New CNN Ohio poll: Obama 50%, Romney 46%
From CNN:
According to a CNN/ORC International survey released Friday [10/26], President Barack Obama holds a four point advantage over Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the contest for Ohio’s much fought over 18 electoral votes.
Fifty-percent of likely voters questioned in the poll say they are backing the president, with 46% supporting the former Massachusetts governor. Obama’s four point advantage is within the survey’s sampling error. The survey was conducted Tuesday through Thursday, entirely after Monday’s final presidential debate.
“The race in the Buckeye State is essentially unchanged since early October, when a CNN/ORC poll taken just after the first presidential debate also showed President Obama with a four-point margin over Governor Romney,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
[More from CNN]
The new poll indicates that Obama has a double digit lead among those who have already voted absentee or early ballot or plan to do so before Election Day, with Romney holding the edge among people who plan to cast their ballot on November 6.
According to the survey, the gender gap has tightened a bit, but the basic storyline remains the same. Obama holds a 56%-42% advantage among female voters, with the GOP challenger up 50%-44% among men.
“In other major demographic groups, the movement since early October has been in the expected direction, with Obama picking up ground among younger voters, lower-income voters and urban voters and losing support among older voters, suburbanites, and higher-income voters,” adds Holland. “Looking at age, for example, Obama has gained three points among voters under 50 years old since early October, but lost three points among voters who are 50 and older.”
The poll indicates Obama maintains a small but critical advantage among independent voters. In early October, he had a 50%-46% margin among independents — virtually identical to the 49%-44% edge he has today.
* * * *
Romney’s problem is apparent from the data: He hasn’t been able to cut into Obama’s lead in the Buckeye state. As consequential as the Denver debate appeared to be at the time, CNN’s indicates that Obama’s margin remains unchanged since the first debate. Some pundits have argued that most voters, in this polarized electorate, long ago made up their minds as to how they were going to vote, and few have changed their minds.
Those who find it difficult to believe that Obama is ahead might reflect that very few presidents who run for a second term lose. In the modern (post-1900) era, the only presidents who sought and failed to win reelection were William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter.
Uhh says:
And George H.W. Bush.
Reply »
Alan Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 7:55 am
And all except Hoover got beaten up in nasty primaries first.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:00 am
Burka,
How did you forget Bush 41? He’s the last incumbent president to lose.
If Obama wins reelection to a second term he’ll be the first one since I don’t know when to do so despite carrying fewer states and electoral votes than the first time. Look at Bush in 04, Clinton in 96, Reagan in 84, Nixon 72, Eisenhower 56, FDR 36, McKinley 00, etc and in each case they did better as incumbents (as you would expect.) I’ll have to look it up because I’m not sure when the last time a president was reelected with less electoral (or popular) votes than the first time. The fact that it may not have happened before may be one more sign that Obama is going to lose.
Reply »
paladin says:
3 out of the last 6 incumbents have lost
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:07 am
Hoover, Ford, Carter, and Bush 41 lost their bids for re-election, but Ford was running for a 1st full four-year term in ’76 having served two years of Nixon’s term.
Reply »
Red says:
If Obama wins, it’s the first time since Jefferson, Madison, Monroe that three presidents served full terms consecutively. If Obama wins, it’ll be the first time ever that an African-American president won re-election.
If Romney wins, it’ll likely be the first time a Republican won without Ohio. If Romney wins, it’ll be the first time a Mormon won the presidency. If Romney wins, it’ll be the first time since 9/11 that an incumbent president lost.
Aren’t trends fun?
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:11 am
Did my observation get a little under your skin, Red? Why else the retort with the silly and stupid “trends”?
I’m serious. When has a president won a second term with less support than in his first election? I’m going to have to check out Dave Leip’s Election Atlas site for the answer.
Reply »
Red Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
FDR, 1940, 1944
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Those were his 3rd and 4th terms.
Wille Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:45 am
It will also be the second underwhelming republican tool elected in century if Romney is elected. Only in America do we punish ourselves so.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:29 am
If Romney wins, he will be the 5th GOPer elected to the Presidency in the Post-LBJ era following Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43.
