Presidential Race Polling Very Close

With the election looming just two weeks away, and the final debate between President Barack Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney in the books, the focus turns to polls.  The race has tightened in recent weeks, especially in the key battleground states of Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and New Hampshire. The President carried all these states in his win over Senator John McCain in the 2008 election, though polls indicate the 2012 election will be much closer, particularly in the previously mentioned battleground states.  While the President maintained an early advantage in Ohio, Iowa, and Colorado, recent polls in these states place the two candidates in a near deadlocked battle.  Mitt Romney has retained a slight lead in Florida, arguably the most important battleground state, over the past month.

The Economist has compiled an election season map, with polling details for each state.  Based on the most recent polling results President Obama possesses 253 likely Electoral College votes (17 shy of the 270 necessary for victory) to Mitt Romney's 191. However, there are still 94 votes from battleground states that are up in the air.  Should Mitt Romney hold onto his lead in Florida, he would receive 29 votes - the third most for any state.  This would leave him 50 votes shy of victory with 65 votes still on the table.  While Florida represents the most votes for any battleground state, Ohio may yet be the most important.  If the President takes Ohio along with the other 253 likely Obama votes, he surpasses the 270 vote mark with a single vote to spare.  A recent Quinnipiac Poll gives the President a five-point lead in Ohio, and he's led the state in most polls throughout the past two months.  

Early Polls Show Romney's Lead in South Carolina Shrinking

Nate Silver of the FiveThirtyEight blog writes that the first South Carolina GOP primary poll contradicts his earlier prediction that Mitt Romney would increase "his modest lead in the South Carolina polls once his victory in New Hampshire was reflected in the surveys there." Instead, the poll, an automated survey from InsiderAdvantage, "shows Mr. Romney’s lead contracting in South Carolina," though Silver "urge[s] a lot of caution in interpreting it."

The poll "was conducted on Wednesday and shows Mr. Romney with 23 percent of the vote, just 2 points ahead of Newt Gingrich at 21 percent. The poll has Rick Santorum and Ron Paul tied for third place at 13 percent, with Jon M. Huntsman Jr. having moved ahead of Rick Perry for fifth place."

But Silver is not completely sold on InsiderAdvantage. He writes, "InsiderAdvantage has a mixed track record and rates fairly poorly in the FiveThrityEight pollster ratings, which is one reason to interpret these numbers with some care. In addition, Matt Towery, the head of InsiderAdvantage, formerly served as the head of Mr. Gingrich’s political organization from 1992 until Mr. Gingrich left Congress."

Silver does note, however, that "another polling firm that rates more highly, Public Policy Polling, said in a series of Twitter messages that it has also detected a tight race between Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich in South Carolina, with little evidence of favorable momentum for Mr. Romney following his New Hampshire victory."

Negative early news for Romney in South Carolina is partially offset by early polling in Florida, however. Silver writes: "Confusing matters further is that a poll of Florida, from Rasmussen Reports, did show some gains for Mr. Romney. The poll, conducted on Wednesday, showed Mr. Romney with 41 percent of the vote there, better than he has done in any prior survey of the state. The poll also showed Mr. Gingrich’s numbers on the decline." Silver predicts that "if the initial results from South Carolina and Florida are confirmed by other pollsters, they would suggest that Florida could play a backstop role for Mr. Romney, in somewhat the same way that New Hampshire did for him relative to Iowa."

However, at this stage Silver suggests that we wait before attaching much weight to the early poll results from either South Carolina or Florida. 

Elections and Rural Bias

Every four years, America's chief politicians make a pilgrimage to Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that in to a large extent influence who will be America's two presidential nominees. Iowa and New Hampshire, of course, don't have the most delegates of any state, but the media coverage, money and momentum that candidates receive from high finishes in these first two states often makes them unbeatable (the 2008 election was unique in this regard, with both primaries competitive well past Super Tuesday). In 2007, Brown economists Brian Knight and Nathan Schiff set out to quantify exactly how much more influence voters in Iowa and New Hampshire had in the 2004 Democratic primary than voters in other states. Knight and Schiff noted that anecdotal correlations between candidates who win Iowa or New Hampshire and those who win the nomination are too simplistic because those correlations could reflect underlying candidate strength and examined changes in polling data in late states as a response to the outcomes of primaries in early states. In short, they found primary voters and caucus goers in the earliest states had eight times the influence of those in the latest states.

It's not just the nomination system that biases American policy toward rural areas. States with small populations (which tend, of course, to be rural) are overrepresented in the Senate and Electoral College. To take the most extreme case, a citizen of Wyoming has 69 times the influence in the United States Senate as a citizen of California (that is to say, Wyoming's 544000 residents have the same representation as California's 37 million) and 3.7 times the influence in the Presidential election (three electoral votes per 544000 residents versus 55 per 37 million residents).

David Leonhardt in the New York Times argues that these systems of unequal representation have profound policy consequences. He notes that early-voting states are more likely to receive pork than late-voting ones if they supported the winning candidate, and that the Iowa caucuses have turned ethanol subsidies into an untouchable third rail despite little evidence they contribute much to solving the climate crisis. Most of all, he argues that America has an "anti-urban policy bias," focusing on the issues important to rural and small-town voters even though he believes that "national prosperity depends on urban prosperity."

ZM cf