US Elections - Times Online - WBLG

June Polls Don't Hold Up

This week's polls showing Barack Obama with small, but significant, single-digit leads among likely voters are certainly welcomed by Democrats, but recent history hasn't been kind to early frontrunners.

In fact, only one of the last five June election-year polling averages has correctly predicted the popular vote winner in November - Bill Clinton in 1996. Even then, the polls missed his win-margin by more than 9 percent.
   
As hard as it may be to believe, Michael Dukakis (left) was leading the first George Bush by an average of 8.2 percent in June of 1988. Bush went on to win the general election by 7.8 points.

Mr Bush led the relatively unknown Bill Clinton by 4.9 percent In June of '92, but managed to lose in November by 5.6 percent.

June 1996 polls showed the incumbent President Clinton leading by a whopping 17 points, but even Bob Dole managed to close the gap to a more respectable 8.5 percent.

2000 was different only in that George W. Bush led by 4.7 percent in June, won the election, but lost the popular vote to Al Gore by 0.5 percent.

And finally, John Kerry led in the June 2004 polls by an average of 0.9 percent, but lost the popular vote, and the election, to the incumbent Bush by 2.4 points.   

So, while Mr Obama's leads are certainly signs for Democrats to be optimistic, history points to caution. A lot can happen between June and November.

Obama versus McCain: the polls

An air of dejection hangs over the polling department at Camp McCain. Pinched faces sit in nervous silence, each new set of numbers triggering a volley of angry barks before the gloom settles in again.

I am not privileged with access to said office, of course, and am therefore making this up. But that is what I imagine the current atmosphere must be like, if they put any stock at all in the proliferation of negative polls currently battering their candidate.

Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, insists the Republican nominee is in a strong position, claiming that he is on course for victory in the battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri and Nevada. In an online strategy briefing, he asserts that Ohio is "a dead heat" and that Pennsylvania too could go Republican.

But polling analysis, such as that conducted by the Real Clear Politics team over at Time magazine, suggests otherwise. It shows Barack Obama leading in the five most recent Pennsylvania polls by an average of 5.8 points, while in Wisconsin he commands a two-point edge.

RCP's thorough (and consistently accurate) breakdown of recent polling makes heartening reading for the Democratic nominee. Averaging out the results of surveys carried out since mid-May, it shows Obama beating McCain by 3.1 points in the November head-to-head. While such a margin won't see the Obama camp breaking out Havana's finest, it nevertheless represents a climb since his victory over Hillary Clinton became apparent last week and will reassure advisors that the campaign is moving in the right direction. Perhaps even better news for the Illinois senator is that all the surveys analysed project victory over McCain - bar Newsweek, which finds the two candidates in a dead heat.  (RCP also has some useful electoral college maps here.)

But the path to the White House runs, as always, through the battleground states, which this year include the electoral collage heavyweights of Florida, California, Pennsylvania and Ohio. All of these favoured Clinton in the primaries, leading her to argue that her rival could not carry these states against McCain in the autumn. So far, at least, such predictions are proving incorrect, with RCP averages giving Obama a sliver of a lead - 1.3 points - in Ohio, a healthier lead in Pennsylvania, as already discussed, and a commanding 12.6 point edge in California. However he has yet to win over Floridians, who currently back McCain by an average margin of 8.3 points. Could his performance improve as memories of the vitriolic dispute over its rule-breaking primary fade? Perhaps. But the Sunshine state, with its large communities of Cuban exiles and wealthy retirees, has always been reluctant to vote Democrat - having done so just three times since 1952 - and ultimately Obama may do better to cut his losses here and focus on making the votes up elsewhere.

This, with his current push into Republican strongholds, seems to be exactly what Obama is intent on doing. Today, he embarks on a two-week tour North Carolina - which lasted voted for a Democratic presidential nominee 32 years ago - after which he is to head to Missouri, which has voted Republican in seven out of the last ten elections. He chose St Paul, Minnesota - the venue of the Republican convention in November - to declare his nomination victory last week before taking the battle straight to the GOP with campaign stops in Virginia, which last voted Democratic in 1964. (Political nerds can find an excellent breakdown of electoral history at www.270towin.com).

While this is a risky strategy, it could ultimately pay off. Having adopted such a tactic during the primaries, Obama has established robust voter turnout operations in many of these states and could yet pose a stiff challenge to Republican primacy. At the very least, as Obama aides quoted by the New York Times point out, it could force McCain to spend time and money campaigning in what should be safe ground, distracting him from fights elsewhere.

All this appears to be rattling the Republicans, with campaign insiders and party strategists using the press to urge a shift in strategy. Speaking to the Huffington Post, one Republican operative spoke of "a world of problems" facing McCain, suggesting the only was to finance a volley of negative ads painting Obama as a liability in an age of terrorism - a tactic the Arizona senator has so far disavowed.

Last week, Bay Buchanan - Reagan's treasurer and a leading conservative - delivered a scathing assessment of McCain's prospects, noting that his moderate policies alienated much of the Republican right while his opposition to trade protections would frighten off many of the so-called Reagan Democrats whose votes may well swing the election.

Writing in Human Events, she said: "In reality there is only one candidate.  Barack Obama.  In November he will win or he will lose. John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama.  The Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps."

Presidential head-to-heads

With Super Tuesday promising to whittle down both races (and perhaps, on the Republican side, produce a winner) thoughts are turning to possible pairings for the presidential head-to-head. Unsurprisingly, it is a subject fascinating the pollsters, who have probed every possible permutation to determine the likely outcome. We all know that polls can be wrong (especially after the New Hampshire debacle) but nevertheless this breakdown of national surveys on RealClearPolitics makes interesting reading.