Ford doesn’t count because he wasn’t elected to either as VP or Prez (having lost a close one in 1976 presidential campaign).
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton says:
The bipartisan Battleground Poll projects Romney to win the popular vote 52-47 over Obama.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-poll-projects-romney-52-obama-47_658066.html
Reply »
Dave Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:15 am
Ummm, no.
http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/politico_gwbgp_oct29_questionnaire.html
Reply »
Kerfeld Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:38 am
Ummm, yes. Y’all are looking at two different things. Spiro sites the Battleground Poll’s vote election model and you are pointing to today’s daily tracking. Same polling company, but different sets of data. One shows Obama ahead by 1 pt in the daily tracking and the other is a model showing Romney winning the election 52-47.
Reply »
Dave Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:58 am
Can you provide a link to this 52-47 poll? Something from the pollsters, not something that points back to the Fred Barnes article? My link is not a daily tracking poll. It is a weekly that had Romney up two last week and has Obama up 1 this time.
Dave Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:13 am
Barnes updates: Obama leads the bipartisan poll done by Lake (D) and Torrance (R) by 1 among likely voters. Torrance also released a memo on his own interpretation, and finds a six point improvement for Romney even beyond the original likely voter screen.
In summary:
Bipartisan poll, Obama up 1, three point improvement over last week.
GOP memo on the same data, Romney up 5.
Blue Dogs Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:06 am
Spiro, has the Battleground poll been accurate in the last several presidential elections ?
Reply »
Tim Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:07 am
You can’t win an election 52-47. Ask any Democrat who voted for Gore.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Wrong, Tim. Gore won the popular vote by half a point (47.9 to 48.4) and that loss was purely because of the votes that went to Nader.
If the election is 52-47, Romeny is president. There’s absolutely no way for the EV winner to diverge from the popular vote winner with that scale of discrepancy. If its true it means the state polls that those predicting Obama’s victory are relying on are garbage.
Reply »
Timmy Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
TIMMY!
Reply »
Willie Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:45 am
Bipartisan?
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Weekly Standard? Nope!
Reply »
Indiana Purl Reply:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:17 am
Barack Obama? Nope!
Reply »
Texian Politico says:
I forgot that Wilson did better in ’16 than when he was elected in ’12.
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Yes, but the 1912 campaign was an anomaly, with Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive “Bull Moose” party a major player. That was effectively a three-way race. I believe Teddy got more popular votes that Republican Taft but not enough electoral votes to stop Wilson and the Dems.
Reply »
Hurricane Sandy Koufax Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Wilson still did better in 1916 than he did in 1912, thus proving Texian’s original point.
Reply »
Texian Politico says:
Ok, it seems that it has never happened. No incumbent president has been relected to a second term with fewer electoral votes than in his first election. Obama is attempting to be the first. This is my own observation. Here are the incumbent presidents who have been reelected and in every case their electoral votes went up. In only one case (Jackson in 1832) did their popular vote not go up, too.
Bush ’04
Clinton ’96
Reagan ’84
Nixon ’72
Eisenhower ’56
Roosevelt ’36
Wilson ’16
McKinley ’00
Grant ’72
Lincoln ’64
Jackson ’32
Monroe ’20
Madison ’12
Jefferson ’04
Washington ’92
Reply »
Red Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
FDR 40, 44
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Those were his 3rd and 4th terms. In each case FDR did far better than Obama is going to do next Tues.
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Obama beating Romney, then, will just prove what a weak candidate Mittens is, more so than what a weak (or formidable, take your pick) incumbent Obama is.
Reply »
Bill says:
CNN is biased. Another poll out this morning shows Romney up by 2 in Ohio. If the mainstream, in the tank for Obama, media would cover Obama’s Libya cover up the election wouldn’t be this close.
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
Burka, you are a BIASED LIBERAL idiot.
Romney is still leading in the national and battleground swing state polls and he will be the 45th President on Nov. 6th.
Deal with it FATBOY.
Reply »
Beerman Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:23 am
BD, what does this type of slandering, degrading and outright disrespect accomplish? Typical Tea Party Bull Manure!
It is time for fair-minded people to stand up and say, enough is enough, and I am confident that they will in this election.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:30 am
I’m just stating the facts that Obama is losing time and desperate for any October surprises and they are NONE.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Sandy is here, the Black Swan who is about to excrete on the GOP.
