of 2006 took place in November, which is the next to the last month of the year. That lead to the House changing hands in Jan 07.
Might be best for you to look at Congressional history before calling out others to do the same.
What else can I assist you with this evening?
Candid Cameron
November 5th, 2012
8:35 pm
Tiberius
Not to ask you to condense your politics in 50 words or less, but how can one be socially liberal and fiscally conservative? Being socially liberal….costs….money.
Count Down
November 5th, 2012
8:37 pm
The 2006 United States House of Representatives elections were held on November 7, 2006 to elect members to the United States House of Representatives. All of the 435 seats in the House were up for election. Those elected served in the 110th United States Congress from January 3, 2007 until January 3, 2009. The incumbent majority party, the Republican Party had controlled the house since the 1994 election and were defeated by the Democrats who won a majority in the House ending 12 years in opposition.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
November 5th, 2012
8:39 pm
Being socially liberal….costs….money.
Candid, not true. It costs nothing to leave people alone, socially liberal people only want the government out of their life. I am one as well.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 5th, 2012
8:41 pm
Pardon me for getting my dates wrong Count Down (I meant the election of 2006).
You can stop being a butt-hole now.
Count Down
November 5th, 2012
8:42 pm
Tiberius
Guess you never read your own posts.
You reply as you wish and I will do the same.
Your welcome.
Candid Cameron
November 5th, 2012
8:43 pm
What happens to America if the trend towards the erosion of the middle class continues, and wealth continues to elevate to the few? Are the resulting poor SOL?
Just asking.
michelle
November 5th, 2012
8:44 pm
thanks kyle! Romney will win tomorrow!
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 5th, 2012
8:45 pm
“Not to ask you to condense your politics in 50 words or less, but how can one be socially liberal and fiscally conservative? Being socially liberal….costs….money.”
Nope, not if your small government belief is primary. But in 50 words or less:
I will never try to take your life, liberty or property through the use of force or fraud, and simply ask you to do me the same favor. Abort or don’t, marry or don’t – I don’t care. Just leave me and my paycheck and lifestyle (as boring as it is) alone.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 5th, 2012
8:54 pm
“What happens to America if the trend towards the erosion of the middle class continues, and wealth continues to elevate to the few? Are the resulting poor SOL?”
Two points:
First, on the erosion of the middle class. Government statistics on poverty show that the percentage of people living in poverty hovers between 13% and 18%, and has since the advent of the Great Society enacted by LBJ. That means that untold trillions of dollars have been spent on the poor to elevate them out of poverty and the result is – no real change. So if the middle class is, indeed, shrinking, where did they go? Not lower, as the government even says they didn’t.
The only other direction is – UP.
To your second point, the resulting poor have a safety net that isn’t going to go away, despite what liberals and Obama supporters say. And frankly, given the relative standard of living of the poor in the US vs. the poor in other countries, the poor here aren’t as bad off as many think. Don’t get me wrong; they aren’t living the life of Reilly, but they’re not at death’s door, either.
My issue is with the unfettered expansion of the safety net. People need to try every non-government solution first before heading to the government for support, but it’s the other way around and has been trending in the wrong direction for decades. That needs to stop.
Tyler
November 5th, 2012
8:54 pm
ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sixfootgirl
November 5th, 2012
9:02 pm
Thank you for a thoughtful column. It’s so nice to read measured commentary.
I agree with many of your assessments, except your conclusion. I think Sandy, the Bloomberg endorsement and the bi-partisan showing in New Jersey may have stirred a huge group of apathetic, or maybe I should say resigned, potential voters. I think Obama may win by as big a margin as before.
And I think Alabama will crush Georgia if it comes to a showdown in December!
Del
November 5th, 2012
9:04 pm
My boo, sounds like you’re defecating in one hand while wishing in the other. Rub your hands together tomorrow evening to find what you might have all over your wishes. Good luck.
Del
November 5th, 2012
9:06 pm
Believe in America, believe in NOBAMA.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 5th, 2012
9:06 pm
Sixfootgirl, why do you believe that an endorsement of the mayor of NYC would have any effect outside of NY?
Del
November 5th, 2012
9:09 pm
Bloomturd’s endorsement of Obama isn’t likely to have any effect on the national election.
Progressive Humanist
November 5th, 2012
9:12 pm
Kyle shows his true conservative stripes- he makes his pick not on the evidence in front of him but instead on what he wants the outcome to be. And I had thought he was not quite as divorced from reality as the ignorant masses who are his party’s base. Yes, he tiptoed around the issue and equivocated, but he chose to reject reason and side with unsubstantiated opinion. Maybe he actually does have a future in conservative punditry.
godawgs82
November 5th, 2012
9:13 pm
Count on it. Romney gets at least 300 electoral votes.
