Posts Tagged ‘polls’



We haven’t been doing very well with our predicting, recently. There: that’s a sentence you don’t normally expect in the world of political punditry.

But the fact is we got the Brexit vote totally wrong – we were hardly Robinson Crusoe in that regard, but that doesn’t matter – and we also failed to predict a Conservative overall majority in the UK, but again, almost no-one got that right either and it was a very close run thing … from a psephological point of view the change in the Lib Dem seats in the West can literally be assumed to have taken place in the last 48 hours, so we weren’t the only people surprised.

But for a year now, we have been confidently predicting a Clinton victory in the 2016 Presidential election. Our analysis has ranged from “massive Clinton victory” to “comfortable Clinton victory” and at no stage have we EVER speculated that Trump could win.

And today, despite all the recent froth and bubble in the media, we repeat our prediction. Clinton’s got this. With a margin somewhere between “just” and “just about comfortable”. Which considering she has been subject to the longest period of personal vilification ever seen in modern political history, much of which has been entirely politically motivated and rank untruths, is really quite a remarkable thing. She has been pilloried, lied about, accused of ludicrous things, with a level of pure vitriolic hatred that can only be described as anti-democratic and neo-fascist in its expression. And she’s a woman. And anyone who thinks that there isn’t evidence of blatant sexism in some people’s denial of her right to be President is simply naive, just as many of the attacks on her health and stamina – which seem to be just fine when you consider her punishing schedule – are codes for “weak, poor little woman thing”.

Let’s be clear: we have previously pointed out at length that “No”, Clinton is not a perfect person. Who is, after all? Let alone in the field of politics. She is, however, a shining knight clothed in holy armour wielding a blazing sword of righteousness compared to Trump. That a large percentage of intending American voters can’t see that is truly distressing and disturbing to the rest of us.

We can’t bring myself to be angry with every Trump voter. After all, they’re perfectly entitled to disagree with us, and we know some of them personally, and they are patently obviously decent folk. Social media has dominated where they are getting their information from, and this is what’s dominating their social media , a highly sophisticated misinformation campaign mounted deliberately, and with malice aforethought.

So what we have been witnessing is a perversion of democracy. Let us hope that enough Americans agree so that after Tuesday we see some real and meaningful reform to both media coverage and the tone of campaigning. This morning on radio in Melbourne one of the more senior (and least alarmist) hosts remarked “America is broken. It’s like Humpty Dumpty, and I cant see how it’s ever going to be put back together again.” Which is a miserable thought for all who treasure much of what is good – even great – about America.

Anyway, back to the impending result. A lot of people have been opining that some Trump voters are hiding their intentions from pollsters because they’re embarrassed to admit they support him, and arguing that the phenomenon is “like Brexit”, which is all very well except right up to the Brexit vote it was always going to be close (Brexiteer Nigel Farage famously remarked that a 52-48 vote in favour of Remain should be ignored, then promptly changed his tune when his side won by that very margin), and speaking out against the EU was never something that the vast majority of Britons had any problem with.

It should also be noted that for someone to be so embarrassed to be supporting Trump that they would have to lie to pollsters yet still be intending to vote for him would require some very complex mental circumlocutions. And given the hurricane of criticism she has received, we think it just as likely that some Clinton supporters might not wish to express their support for her, so any “ashamed of Trump” effect would in all probably be evened out by an “ashamed of Clinton” effect. Indeed, if anything, the “enthusiasm” levels that are measured are lower for Clinton than Trump, so that effect would be greater.

So we simply do not believe, as the Trump side has been furiously talking up, that there is some vast unspoken well of support for the Republicans.

Essentially, we think the opinion polls have it about right, which is somewhere in the region of a 2-3% lead in the popular vote for Clinton, which is now climbing again, but a stronger lead for her in some key battleground seats. We think Trump may actually do better in some of the solid “red” seats than is currently expected, except it won’t matter because he’ll be piling up votes where he doesn’t need them.

There has been much talk about which the key swing states are. We all know about Florida, where we suspect Trump may just pull it off, following an erosion in support for Libertarian Gary Johnson which has caused a drift back to him, as people focus on the main game. But Florida really is too complex to call with any degree of certainty. Two other factors are complicating matters. Firstly there is some strong evidence that a significant percentage of early Republican voters have backed Clinton, which in a state with a very significant early voting percentage, and where the Democrats ground game is markedly better, may just tip the state back to her. It was won by Obama, remember. Secondly, Latinos in the state are voting in increased numbers, and as we have opined previously, Trump has very good reason to fear an uptick in the Latino vote. Because of our political preferences we are hopeful of a Clinton victory, but the psephologist in us urges caution. And in any very close election, we are minded to remember Bush v Gore, which we remain convinced was nothing more nor less than a judicial coup. Now, though, the Supreme Court is split 4-4 between Liberals and Conservatives, so any similar farrago this time may be avoidable … Hillary Clinton is ahead 48 – 42 percent among Florida voters who already have cast ballots.

Let us hope this election doesn’t come down to lawyers at dawn. One calculation has a 17% chance that Florida will be the “tipping point” state, yet again.

FLORIDA VERDICT Too close to call/Very close Clinton victory

Moving up the country, the next vital state is North Carolina. There were some early indications that Clinton might be in trouble in a state with a large black vote where there was less enthusiasm in black voters than in the Obama elections, in a state won by the Republicans last time, and in areas where Republican voter suppression has been seen at its most naked. The voter suppression laws have been largely declared invalid, but possibly too late to rescue the situation. Then again, President Obama, who is still a talisman for the African-American vote, has been strategically deployed to “get the black vote out”. If he succeeds, what might have been the narrowest win for Trump may turn into a narrow win for Clinton. There’s no question that the race is tight, but we perceive Clinton inching ahead in the last couple of days. In particular, a normally very reliable poll now has her up by three having previously had Trump ahead by four just a couple of weeks ago. In a reliable poll using the same methodology, that’s a significant movement, and in the last week Clinton has seemingly risen slightly further. The only impossible to discern factor is how far Libertarian candidate Johnson will fall. Five Thirty Eight actually says Trump is more likely to win, but we think there may be enough African-American enthusiasm to carry the day for the Democrats.