Dave Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Politicizing tragedy is pathetic.
donuthin Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
BM is right. BD shows no class.
Hurricane Sandy Koufax Reply:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:19 am
Indiana Pearl shows no class. 16 people have already died because of the storm and she’s talking about how this helps Obama. Pathetic. Have you no sense of decency, Ma’am?
Willie Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:46 am
Sir, give us all a break and shut your pie hole.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
October 30th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
You shut your Obama socialist penetration hole.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Blue: care to post some beefcake photos? Betcha got some flab.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Dave: facts is facts, tragic or not.
Reply »
Dave Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Try to pretend you have a sense of decency.
Blue says:
I find it difficult to believe that Obama is going to win because, in the essentially unresolvable conflict between the state polling and national polling I tend to trust the national polling. We’ll see who is right in the end, biut I really believe those who are putting their trust in the state polls are making a huge mistake.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Do you have the wisdom to read Nate Silver?
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Just because he’s a liberal doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
Reply »
Indiana Purl Reply:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:21 am
Just because I only read the liberals that make me feel good doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
John Johnson says:
I guess this would mean something to those that believe that polling data is a reliable indicator of the eventual outcome.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:16 am
It’s not not reliable–it’s that you have this puzzling disconnect between national and state polls. You’ve also got some analysts (Silver and this idiot at Princeton who is giving a 90 percent plus likelihood to Obama) that are essentially functioning as Democratic campaign operatives.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
See above re: Silver.
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
Nate Silver is an IDIOT and needs to grow some hair because he’s embarrassingly balding.
I’m relying on Fox News and Rasmussen polls and plus I voted early for Romney last week.
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Translation of BD’s post above:
“Nate Silver doesn’t tell me what I want to hear! Waaaaaaaaaah!!!”
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Ha, yes, that sounds about right.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
October 30th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Nellie, how about you come to a motel out of town and get busy.
Indiana Pearl Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Your sources explain it all.
Reply »
anon-p says:
I find it amusing that less than two weeks from the election, the veteran political journalist class is all over the map from, “The polls say it’s close!” to “This -could- be a Carter-Reagan style beat down” to “History and the latest electoral math (hat tip to 538 and state polls) show Romney just can’t unseat the president”.
Come on… You can’t trumpet all three possible outcomes and then congratulate yourself after the election on how you predicted it.
For goodness sake, pick a position and stick with it. At least Nate Silver has the stones to do it.
Personally, I don’t see the president being reelected. At this point in time, my read of the situation is that Romney may actually win by at least a comfortable margin in the popular vote, and maybe even in the electoral college.
However, I have some sympathy for Mr. Silver. He has stuck to his guns and has continued to describe a widening gap in the president’s favor. If the president loses by anything more than an ultra-tight margin, Mr. Silver will be pilloried by the left.
Reply »
Red Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
The reason why Nate shows a widening lead is that the polls are static but time to election is going down. Easier to close a gap in 2 months than 10 days. (ask Ted Cruz). Thus, likelihood of a Romney victory drops every day that Romney doesn’t close gaps in state polls
Reply »
Blue Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
I’m not sure that’s exactly right, Red. I think the way his model works is that as the time to election is reduced the influence of broader variables (e.g., unemployment) is reduced relative to the importance of state polls.
Reply »
Jim Sirbasku says:
I believe JBB has now spawned a clone in Blue Dogs.
Reply »
SuzyQBankston Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Don’t be slandering my JBB just because BlueDog done bytch slapped you.
Reply »
retrocon says:
It’s Rasmussen that now shows Romney up 50% to 48% over Obama in Ohio.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Rasmussen is a Rove lapdog. Try again.
Reply »
Indiana Purl Reply:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:22 am
Silver is an Obama lapdog. Try again.
Reply »
Hurricane Sandy Koufax says:
It is interesting in this day and age of technology and the interwebs that the Dept of Labor is now saying that the storm many delay them from releasing the montly unemployment numbers until after the election. Can’t they just transit the data to an office outside of DC? Do they figure up the totals with a bunch of slide rules and abacuses or abaci in some Dept of Labor bldg in D.C.?