Everyone who voted for McCain votes Romney.
Not everyone who voted Obama votes for Obama again. And some who voted for Obama won’t vote for either candidate (ie won’t vote at all). Guaranteed.
jconservative
November 5th, 2012
9:15 pm
Kyle – “My gut tells me Romney picks up North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Colorado and at least one of Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania — and will become the 45th president of the United States.”
Kyle I would say your “heart”, not your gut, is picking Romney.
But truthfully, it is to close to call.
I have been playing with the RealClear poll averages for a few weeks. The move toward Romney I was seeing is now gone. Obama is up in 8 of the 12 states I am following. And there is no movement in the last 4 days. The numbers just sit there unchanged.
Romney will not carry any of “Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania”. He may lose Colorado also. But even without Colorado I have Obama with 281 EVs with a strong possibility of losing New Hampshire which would still give him 277 EVs.
I am Catholic and we Catholics need Romney to win. But it appears Obama will win and we will need to win the several dozen lawsuits already filed. SCOTUS we are on the way!
Count Down
November 5th, 2012
9:15 pm
“Real wages” in regards to the middle class wages have been stagnant for numerous years.
Anyone pointing to one party is not really thinking.
cc
November 5th, 2012
9:21 pm
Del@7:45 pm:
You and I are on the same page. Romney will win, and he will win BIG! I really am looking forward to getting the first decent night’s sleep Wednesday night that I will have had since November, 2008.
JKL2
November 5th, 2012
9:27 pm
For those voting for love of country instead of for revenge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsa4uLmTw0M
cc
November 5th, 2012
9:28 pm
“I think Sandy, the Bloomberg endorsement and the bi-partisan showing in New Jersey may have stirred a huge group of apathetic, or maybe I should say resigned, potential voters. I think Obama may win by as big a margin as before”
Oh, yeah, New York and New Jersey are really states that are considered “in play”! No one outside of New Jersey and New York give a rat’s rear end what Bloomblossom and a bi-partisan New Jersey thinks or does.
roswell mom
November 5th, 2012
9:30 pm
Tiber – Yes, some people are relatively poor and the percentage hasn’t changed all that much. Of course, the definition of “poor” changes over time, so you’re pretty much going to have the bottom 15% being the bottom 15% no matter how much or little they earn. What has changed greatly over time is the percentage of total income going to the top 1% of households. These are the people that whine that the government wants too much from them because they’re creating all these jobs and are so good for society. If life is so unfair for them, why are the rich getting richer at a faster rate in the USA than in any other first world country?
teaching taxpayer
November 5th, 2012
9:32 pm
Kyle, I hope your conclusions are proven incorrect, but I respect your honesty in telling how you derived them. Right now, we’re all guessing who will win. Anybody who says otherwise is selling snake oil.
roswell mom
November 5th, 2012
9:32 pm
Chippy Mitt waiting for good things in Missouri:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxMD02zU9SE
zeke
November 5th, 2012
9:39 pm
Hope you are correct, Kyle! Another 4 years of this idiot coupled with Pelosi and Reid might just end this grand experiment!!!!
My boo
November 5th, 2012
9:40 pm
Why can’t Mitt screw in a light bulb? He can’t decide which way to turn.
My boo
November 5th, 2012
9:45 pm
What does Ann wear to get Mitt in the mood? A pink slip.
jconservative
November 5th, 2012
9:49 pm
Nate Silver is out with his day before prediction:
Obama with 314 EVs and Romney with 224. Obama with a 91.4% chance of winning.
The question on the table if Romney loses is “How?”
ODD OWL
November 5th, 2012
10:08 pm
When Mittens Romney made those disparaging remarks about the 47th %, Little did Romney know that he was prophesying the percentage of votes that he will win tomorrow, 47%… Forward !!!
ODD OWL
November 5th, 2012
10:12 pm
Just for the record, its Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid…
JamVet
November 5th, 2012
10:15 pm
I really am looking forward to getting the first decent night’s sleep Wednesday night that I will have had since November, 2008.
Which might just explain the collective and perpetually enraged right wing hysteria and delusions!
My advice for you neocons – anti-depressants and lots of sleeping pills!
But also be good to yourselves! And treat yourselves to a new fainting couch after tomorrow night!