NORTH CAROLINA Too close to call/Very close Clinton victory

The next crucial contest is Ohio. We think that this can now be safely called in the Trump camp. He has been improving there steadily, and there is, clearly, a generalised move to the Republicans in the central states. Some of the key factors here are that Clinton is doing significantly less well with female voters here than generally, and Trump has garnered an historically high number of male voters.There is also a strong sense amongst the working class and non-college educated vote that they are being ignored by the elite, especially as regards trade deals and employment initiatives. The notably right wing Governor, Kasich, has ironically and pointedly refused to back Trump, but his general stance seems to have solidified Republican support.

OHIO Trump

Moving to the right, but only geographically, Pennsylvania seems equally locked in the Clinton column. The state seems to be delivering a solid lead of 4-6% for Clinton in survey after survey no matter how you dice and dust the results. That’s now too big for Trump to overhaul except in some mythical scenario where his vote is being under-estimated by 10-20%, which isn’t going to happen. A potential transit strike in Philly won’t help poorer voters of either party to get around on polling day. It remains to be seen whether the City’s attempt to injunct the strike is successful.


It is worth pointing out that no one has been elected president since 1960 without carrying two of the three key swing states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. This year, North Carolina has been added to that mix. We see the four states leaning to Clinton overall – just. Are we confident in that prediction? Not especially. In Florida and NC we could be dead wrong, as the current polls are well within margins of error. Interestingly, though, that can cut both ways. Take 3-4% off Clinton and Trump does very well indeed. Add 3-4% to Clinton and it becomes a Clinton landslide.

Can we get a better idea by looking at other close states? Maybe. But first a word overall. Nate Silver’s normally highly reliable 538 site has a movement back to Clinton from Trump in terms of their chances of winning of what may be a hugely significant 0.8% from the fourth to the fifth of November. This presumably reflects both the FBI’s confirmation that Clinton is to be charged with nothing regarding the endless email scandal, and the following:

The small state of Nevada should deliver it’s 6 votes to the Republicans without any difficulty. Except … the Democrats ground game here has been especially aggressive, particularly via organised labor and targeting the Latino community. If Trump loses Nevada – and he could – he’s in trouble.

Whilst New Hampshire has come back towards Trump in the very recent past, Clinton is still solidly ahead in the vast majority of polls, although there have been a couple that have it line ball or leaning Trump, but these come from polls that seem less reliable than some others, and one which is positively partisan. The role of the Libertarian candidate here will be crucial in a state where “alternative” candidates often do well. How well his vote holds up will probably decide the state, and at the moment he seems to be hanging onto enough votes to cruel things for Trump. It’s only 4 electoral college votes, but they’re four votes who if they went to Trump it would suggest a real Republican surge.

In Michigan, with its important 16 electoral votes, Clinton is holding onto about a 4% lead, with Gary Johnson’s vote holding much steadier than in some other places. Whilst the race unquestionably tightened in the last half of October the situation now seems more stable for Clinton, and possibly moving back to her slightly. The opposite is true in Iowa, where Trump is strengthening his position, as with many mid-West states.

Virginia was close for Obama but it is becoming increasingly suburban and – as it does – liberal. If Clinton were to lose it – we don’t think she will – she can kiss her hopes goodbye.

So: our prediction?

We predict that without Pennsylvania, Trump cannot win, even if he carries Ohio and Florida – unless he is able to also capture Michigan and Wisconsin. But both states have voted Democratic in the last six presidential elections and Clinton is ahead in both.

One of the interesting factors will be how early Florida declares – or is declared – by the media. Beyond the very fact of the significance of its votes going to Trump, because of the time difference a very early declaration for Trump could cause a cascade effect through the centre and west.

A Trump win in Pennsylvania would be very difficult for Clinton to make up. The loss of Pennsylvania together with Florida would be a real blow to her chances.

We see Clinton with anything from the barest 270 electoral college votes up to about 290-300. Trump probably about 230-256, maybe a few less.

Which means Trump will do better than anyone ever imagined possible until recently. But no: he isn’t going to win.

Betting odds are currently 4-1 or so ON Clinton and 4-1 or 5-1 AGAINST Trump. That looks about right.

Well, for today, at least. We’ll see more polls and analysis tomorrow, but till then, well, that’s what we think.

UPDATE as at 14.25 AEST

Polls have firmed for Clinton overnight with it now looking likely she will take Florida, unlikely she will take North Carolina but not impossible, not going to take Ohio, will take Pennsylvania, and will take Michigan and Nevada.

Somewhere, a fat lady is singing. Clinton wins.




In the last 24 hours or so polling conducted for The Guardian has shown the “Leave” campaign in the British EU referendum to have jumped into a small lead over the Remain campaign.

This has excited much comment, cheering from the Brexit mob, and even a run on the pound. (Just like the good old days – Ed.)

Before the Little Englanders get too excited, though, they would do well to consider the following:

Betting market

By far the most accurate “poll” on upcoming elections has been shown – again and again – to be the betting markets. This is because they are made up of people who are not answering questions  on the phone or online, but people actually wagering real money – their own money – on their considered analysis of the likely result, assuming the risk for their opinions.

This is not to say that the betting market is always 100% accurate – that would be an over-statement – but it very accurately measures trends. So what is really interesting is always the MOVEMENT in the odds, just as the TRENDS in opinion polls are what are extremely accurate, not any individual poll.

The political betting market in the UK is very large, which also increases its accuracy.

These odds show a small movement towards “Leave”, but nothing like enough to see them winning the vote in three weeks’ time. The general consensus is still in the region of 4-1 (at least) ON a Remain victory, and as wide as 3-1 AGAINST (or higher) on a Leave win.

This small shift towards Leave is also picked up by the FT poll of polls, which shows Remain winning despite the ICM poll. It should also be noted that a cursory glance at the poll of polls show that ICM have consistently rated Leave higher than other polls, suggesting there is something in their methodology that is fractionally favouring the Leave side. Of course if they are proven right they will be cock-a-hoop, and good on them if it proves to be the case, but that rarely happens in such examples.

What really WOULD put the cat among the pigeons would be if the slight drift to Leave was picked up by other polls, or became a growing trend. That is not yet the case.

One thing that is clear is that the Leave campaign is polling far better than Prime Minister David Cameron would be happy with, and it may well be that a sizeable “out” vote will undermine his already eroding position within the Conservative Party.

He was urged by many (including then Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg) not to play around with a referendum to de-fang his Eurosceptic right but loftily chose to ignore that advice. As things stand, it may be that any victory in the election will be close enough that he, personally, is stripped of personal authority and mortally wounded. It may turn out to be a gross miscalculation.

When true leadership was required, he squibbed it. And the penalty for that is always, inexorably, inevitably, political death.