It confirms what Democrats have feared all along- that a McCain candidacy would be tough to beat. Considered a liberal Republican (despite his plan to keep the US in Iraq for 100 years,) McCain has significant crossover appeal and could easily leach votes from the Democratic candidate, particularly if that happens to be Hillary Clinton, a divisive figure even among her own party.

When all the national poll results are averaged, McCain beats Clinton by a slim margin. But he is the only Republican who does - both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee lose by double digits. Barack Obama, on the other hand, not only routs Romney and Huckabee but also comes out on top against McCain (by a rather paltry one point, admittedly, but then, as George W Bush well knows, he could make do with even less.)

This is a message that has not been lost on Republicans, who have responded to Obama's surge by rallying behind McCain as the most electable candidate. It is a bitter pill for right-wingers, who dislike McCain almost as much as Mrs Clinton.

But, as Andrew Sullivan argues in this Times article, the prospect of another Clinton in the Oval Office might be the one thing to make them swallow.

He writes: "She (Hillary) has extraordinary negatives. She galvanises the conservative movement in ways no other Democrat can. Against McCain, she and she alone enables the Republicans to forget their deep internal divisions and unite. Nothing – nothing – unites them as she does."

Sullivan closes his argument with this salient question: "Will Democratic voters realise that he is now their best bet against McCain or will inertia and fear keep Clinton alive? One thing I’ve learnt in American politics: never underestimate the capacity of the Democratic party to screw it up."

Edwards quits - but where will his supporters go?

Moments after John Edwards quit the Democratic race today the blogosphere was buzzing with frenzied analyses of the likely impact on the remaining contenders. By and large the commentary is as inconclusive as polling on the subject, with some suggesting Obama might gain a slight advantage, others leaning towards Mrs Clinton and more still sitting resolutely (and probably wisely) on the fence.

There are two key points to consider here: delegates already won and supporters who have not yet voted.

Edwards has not yet thrown his weight behind a candidate and may well not do so until he has assessed his potential influence. If the race stays as close as it is as present he may decide to hold on to the dozens of delegates he has accrued and direct them nearer the convention to the candidate who offers him the best reward (ie the VP spot on the ticket or a future Cabinet post.) On the other hand he is clearly ideologically closer to Obama and may endorse him sooner if it looks like Hillary is pulling ahead. I've written about this in an earlier blog post.

However with his delegates not bound to obey him, the bigger question is where his supporters in the remaining states will turn.

Here's a selection of the best comment on the web:

John Edwards the kingmaker?

John Edwards has staked his fading presidential hopes on the pivotal South Carolina primary on Saturday, where a win would propel him into the electoral cash cow that is Super Tuesday. However with the latest polls showing him trailing in third place, a fourth, highly damaging defeat now seems the most likely outcome. Such a loss - in the state of his birth and where he dazzled voters during his 2004 bid for the nomination - would surely spell the end of his campaign. If not immediately, then after a prolonged and painful bleedout.

Accordingly, and with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama still vying for the mantle of frontrunner, all eyes are turning to Edwards as kingmaker. As Ben Smith wrote on Politico.com last week, due to technical features of the Democratic nominating process, Obama could end up with almost as many delegates as Clinton even if he fails to win as many states. This would leave Edwards in an awfully influential position.

But how would he decide to use it?

Could Hillary quit after New Hampshire?

The Drudge Report, one of the most influential blogs in US politics, is running a story claiming that Hillary Clinton is considering pulling out of the Democratic race if, as expected, she takes another beating from Barack Obama in New Hampshire.

Faced with the prospect of a second double-digit defeat at the hands of the ascendant young senator from Illinois, along with plummeting poll ratings and a fast-diminishing war chest, the former first lady and one-time presumptive nominee might act to forestall further damage to "the Clinton brand," one top campaign insider is quoted as saying.

Her inner circle is apparently split on the wisdom of such a move, with top advisers such as James Carville advising her to stick it out until at least February 5, when a tranche of delegate-rich states vote in what has come to be known as Super Tuesday.

Mrs Clinton herself is denying the rumours, insisting she is in for the long haul, as reported in my story on Times Online today. So where did the report come from?

Is Obama gaining on Hillary in New Hampshire?

With only 28 days until the Iowa caucuses - and with the New Hampshire primary just five days after that - there is one group of people competing as frenetically as the rival candidates: the political pollsters.

Polls are landing in email boxes and onto newspaper front pages on a daily basis, with candidates up, down, holding steady, losing ground, surging, a roller coaster of statistics that are often rendered meaningless when the voters actually have their say.

Except, these polls are still impossible to ignore (or, as one commentator once described them, they have become the crack cocaine of political journalism).

There are several new polls out today, but there are two that really add to the sense that the Democratic race is becoming truly competitive - and that the Republican race is more wildly unpredictable than ever.

An Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Hillary Clinton's once formidable lead in New Hampshire over Barack Obama has narrowed to just six points, at 35 to 29. With the two locked in a statistical tie in Iowa, New Hampshire was seen as something of a firewall for Mrs Clinton. Under the headline figure, the good news for her is that New Hampshire voters see her as the most experienced and electible candidate. The bad news is that a majority of voters want a fresh approach to governing - Mr Obama's core message.

(To amplify the fragility of these polls, a Marist survey released yesterday has Mrs Clinton's New Hampshire lead over Mr Obama holding steady, at 37 points to 23.)

The most startling survey was a Rasmussen poll that put Mike Huckabee leading the Republican field NATIONALLY for the first time, three points ahead of Rudy Giuliani. The big story has been Huckabee's surge in Iowa. But a lead nationally? Now that's momentum.