Obama and the Polls

If I put Obama’s name in the title, I’ll get more reader hits… it’s crazy, yes?

I became aware four days ago of a series of polls that show that Barack Obama’s outright defeat during the televised debate last week practically erased his advance in the polls.

This requires several explanations.

1) The polls represent a national average.

The American president is elected by a collage of delegates coming from 50 elections from 50 states. It’s therefore necessary to look at individual state polls — and particularly in the states [that are] traditionally divided in half. The famous swing states are meant to make the pendulum swing from one side to another.

Simply put, it’s necessary to first follow Florida, Virginia and Ohio. If Mitt Romney doesn’t carry a majority in these three states, it will be very difficult for him to win. The indications at the moment are that his decent performance in the first debate benefited him in Florida and Virginia. But the merits of state polls are doubtful…

2) Two debates remain.

President Obama will not be as bad in the next two debates. I refuse to imagine it.

Having realized the damage caused by his detached and professorial attitude in Denver, he will know in his mind to be warm, precise and forthright in the next two debates. He is going to also have to be more aggressive. It’s a risk because he likes to appear totally calm. If he is too aggressive certain “independents,” especially women, could take offense to it.

Do not forget that Mitt Romney is conscious that the terms of the second debate, scheduled for October 16, have changed. The Republican candidate will have certainly taken into account the greatest difficulty that he will have to face: an adversary not on his guard. And Mitt Romney will especially have to present himself equal to his first performance. The third and final debate is scheduled for October 22.

3) Polls don’t elect presidents.

Voters elect; polls survey. The recognition of this participation is delicate and makes all the difference.

President Obama has a serious problem with this point: The right’s mobilization against him is huge. The Republicans are fully against him. The outright victory of their candidate during the first debate gave [them back] hope and energy. It also facilitated raising [more] funds for their candidate. The tea party has been released, its activists’ role in the polls not fully appreciated.

In return, the independents’ mobilization, which helped Barack Obama win in 2008, will probably not be as helpful in 2012. He had promised to be “post-partisan.” But he never could seduce or rally more than a small handful of Republican senators. In other words, he’s not that popular among Democratic leaders in the capitol.

With the Democrats, will the left be as motivated as in 2008? It’s possible; the fear of Romney is great.

Historically, incumbent presidents are almost always re-elected. George Bush (the father) and Jimmy Carter are the only recent examples of one-term presidencies.

4) It’s false to say that the economic situation will determine the president’s election.

What counts is the perception of [how] the conditions shape up in the months preceding the election.

And so today Barack Obama profits from Americans’ relative rise in optimism. The situation remains just as bad. But it’s perceived as less terrible than six months ago. This helps make a difference. If American confidence had fallen in the past three months, then Mitt Romney would be clearly in the lead.

It’s necessary to reiterate that no president can win if unemployment is above x percent. These historic precedents hardly have value. The rate of unemployment is itself quite dependent on the rate of an active population’s participation. And yet this rate dropped in the past four years. The “true rate of unemployment,” from this point of view, is today clearly more than 10 percent.

5) The Republicans have a good chance of maintaining a majority in the House.

The shortening of the gap between the two candidates — witness its disappearance — is a good omen for Republicans. If America wanted to get rid of the House’s Republican majority, it’s probable that the polls would already say so. And yet this is not the case. The more the race tightens between Obama and Romney, the more Republicans will smile.

A small victory on President Obama’s behalf is the possibility of re-electing a modestly weakened Republican majority. Some tea party extremists seem to be in trouble, but Republicans are already 50 seats ahead out of a total of 435.

Another Republican majority victory in the House of Representatives would be a humiliating problem for the incumbent president: as such, he would need to make compromises with a party that he has been dragging through the mud for the past four years, and the feeling is mutual. The difference is that, to save his second and final term, because the American Constitution forbids presidents from serving a third term, Obama would be obligated this time around to make compromises, notably of the fiscal kind….

A third of the Senate is also replaced on Nov. 6. The Democrats seem able to preserve their narrow majority in the upper chamber of Congress, but anything is possible.