UK election results

The second question is easier to answer than the first. No, we were not. We predicted no overall majority with the Conservatives as the largest party, and they actually won an overall majority. So we have broken our winning run since 1979. Boo-hoo.

But we were almost right. We said that UKIP would win almost no seats, which was right. We said the Greens would only win one, ditto. We predicted the SNP would have a stellar night but not win Orkney and Shetland – correct. And we predicted that the Lib Dems would face a near wipeout, as we have been predicting like Mystic Meg for more than three years now. Correct. Indeed, their result was even worse than we had feared – while party grandees were blathering on about 20-30 seats or even 30-40 we were certain they would win under 20 – and their failure to keep their own seats was key to the whole election result, because if they had won 10 more of the seats they lost in swathes to the Tories throughout the West and South of the country they would probably now be in Government again. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.

You will find below the results of the Lord Ashcroft poll taken AFTER people had voted, asking them how, but more importantly, why. People have no reason to fudge or obscure their actions and reasons after they have taken place, so this type of poll is usually infinitely more accurate than pre-election polls.

Microsoft Word - LORD ASHCROFT POLLS - Post-vote poll

Microsoft Word - LORD ASHCROFT POLLS - Post-vote poll

Consistently one of the more accurate pollsters, Ashcroft himself would be the first to admit that he didn’t see a Tory majority coming either. Indeed, no one did. (This fact makes us feel slightly less aggrieved with ourselves.) But his post poll explains what happened with great perception. So before the myth making begins, this is what really happened last Thursday:

  • Fully 31% of the electorate decided who to vote for in the last week, with more than one in ten as they entered the poling booth. This shows that, certainly as far as Labour and the Tories were concerned, there was all to play for right up to the end.
  • Lib Dem votes from 2010 went flying everywhere – some to Tories, some to Labour, some to the Greens, and many to UKIP. The Lib Dem vote is thus revealed as very “soft”, ie not “ironed on”. Desertions from the party to major parties went almost equally to the Tories and Labour.
  • The slide of votes from the Lib Dems to UKIP simply reflects the obvious fact that a third party is a natural home for voters who are disaffected with the status quo, and this time round these “protest” voters found a newer and more dynamic home within UKIP. This effect can also be discerned with “swinging voters”.
  • The collapse in trust for the Lib Dems is highlighted by the fact that their “trusted their motives and values” measurement is the lowest of all the parties, with nearly a third of the electorate rejecting the party on this basis. The fact that their candidates were respected locally merely makes the loss of so many sitting MPs even more galling for the party. In simple terms, one factor outweighed the other in how people made their decision.
  • A large number of UKIP voters slid back to the Tories as their minds focused on a likely general election result and who they wanted as PM.
  • Question seven reveals that, as always, bread and butter issues dominated what mattered to people, the highest being Improving the NHS, Getting the economy growing and creating jobs, and Controlling Immigration (which is incorrectly, in our view, conflated with the previous issue in many peoples’ minds), and then a bunch of others.Interestingly, though, when the issue is switched from the “whole country” to “me and my family”, Immigration disappears off the top 3 list to be replaced by Tackling the cost of living crisis. Or in other words, many people have been doing it tough, and they blame that (erroneously, in our view, but consistently) on Immigration.
  • Then again, fully 88% bought Cameron’s view that they were either feeling an economic recovery or believed they would. Thus Milliband and Labour continually bleating about the effects of austerity measures was aiming at the wrong target. Indeed, a very large number of Conservative voters believe austerity measures should be continued (84%) although 54% of the population as a whole believe it has either gone on long enough, or should never have been employed.
  • Partly as a result of this, David Cameron was much preferred by voters as PM, Ed Milliband scored very poorly at 37%. In modern elections the “Presidential” element has become increasingly important.
    Like him or loathe him, Cameron had a good war.

    Like him or loathe him, Cameron had a good war.

    This factor in boosting the Conservative’s overall result cannot be under-estimated. Only 39% of Labour voters preferred Milliband as PM, less than 20% of Lib Dem voters thought Clegg would make a better PM. And staggeringly, only 26% of Labour voters thought Milliband’s senior advisers would make a good government – goodbye Ed Balls, nice to have known you.

    For these reasons we pick the following factors as the crucial, game-changing stats in last Thursday’s cataclysmic event.

  • The collapse in trust for the Lib Dems.
  • The failure of leadership to appeal to the public for both – crucially – the Labour Party, and also the Lib Dems.
  • A very creditable performance by David Cameron, in comparison, and especially in the last week. We saw one very combative performance he gave in a public gathering a few days before the election and thought “Wow, he’s got the bit between his teeth”. Maybe Central Office polling was giving him good news. He now has some political capital of his own he can burn if needs be, although a week, as Harold Wilson once remarked, is a long time in politics, and he would be wise to spend that capital in small increments on things that really matter to him.
  • A feeling that things aren’t quite as bad as they’ve been painted – a certain latent, if sceptical, optimism in the electorate.

Last but not least, of course, there is always the near impossibility for UKIP (or any minor party) to beat the antiquated FPTP electoral system. For the Lib Dems, in particular, the patient accumulation of respect and thus better prospects, assembled over a generation of community campaigning, has been almost totally washed away.

Whilst Labour will be distressed at having done, in reality, quite poorly, of all the parties the Lib Dems’ is perhaps the most bitter bill to swallow.

Interestingly, though, since election night, over 4,000 new members have joined the party, in an act of defiance and hope that is really quite impressive – to this writer, at least.

LGIt is too early to write their political obituary, although it would be equally foolish not to acknowledge that as a force, British Liberalism, that great and honourable political philosophy of Gladstone, Asquith, Lloyd George, Jo Grimond, David Steel and others, is currently looking pretty sickly on life support.

Much to ponder. From rooster to feather duster in under a year?

Much to ponder. From rooster to feather duster in under a year?


Bad news for Tony Abbott and the Coalition continues today with the publishing of another poll that shows just how dramatically the Liberal and National parties have slumped since 2013’s election.

The latest poll shows the Abbott government is now a full 10 points below its election-winning vote. This is way beyond mere “out of honeymoon” blues.

The Newspoll, published in The Australian on Tuesday, puts Labor ahead of the coalition 55-45 per cent in the two-party preferred vote, a further depressing drop of two points for the coalition since the previous poll two weeks ago.