Reply »
BCinBCS Reply:
October 30th, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Sandy K,
Initial unemployment numbers are generated from two separate surveys. With the disruption by the hurricane, the Labor Dept. may not be able to complete the polling of businesses and individuals to compile the data needed to generate the employment numbers.
Reply »
Dollars and Sense says:
Burka,
Any time anyone uses words like “very few” I cringe, and so should you.
Using your own modern era rule to show why it’s likely President Obama will win re-election, your “very few” comments falls to dust. And it’s so provably false I have to wonder what you take your readers to be?
Five elected presidents have sought re-election and lost. Six have won.
“Few”?
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Once again, Sandy rules.
Reply »
Hurrican Sandy Koufax Reply:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:23 am
Have you no sense of decency, Ma’am?
Reply »
José says:
When the votes are counted on November 6 in the one poll that really counts, we are going to hear about how that poll has a liberal bias too.
Give it up.
Reply »
texun says:
My guess is that the divergence in national and state polls reflects Romney’s overwhelming support in Red states such as Texas. Thus, he might well run up a slender popular plurality or even a majority and lose in the electoral count.
Reply »
rw says:
Just watch the campaigns. Romney has all the momentum. Obama is leaving states where he has already lost (Florida, North Carolina), and returning to states he thought he had locked up (Wisconsin, PA). Obama is the one who is shifting his campaign strategy, and is looking more and more pathetic as this drags on.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:29 am
Here’s proof that things are going badly for Obama – Bill Clinton has been dispatched to rally the troops in Minnesota. They must know the polls are correct that show Romney in striking distance in a state that hasn’t gone Republican since 1972. No one thought it would be close at all this year.
Gallup has a new poll out today that shows Romney is winning the early vote 52-45. This is from a survey of over 3,300 voters. It counters the claim that somehow Obama has this vaunted ground game that will turn out the votes to win and that they are winning in early voting.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/29/Gallup-Shock-Romney-Up-7-with-early-voters
Obama has conceded IN and NC. He’s on the verge of cutting it off in VA and FL. Everything now comes down to him trying to hold off Romney in OH, WI, and IA. CO’s early voting totals have been favoring the GOP.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 31st, 2012 at 11:35 am
POTUS isn’t leaving NC or Florida. There are reports out there that the Dems are leading early vote in NC.
POTUS campaigns are firmly on the ground there. Clinton and Biden will be in Florida. If Florida was in the bag why was Romney in Pensacola where he will run up the score anyway?
He has conceded IN, I’ll give you that. If the popular vote is even then of course WI,PA, MN, MI, will all be tight, ie low single digits. I think those states are fools gold for Romney, just like AZ is for Obama.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
President Obama is in full retreat.
Romney gets 320 electoral votes.
Reply »
Tiny jogging shorts Reply:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:43 am
When do the Perry/Gingrich debates happen?
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
October 30th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
I’m betting Romney gets 280 votes winning Wisconsin (the WI GOP has a strong organization there that will turn out their voters, see the Walker recall) and Ohio.
Here’s the link:
http://www.270towin.com/
I’ve already put some states in Romney’s column including Florida and Virignia (No. VA was hit hard by Sandy last night).
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
They already happened did you miss them?
The media thought Obama won them.
Reply »
Tom says:
Here is why Obama will carry Ohio and be re-elected. From The New York Times:
“The auto bailout was one of the first major moves of Mr. Obama’s presidency, and gave Mr. Romney an early chance in opposing it to prove his conservative credentials.”
Reply »
retrocon says:
The NYT needs to go back and read Romney’s opinion piece (published in their own paper) that described his views on the auto bailout. And if they had any journalistic integrity, they would offer an apology to Romney and public correction for mischaracterizing Romney’s opinion as “Let Detroit go bankrupt”.
And if Obama had any integrity, he would stop campaigning on the notion that “if Romney had had HIS way, we wouldn’t be making cars in the US but we’d be buying cars from China.”
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
Burka, I’m predicting Romney picks-up New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Wisconsin getting 289 electoral votes while Obama has 249.
Here’s the link:
http://www.270towin.com/
Reply »