Primary support for the coalition is also down two points to 35 per cent, from 37 per cent, while Labor is up one point to 37 per cent – two points ahead of the coalition. This result would have seemed impossible in the dark days when Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd were engaged in their death struggle. It remains to be seen if Tony Abbott goes down in history as the only man capable of breathing new life into the Labor corpse which seemed crucified, dead, buried, with multiple stakes through it’s heart and then cremated such a short while ago. That they are even competitive again so soon is startling.

It’s not all good news for Labor. Outflanked on the left, the Greens have also gained three points in the primary vote – up to 13 per cent.

Voter dissatisfaction with Tony Abbott has reached the highest level since he became prime minister, 62 per cent, and is his worst personal result since November 2012, The Australian reports. With his approval rating at 31 per cent, Mr Abbott’s net approval of minus 31 points is the worst for a prime minister since Julia Gillard scored minus 34 points just days before she was replaced by Kevin Rudd in June last year, when she was widely considered to be leading the Labor Party to certain disaster. It will not have escaped Liberal and National backbenchers that Abbott now appears to be doing the same.


They also serve who only sit and wait. Is that just the hint of a smile?

They also serve who only sit and wait. Is that just the hint of a smile?


Whether Abbott’s vast slump into extreme unpopularity will prove enough of a motive for the hard heads in the Liberal Party to replace him with the much more moderate Malcolm Turnbull remains to be seen. We have always been of the view, even before the last election, that Turnbull would be Prime Minister before Christmas 2014. Abbott is both simply too relentlessly self-satisfied and negative to play the role of Prime Minister, a job which requires the ability to reach across the aisle to independents and natural Labor supporters to build a centrists’ coalition.

Abbot is not a conservative. He is not a “one nation” Tory. He is a radical right winger – a born-again Thatcherite, his idol in his youth. As such, he was never going to sit well in power with the essentially small-C conservative Australian public. We are seeing the hubris of Nick Minchin and others on the hard right coming home to roost. They wanted their boy – they got him up by one vote – and now he is proving to be manifestly un-re-electable. A great opposition leader doth not a great prime minister necessarily make. They might have won less big had Turnbull remained at the helm (they might have won bigger, too), but they would have won more enduringly.

Labor leader Bill Shorten has also regained a 10-point lead as better Prime Minister that he took after the budget – on 44 per cent, with Mr Abbott on 34 per cent. We do not believe he is yet “popular” – he has neither the common working man’s touch of a Bob Hawke or the swaggering certainty of a Paul Keating. But he has hardly put a foot wrong yet, revealing that he has both a good “ear” and a smart brain. His meek persona also contrasts nicely with Abbott’s arrogance.

It is well-known that Shorten wishes to keep his powder somewhat dry, and not to “knee-jerk” to every mistake or missed step from the Coalition. Thus former federal Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan played Shorten’s stalking horse yesterday when said Liberal-National Party backbenchers were too gutless to speak out against the “savage cuts” in the budget, which he sees as reflected in the Newspoll. “If they had any decency, they’d be standing up in the party room and holding the LNP to the promises they made to the people of Australia at the last election but they’re not because they’re gutless,” he told reporters in Brisbane. “There’s no spine in the LNP backbench either at the state level or the federal level. They sit back and meekly accept the savage cuts … which are going to hurt the peace of mind and welfare of families right across Australia.” You can expect to hear a lot more of that as each and every Budget action wends its way trhough the legislative process.

To be fair, Swan was probably speaking from the heart, too. As a Labor backbencher during the early 1990s, Mr Swan led a revolt against the Keating government’s unpopular post-election budget that increased taxes.

Anyhow, the next few months will be interesting indeed. From being one of the most successful Opposition leaders the Liberals have produced in a long time, Abbott may well go down as their most unsuccessful Prime Minister. A recalcitrant Senate filled with newly hopeful Labor and Green representatives is now replaced with one with even greater complexity. At first blush, the new Senate looks like a more amenable one for Abbott. But appearances can be deceiving. Clive Palmer, for example, knows full well that supine agreement with the Government – any Government – would render his populist message irrelevant. There’s no point being “anti” the establishment and then joining it, as the Australian Democrats discovered over the GST, and the Liberal Democrats in the UK and the Free Democrats in Germany can attest more recently.

We can therefore expect regular little eruptions of rebellion from Palmer and his mates, and watching his eye for publicity and gesture politics one can expect those rebellions to be on core issues, such as the politically smart agreement to scrap the unpopular carbon tax and return the dividend to ordinary voters as a reduction in household costs. And if they aren’t core issues, he will trumpet them as such, anyway. And every time he lays a glove on the Government, Abbott will not only look dumb, but weak. A terrible combination.

The essential problem that Abbott faces is that by manufacturing a financial crisis out of a structural deficit (which is not, after all, the same thing) he has critically reduced his room for manoeuvre. As a result, he is now stuck with slogging round the country telling everyone, basically, bad news, for at least the next 18 months.

He might even have pulled that off if his presentation, and that of his very lacklustre Treasurer Joe Hockey, had been less simultaneously preachily self-congratulatory and ham-fisted. But apart from his suddenly incoherent and uncertain delivery (has any senior politician anywhere in the world ever said “Er” so often?) he has also wedged himself by a serious of actions that were never going to get through the Senate, and which were guaranteed to appear mean and un-necessary.

The most obvious example is the GP co-payment, which looks and smacks like nothing more than soak the poor, and should never have been advanced in a month of Sundays. But once advanced, it was not “sold”, beyond a repeated mantra that this was somehow “for the good of the country”. Scores of worried little old ladies and the chronically ill duly queued up on talk-back radio stations of all political inclinations to tearfully ask what would become of them now they couldn’t afford to go to see their doctor. The message that the co-payment was theoretically designed to be capped at a maximum of $70 a year completely failed to cut through. Once again, the central Liberal Party message-meisters and their political puppets have been shown to be far less competent and aware than they are often painted.

Denis Napthine. If he's not careful, Abbott will do for him, too.

Denis Napthine. If he’s not careful, Abbott will do for him, too.

(A similar problem assails the Victorian Liberal and National Parties, where two years of good financial management and the resulting announcement of the biggest-ever infrastructure spending program in the State’s history – in any State’s history, actually – is being completely overwhelmed by the unpopularity of the Abbott Government. Liberal and National Party publicists seem at a loss to know how to punch their message through. (There’s a clue in this paragraph by the way, boys.) Meanwhile Denis Napthine despairs in his eyrie and Daniel Andrews hugs himself with glee, saying very little, cheerfully waiting to fall into office. But that’s another story.)

Those surrounding Abbott need to understand this: it’s one thing to drag down an unpopular Prime Minister in whom trust has been lost. It’s quite another to sell a swingeing austerity package that very few people think is needed in the first place.

They – and he – need to lift their game very fast, or yibbidah yibbidah, that’s all folks.



McConnell v Grimes: forgive our cynicism, but the look of both candidates isn't exactly going to hurt the Democrats either.

McConnell v Grimes: forgive our cynicism, but the look of both candidates isn’t exactly going to hurt the Democrats either. Hey, Kennedy beat Nixon because he was taller, right?

A round of new polls conducted by The New York Times and Kaiser Family Foundation have some good (and surprising, to some) news for a handful of Southern Senate Democrats in key seats. This news may hose down excitement in some GOP and fellow-traveller ranks that the Republicans could win control of the Senate: that now looks less likely, not that we ever thought it was.

The polls, released Wednesday, found Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) leading Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) by a comfortable 46 percent to 36 percent.

In Kentucky, controversial Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) – long tipped as a very possible loser in the mid-terms by this blog – just barely leads Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) 44 percent to 43 percent, the poll found.

Meanwhile, in North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) is also neck-and-neck with House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-NC) in a hypothetical matchup with Hagan getting 42 percent while Tillis gets 40 percent.

Lastly, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) has a commanding lead over Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and the rest of the field in the Louisiana Senate race.

(That finding deserves a caveat: Louisiana’s primary system is something called a “jungle primary” where there is no Republican or Democratic primary. Instead all candidates run together and if no candidate gets 50 percent of the vote, the top two candidates face each other in a runoff election. The poll found Landrieu with 42 percent followed by Cassidy with 18 percent. No other candidate managed to get double digits.)

The polls were conducted April 8 to the 15. The margin of error for each poll was plus or minus 4 percentage points for registered voters. In other words, despite “weeks of attacks ads” quoted by one source, Mark Pryor in Arkansas has pulled out to a winning lead (his biggest lead since polling started) and looks comfortable in what should still be a relatively tight race. The other races are all within the margin of error.

We believe incumbency will be a negative for all candidates in November, and even more than usual. On that basis we think McConnell looks doubly vulnerable. We shall see.

It seems voters are now very obviously tiring of Tony Abbott’s incessant negativity and macho attitudes. How long will the powers-that-be resist a move to the much more electorally acceptable Malcolm Turnbull? Our bet? As it always has been, before Xmas 2012 or soon after.

(Yahoo and others)

Labor’s attacks on Tony Abbott’s character – he’s been painted as a misogynist and a liar – appear to be taking its toll, with voter support for him at its lowest level since he became opposition leader three years ago.

The Australian’s latest Newspoll shows that less than one third of voters, 27 per cent, are satisfied with the way Mr Abbott is doing his job, and the highest number on record, 63 per cent, are dissatisfied with his performance.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard maintains her two-month lead over Mr Abbott as preferred prime minister, 46 per cent to 32 per cent.

Despite Mr Abbott’s troubles, the coalition continues to hold solid primary vote support, 43 per cent, up from 41 per cent two weeks ago, while Labor’s primary vote is unchanged on 36 per cent.

The Newspoll survey, taken over the weekend, shows the coalition holds a two-point lead over Labor – 51 per cent to 49 per cent – on a two-party-preferred basis using preference flows at the last election.

Ms Gillard and other female ministers have accused Mr Abbott of misogyny and sexist behaviour, while Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has accused him of lying.

Last Friday, while announcing that Australia was prepared to join a second Kyoto Protocol treaty to set new targets for cutting greenhouse gases, Mr Combet said everything that Mr Abbott had said about climate change was “complete bulls**t”.

Mr Abbott’s net satisfaction – the difference between satisfaction and dissatisfaction – is the worst it has ever been at minus 36.

Ms Gillard’s personal support was virtually unchanged, with satisfaction on 37 per cent, up two points, and dissatisfaction on 52 per cent, giving her a net satisfaction rating of minus 15.


In  a Fairfax Nielsen poll published today (19 Nov) Mr Abbott’s approval eased one point to 36 per cent. His disapproval is steady at 60 per cent, although the Coalition maintains a winning margin on a two-party preferred basis.

His net approval is down a point to minus 24, a new personal low.

Voter approval for Prime Minister Julia Gillard remains steady on 47 per cent and, with her disapproval steady on 48 per cent, she has an unchanged net approval of minus one, markedly better, note, than the Newspoll above.

Ms Gillard maintains a nine-point lead over Mr Abbott in the preferred Prime Minister stakes at 51 per cent (up a point) to Mr Abbott’s 42 per cent (up two points) in the national poll of 1,400 people taken from Thursday to Saturday, after the announcement of a Royal Commission into Child Abuse.

Barack Obama

Change that America still appearently believes in. Will you welcome, please, Ladies and Gentlemen, the next President of the United States, Barack Obama. (Wellthatswhatwethink, anyhow.)

So. Well. Here it is. This is where the rubber hits the road.

After months – nay years – of fulminating and opinionising (great word, huh?) on the likely result of the 2012 Presidential election, this is now our considered view of what will happen tomorrow, so we can be hung out to dry or lauded as geniuses, when the actual results are known.

It’s currently about 9.00 am on Monday on the east coast of America. It is reasonable to assume that the various party managers will not allow anything much to affect the overall outcome now.

What matters now is trends, and the trends are heading Obama’s way, strongly during the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, and gently now, the waters are pretty much stagant. The electorate has politics exhaustion.

We are gliding to a predictable result, unless everyone polled by everybody has been lying through their teeth – which is, it has to be said, entirely possible.

State by state, we tell you what will happen

We give the key battleground state of Ohio to Obama. Primary reason – the stimulus. Whether or not one agrees with it and its targeting, it shored up hundreds of thousands jobs in the state directly or indirectly. People simply won’t forget – well, enough people won’t forget. What’s more, recent growth in the energy sector (amongst others) in the state actually has its unemployment level comfortably below the national average. No Republican candidate has ever found a way to the White House without Ohio in the bag, and the latest RCP rolling average has it +2.9 for Obama.

More importantly, it has been for Obama to one degree or another in every poll since 23rd October. The ground campaign has also been very effective for the President in the seat. Obama only won it by 4.6% in 2008, and there is unquestionably less enthusiasm for him this time than last time, and – yes – the Republican ground campaign is better organised there than ever before. Nevertheless, it is the trend to Obama that interests us. So – Ohio goes for Obama.

Although it is tightening, we give the other huge and vital battleground state of Florida to Romney.

Both sides have poured work into there, but in my view the state is gradually becoming more conservative, not less, and the Obama campaign have failed to reassure the elderly on Obamacare, or frighten them enough on the vouchers for Medicare issue. Also, the strong Jewish vote may be less than enthusiastic about Obama’s obviously less aggressive attitude to Arab states in the Middle East, and less than cheerful embrace of Benjamin Netanyahu. On the other hand, the large Latino vote is breaking strongly for Obama.

In the end, barring seeing precinct by precinct pre-polling data, it’s a gut call. I have always thought in a tight race that Obama would lose Florida, and I see no reason, even though Romney is currently only 1.4% ahead, to change my mind, especially as he has been so consistently for a while now. What’s more, just watching Obama adviser David Axelrod on TV, (and I consider myself a good judge of body language and facial expression) he looked utterly convincing when he called Ohio for his team, and a lot less so when he spoke of “good reports” from the southern state. So – Florida for Romney.

(What will also be interesting in Florida is when it “declares”. If it is early, and it is for Romney, it will be treated as bigger news than frankly one thinks it should be. For that reason, I expect multiple challenges and recounts all over the state from the Democrats, some of them frivolous, to delay the result here being published or assumed with any certainty, until Ohio, where a very high percentage of ballots have already been cast, declares for the President.)

The next key state to consider is Virginia. I have long been of the view that Virginia will go for Romney, largely because of the military influence, and also because it is essentially a safe “red” state, giving Bush the Younger wins by plus 8% twice in a row before the Obama bandwagon rolled through in 2008.

Yet it is now possibly the most fascinating contest of the lot, as it stays stubbornly in the “too close to call” camp, with Obama leading by just 0.2% in the rolling average of the polls.

The interesting thing here is that the trend is now firmly towards Obama, and the growth of younger, affluent voters now living in the state and commuting elsewhere is supposed to aid him. What’s more, Axelrod (whose face is usually very revealing, so I really don’t know why the Obama camp puts him up on TV, personally) almost jumped out of his chair with obvious delight when he claimed that he was thinking Obama would win there, and I thought he looked completely sincere.

Another interesting factor is that except for two tiny blips (around the first disastrous debate for Obama) Romney has trailed by a substantial factor in the state since February. Then again, that could be said of many places around the nation. But after agonised consideration I am going to go against the current opinion trends and say that I think Romney will win Virginia – just. So that’s another 13 votes for the Republicans in the electoral college, and although its near neighbour North Carolina has often been considered to be in play I think that’s solidified for the Governor too; he’s up round about 3-4%, here so make that another 15 votes for Romney.

But there I really believe the good news for Romney ends. Of the other toss up states I honestly only think he has a chance in Colorado, where Obama is leading by about half a percentage point, having won it by 9% last time. Here again, though, the trend has recently been away from Romney and towards Obama. Obama is starting to look like a winner, and that all-important oh-so-elusive “Big Mo” or momentum becomes vitally important in very tight races. Also, for a state to go plus 9% to negative is a hell of a leap, even with an unpopular Presidential incumbent. I would say Obama’s loss over his 2008 performance will – overall – be in the region of 6-8%, although in a couple of states it may go as high as 10%.

On that basis Colorado is line ball, (9 electoral college votes) and so, looking westward, is Nevada (six votes).

But, and perhaps crucially, it’s worth noting that Colorado is two hours behind the Eastern seaboard, and Nevada three hours. Exit polls will slam onto the airwaves giving Florida to Romney and Ohio to Obama within seconds of the eastern polls closing.

This will have two effects in the swing states of Colorado and Nevada. Firstly, it will call the race as close and encourage late voters and those intending to vote on the way home to actually do so. And the higher the turnout, the more the Obama camp will like it. Second, it will demoralise some Republicans and boost Democrats, because the prevailing commentators mantra (except on Fox News) will be “Romney can’t win without Ohio, it’s all over bar the shouting”.

And if that sounds as if it is contradictory (on the one hand calling the race as close, and on the other calling it as a likely Obama victory) the two effects do not actually cancel each other out.

Why? Well, people like being on the winning side: so a small but significant number of possible Obama voters will be persuaded to jump on the winning ship.

People also like being in a close race and thinking their vote matters – but the effect is stronger with unenthusiastic voters who might otherwise stay home. So that factor – a close race – will, I believe, be marginally more effective for the Democrats than the GOP.

So: I give both these states, with some degree of nervousness, to Obama. But I freely admit I might be wrong. The effort going into local Senate and other races will matter, and certainly in Colorado I think those are leaning to the GOP. Who’d be a poll predictor, eh?

But after that small caveat, I frankly consider Romney is toast.

I remain to be convinced otherwise, but I simply do not see any of New Hampshire, Michigan – for heaven’s sake, the state only still exists as a going concern thanks to Obama’s largesse – Wisconsin or Pennsylvania (despite much huff and puff about the latter by the right, desperately trying to offset a loss in Ohio) being in play any more.

NH voters are notoriously independent. They will have been impressed by Obama’s efforts over the “superstorm”, and warmed to him very late. (This state always decides late, anyhow.) Four more votes for Obama.

Wisconsin is more problematical but the figures look like it is following its neighbours in reluctantly holding its nose and giving the President from the big smoke over their border another chance. Ten in Obama’s column.

Pennsylvania is a biggie – 20 electoral college votes – but in my view it is simply too urbanised, overall, to fall to the Republicans. With the exception of one poll (a tie) it has been in plus territory for Obama since the 21st October, and currently by nearly 4%, and if, for example, I give Florida to Romney on the basis that the trend has comfortably been his way for a while (which is one of the other reasons I like him there) then it seems logical to give Pennsylvania, despite a new TV buy by the GOP, to Obama.

And any talk, in my opinion, that Iowa (6 votes), Minnesota (10 votes) or Oregon (7 votes) are in play for Romney is purely fanciful. And beyond that, the latest margins reported by polls in other states are all so large as to make any late changes in their likely result impossible.

The what if game

But let’s play a game. Let’s pretend I am allowing my pro-Democrat rose-tinted glasses to cloud my independent commentator judgement, and let’s give everything that’s called a toss up to Romney except, say, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which I really do think are so solid for the President now that it would be pointless messing around with them.

I call this the “Crazy Game Scenario”

Let’s give Romney all of Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Minnesota, and Oregon. It’s highly unlikely, of course, that every single swing state listed would flop into the Romney column, but not literally impossible. On that basis, Romney/Ryan actually win by 280-258.

But remember, as at today the polls have Obama leading in Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Minnesota and Oregon. It would be an earthquake for the Republicans to win this way.

The “Best Revenge Is Voting Scenario”

Let’s give Florida, Virginia – yes, still – and North Carolina to Romney, and Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa, Minnesota and Oregon to Obama. Under this scenario (which on current polling is at the very least “likely”) then this gives the race to Obama by 290 to 248, a Democrat majority in the electoral college of 42.

If by some remarkable result Axelrod’s confidence is well founded and Obama takes Virginia as well, then the math becomes Obama 303 Romney 235, or a majority of 68. This is also conceivable. And there’s a lot of people around who think it’s becoming likely as we are about to see.

If I was a betting man – which I am – I’d therefore be having a close look at an Obama victory in the region of 20-42 electoral college votes, and probably nearer the upper end of that spread.

If you feel like having apunt, then these two options are currently offered at 7-2 (270-289 electoral college votes) and 5-2 (290-309 electoral college votes) respectively on Ladbrokes (UK), for example, so one could take both bets and still end up ahead. But you can do better with tighter spreads – for example, you can get 6-1 around the traps for 281-290 electoral college votes if you hunt. might be helpful.

As these figures reflect actual money being invested by people who are studying the runes and placing often substantial sums on as a result of their research, they are historically often better indicators of likely outcomes than anything else.

Interestingly there has obviously been substantial money on a big Obama win – garnering as many 330-349 electoral college votes – as the odds I have spotted are miserly, just 3-1.

You can also get a little worse than even money, 5/6, on Obama getting under 304 electoral college votes. That might be a smart bet if you can afford to put enough on it to make an even money bet worthwhile.

I can tell you that looking around the betting websites, I see the bookies have the Democrats favourites in Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, and even Virginia. They are such strong favourites in New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada and Iowa that they aren’t worth a bet. The smart money currently has Romney winning Florida – just.

Some serious money has gone down on some sites for a Democrat win in Virginia. Ditto, they are almost unbackable in Pennsylvania, which is supposed to be the state that is rescuing Romney’s ass. Er, not.

Overall, the Democrats are almost an un-backable favourite, both to win the Presidency and the popular vote.

OK, so that’s about it.

As I have said consistently for six months, Obama will win, probably about 40 electoral votes ahead, maybe as little as 20 (unlikely) maybe as high as 60-70 ahead (unlikely, but possible).

Oh, and as I have said elsewhere, I haven’t got an election result in the USA, UK, or Australia wrong in over 35 years. (This of course means it is certain I have got this one way wrong, I guess!) But I take no responsibility whatsoever for you losing your shirt on the result, whatever it is.

In short: all care, no responsibility, people.

Enjoy watching the results flow in. Come Wednesday, we can all get back to talking about the football.

Katy Perry performs at a campaign rally for US President Barack Obama in a rubber dress …. phew. Then again, Romney has, er, Meat Loaf on his team.

From AFP and others

President Barack Obama and rival Mitt Romney darted across the United States Saturday in an 11th-hour blitz, with the close White House battle heading to an ill-tempered climax.

Sharp political arrows flew much as they have throughout the bitter, months-long battle between the two parties’ flag-bearers, but the rivals also turned to soaring rhetoric as they made their closing arguments.

Three days before voters choose between giving Obama a second term or sending him back to Chicago, the rivals chased one another through a handful of states that will decide Tuesday’s too-close-to-call election.

The president dashed from small rural towns in Ohio to the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for a larger rally with a big, rowdy crowd in a conference center.

He also heads to Iowa and then Virginia, two of the eight or so battlegrounds that the campaigns are obsessing over in the final 72 hours of the race. Romney spent the day in New Hampshire, Iowa and Colorado.

Gratuitous extra photo of Katy Perry. Um, well, look. She just makes Obama look better than ever, OK?

Obama’s applause lines were greeted with lusty cheers, and chants of “four more years” from a crowd, put at 20,000 by Milwaukee event officials, warmed up before Obama’s arrival by pop star Katy Perry.

“As long as there is a child in any place in Milwaukee, any place in Wisconsin, any place in this country, who is languishing in poverty and barred from opportunity, our fight goes on,” Obama said,.

“Our fight goes on because America has always done best when everybody has got a fair shot,” he added, pushing his populist economic message.

Obama also hit out at what he says is Romney’s effort to roll back the clock to the days when Wall Street had “free rein to do whatever” it liked, contributing to “an economic crisis that we’re still cleaning our way out of.”

“And governor Romney now is a very talented salesman,” Obama added. “So in this campaign, he is trying as hard as he can to repackage the same old ideas that didn’t work and offer them up as change.”

Wisconsin had been considered safe Democratic territory, but a combination of a resurgent Republican Party, waning enthusiasm for Obama and home state hero Paul Ryan as Romney’s running mate has tightened the race.

The latest RealClearPolitics average of state polls has Obama leading in Wisconsin by 5.4 percent.

Romney began his day in New Hampshire, which has only four of the 270 electoral votes needed to claim the White House but could punch above its weight in a tight finish, and accused Obama of “demonizing” political foes.

“I won’t represent just one party, I’ll represent one nation,” Romney told a crowd at an airport rally outside Portsmouth, and warned Obama would find it impossible to work with congressional Republicans if he wins re-election.

Romney also debuted a new political ad Saturday, seizing on Obama’s comment in Ohio a day earlier when he told supporters angry at the Republicans not to boo but to vote, saying “voting’s the best revenge.”

The ad featured Romney telling his biggest crowd of the campaign in Ohio Friday that Obama “asked his supporters to vote for revenge – for revenge.”

“Instead, I ask the American people to vote for love of country,” he said.

(Implying Obama doesn’t love his country? Disgraceful. I think Obama was simply stating the obvious. The best way to fight back against the continual lies and obfuscations of the Romney camp is to get out and vote.)

Romney repeated the message in New Hampshire and then at a rally in Dubuque, Iowa, where in close combat on the last weekend of the campaign, Obama was set to touchdown for his own event at the same airport hours later.

He also blasted the president for four years of failed economic policy that has left the nation mired in debt, with high unemployment and soaring gas prices.

“He wants to settle. Look, Americans don’t settle. We aspire, we reach, we dream, we achieve,” Romney said.

Later in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Romney said he saw Tuesday as “a moment to look into the future, and imagine what we can do to put the past four years behind us.”

“We’re that close right now,” he said. “The door to a brighter future is there.”

The president earlier visited the Washington headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency as New York and New Jersey struggle to deal with the aftermath of murderous superstorm Sandy.

“We still have a long way to go,” said Obama, stressing he had no time for government “red tape” which could hold up the relief effort, after discussing the crisis with the governors of New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.

The Obama campaign enjoys the comparison between Obama doing his job managing the government while Romney campaigns as polls show a majority of Americans approve of the president’s handling of Sandy.

Latest polls show Obama and Romney tied nationally, but Obama appears to be solidifying his position in enough of the eight or so swing states that will decide the election to support his hopes of a second term.

New surveys by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News Saturday showed the president up by 49 to 47 percent in Florida and leading Romney 51 to 45 percent in Ohio, double the margin in the current RealClearPolitics average.

A Mason Dixon poll for the Miami Herald, however, had Romney up by six points in Florida, which the Republican, who also needs Ohio, cannot afford to lose if he is to be elected America’s 45th president.

This is a much better and more balanced article on the likely US election outcome than most. (Thank you to Richard Ember for forwarding it to me.)

And not just because it bears out what I have been saying, which is there has been a modest return to Obama, and also that Obama will indeed win Ohio (thus denying Romney the White House, because there is nowhere Romney can pick up the votes he won’t get in Ohio, even allowing that Romney will probably – not certainly – win Va and Fla.)

It also confirms my previous assertion that the national lead he currently enjoys is because Romney has been piling up votes where he doesn’t need them, in solid “red” states, as conservative voters (including Evangelical Christians, emboldened by Billy Graham’s flip-flop over whether Mormonism is a cult) decide they can, after all, hold their nose and vote for him.

Anyhow, in related polling, RCP’s rolling average today pulls Romney’s lead back from 0.9% to 0.8%, not enough to win the electoral college vote. Is there wild enthusiasm for Obama? No, there is not. Will he win, if the Democrats get their ground game right? Yes.

I am definitely going to write about something other than American politics soon, I promise. Promise, honest injun, I pinky swear.

Obama and Romney

“I really don’t like you.” “I really don’t like you more.”  “Keep smiling though, eh?”  “OK”

This is a much better and more balanced article on the likely US election outcome than most. (Thank you to Richard Ember for forwarding it to me.)

And not just because it bears out what I have been saying, which is there has been a modest return to Obama, and also that Obama will indeed win Ohio (thus denying Romney the White House, because there is nowhere Romney can pick up the votes he won’t get in Ohio, even allowing that Romney will probably – not certainly – win Va and Fla.)

It also confirms my previous assertion that the national lead he currently enjoys is because Romney has been piling up votes where he doesn’t need them, in solid “red” states, as conservative voters (including Evangelical Christians, emboldened by Billy Graham’s flip-flop over whether Mormonism is a cult) decide they can, after all, hold their nose and vote for him.

Anyhow, in related polling, RCP’s rolling average today pulls Romney’s lead back from 0.9% to 0.8%, not enough to win the electoral college vote. Is there wild enthusiasm for Obama? No, there is not. Will he win, if the Democrats get their ground game right? Yes.

I am definitely going to write about something other than American politics soon, I promise. Promise, honest injun, I pinky swear.

Opinion polls

Down the end of this docco – well, a bit more than halfway thru –  are the actual current USA polls, without anyone cherry picking them, and the dates on which they were taken.

It should be noted that the second Presidential debate was on the 16th. The clear controversy is the difference between the Rasmussen and Gallup Polls, (the latter which has been criticised because of its sampling type and as a result of having a track record of being incorrectly inflative to the GOP) and the IBD and HC/UConn and ABC polls. The last four, being entirely pre-second debate can probably be discounted.

If we discount the Gallup poll change by 50% down to +3 (which of course is arguable, but also less of a discount than indicated by its previous performance – it over-estimated McCain by +9% at one point last time) and make it Romney +3, and then average the results for the top four polls, then the result is Romney +2 and Obama +3.

And I am GUESSING this is about right. I predicted about a 1% increase for Obama over his low point int he aftermath of the Debate #1 debacle. I expect to see the trend continue after a win for Obama on Monday night, but that is pure star-gazing.

But in my opinion, something else is happening too. As always happens in tight races, both sides are shoring up support in their stronger areas. Thus a state like NC for example, where Bush won very easily, and in which Obama squeaked home last time, is, in my opinion, not really “leaning” Romney but should be thoroughly placed in his camp. However, that doesn’t really help him win, because he’s piling up votes in a state which he really should win easily anyway. Similarly, Obama is comfortably ahead in Michigan, but so he damn well should be, since he bought into the car industry and also won it by 16% last time.

The fact that a state like Virginia is a dead heat at the moment should be very concerning for the GOP. I think it will go to Romney, but given it’s importance, and given Bush won it by 8.1 and 8.2%, and Obama by 6.3% (which is around his current fall in the polls) it should surely be comfortably trending towards Romney now. But it isn’t.

The fight in the battleground states is much tighter than it is in the homebase states. One word of wisdom – back in the Democratic primaries before 2008, Obama beat Clinton by concentrating his support in the key battleground states, and conceding states that didn’t matter. Democrat investment in Ohio – which should, by national polling, be long gone from the Obama camp – shows they are doing it again.

Rasmussen Tracking         10/17 – 10/19                  Romney +1
Gallup Tracking                 10/13 – 10/19                  Romney +6
IBD/TIPP Tracking         10/14 – 10/19                   Obama  +3
Hartford Courant/UConn   10/11 – 10/16             Obama  +3

ABC News/Wash Post 1    0/10 – 10/13                    Obama +3
Politico/GWU/Battleground    10/7 – 10/11         Obama +1
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/8 – 10/10      Romney +1
FOX News    10/7 – 10/9                                                Romney +1

In short, I believe Obama is just one good debate away from being home again. Whereas I believe Romney is one GREAT debate – plus some problems for Obama plus a better organisation on the ground (which he doesn’t have) plus getting lucky in every battleground state in the country … from being home.

The odds, whatever GOP operatives and supporters would have us believe, are still very pro-Obama. Tonight. Tomorrow? Who knows.

I’ll say this too. I think the GOP will be delighted to have hurt Obama, to have defended many seats around the country, to be “back in the game”, and in the process to have got rid of the uncomfortable and disliked Romney. A few more years to knock the edges of Ryan (or someone similar) and they think they’ll be back in for a generation. And they well may be right.