The suggestion was that if anyone had room to fall further in the polls, it was Romney from his current 45% perch.  If that were to be the case, it would signal Obama winning by 10 points or so.  That's not going to happen.

As for 1936, the situations are similar, but not so much.  FDR won a decisive victory because there was a widespread belief things were improving.  After all, unemployment had gone from 25% to 15%.  In terms of 1984, once again there was a widespread belief things were improving.  It was morning in America.

Obama can't run on a view that things are improving so comparing 2012 to 1936 is a stretch.  Unemployment has gone from 8% to 10% back to 8%.  It's probably even rising again.  And I would also say Obama's failure to convince most Americans to believe in his programs suggests his political skills aren't as good as Reagan's.

If polling is any indiction, Mitt's 45% is likely to fall.

The more people learn about him, the less they like.

So Romney's likely to do worse in 2012 than the 47% McCain got in 2008?  I find that very hard to believe.

No record of military heroism (or martyrdom). McCain didn't have business dealings to defend.

So you think it's possible Obama beats Romney 55-45 or 56-44?  Sorry, but that's just fantasy.  Not that Obama will win, but that he can win a significant victory with the current economic conditions.  Nominal Republicans are not going to abandon Romney to vote for Obama.

Anyone who thinks McCain was a popular nominee for the Republican party is smoking some really good stuff.  He was anything but.  Romney may not be popular either, but the desire to beat Obama is over the top and the economy stinks.

If history serves as a guide once again on these two issues, Obama is probably in more serious trouble than the polls generally indicate.  Now before people say I'm drawing too many conclusions, just review the RCP charts and you'll see how often 47% appears in the horserace and job approval.  It's hard to miss.

I don't disagree that he's at around 47%. But where I think you're drawing too many conclusions is the premise that history serves as a guide. We do not have anywhere near a statistically useful sample of elections (with polling data) in which the incumbent was below 50%, much less those in which he was below 50% but very near it.

Fair enough.

The national polls are irrelevant. Romney will run up the score in solid red states, but he has virtually no path to 270.



Obama - 253
Romney - 191

I don't see Romney denies Obama 17 EVs from that lot, given what current polling looks like. Barring major economic downtown, Obama should win re-election.

That's just crazy to say.  I'm not predicting Romney will win, but to say he has no path is wrong.  The internal data of most recent polls has been very bad for Obama.  Top line numbers are almost always the last to change.  The economic fatigue is just now starting to filter into the headline numbers and we're seeing Romney creep up on Obama.

I suppose you could have written the same thing about Reagan in 1980.  His path to victory didn't look so good in July, yet he won 43 states.  Things can change and the polls will follow, not lead.

If polling is any indiction, Mitt's 45% is likely to fall.

The more people learn about him, the less they like.

So Romney's likely to do worse in 2012 than the 47% McCain got in 2008?  I find that very hard to believe.

I'm not about to predict a Romney win, but I think the talk Romney is constrained by the map is overstated right now.  I realize the polls still generally favor Obama in the battleground states, but he's still below 50% in most state polls.  That puts him in a weak position against a rather weak opponent.

Obama would have to defy electoral history to win in this political and economic environment.  Most feel the economy never escaped recession, unemployment remains above 8%, the right/wrong track is 30-65, and Obama's remains stuck at 47% or so.  None of that argues for a re-election win.

Most on this site, including me, have been very dour about Romney's abilities as a candidate and his chances to win, but here he is basically tied nationally.  Even after $100 in negative campaigning, Romney's still right there and edging up if anything.  That shows just how tough the environment is for Obama.

Although I've only posted once or twice since March, I've felt for two months or so this race would end one of two ways.  First, Obama would win a narrow victory thanks to unease about Romney and Romney's own ineptness.  Second, Romney would win a rather convincing victory as undecided voters broke towards him late thanks to the terrible economy.  I still feel that way.

People may want to poo poo unemployment, right/wrong track, and other factors, but they were the undoing of Carter as well.  At this point in the 1980 race, Reagan trailed.  I know the composite of the electorate is far different today, but the state polls can change rather easily (for good or bad) as people come to know Romney better.

Job approval is very critical for incumbent presidents.  Carter ran ahead of his job approval in 1980, but his vote percentage all but matched his job approval on election day.  Almost certainly, if Obama's job approval was over 50%, supporters would be using it as proof the election was all but over.

I also agree 47% for Obama is better than 45% for Romney, but Obama is 100% known to the public.  His 47% number is not the same as Romney's 45% number is.  Obama's number has been forged over three and a half years as president and essentially corresponds with his job approval.  Romney's number has room to grow (or fall) since he's not as well known to the uninformed dopes who make up the vast majority of the voting public.

I'm not saying Obama is doomed because of this job approval number, but I think it's more important than most think.  If history holds form and his vote share doesn't exceed his job approval on election day, he could face trouble.  That's especially true if the economy continues to slow.  It's hard to see Obama becoming more popular if we're teetering on the edge of recession.

As someone who vehemently opposed Romney in the primaries, it's taken me some time to warm to him.  I suppose I've reconciled myself to him now and I suspect that's the case with many other conservatives as well.  Reconciled support is never the greatest thing for a candidate, but they've got to do the best they can with what they have.

Having said that, I've noticed a recurring number in the multitude of polls that have been released over the last four months.  Whether it's the horserace or job approval, Obama seems to be the 47% man.  To be sure, a poll every now and then puts Obama above the 47% mark, but they're rare on the national scene and never confirmed.

I bring this number up because history has taught us two general things about presidential races involving incumbents.  First, an incumbent's vote total rarely exceeds his job approval rating.  Second, incumbents are definitely in the danger zone when they poll below 50% this close to an election.

If history serves as a guide once again on these two issues, Obama is probably in more serious trouble than the polls generally indicate.  Now before people say I'm drawing too many conclusions, just review the RCP charts and you'll see how often 47% appears in the horserace and job approval.  It's hard to miss.

I also realize GWB polled around 47% for a time in 2004, but that was his nadir that year and he steadily rebounded as election day moved closer.  In fact, his approval in the exit polls on election day was 53% according to Sean Trende at RCP.  Without a doubt, the economy was in far better shape an improving.

Regardless, it's hard not to notice how consistently Obama polls at or below the 47% mark.  That number doesn't guarantee a defeat because he's just a few points from 50%.  But Obama is also just a few points away from 44% as well.  And if the economy continues to slow into the Fall, it will be tougher and tougher for him to nudge above the 47% line.

The electorate is different and not heavily favoring the Democrats.

You honestly think people are going to care about BO's past now after he has been president for four years?

It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

This just reeks of desperation.

McCain never made some of the more unpleasant parts of Obama's past an issue.  I don't see the upside of calling Obama a coke user, but if Romney's campaign did reek of desperation, why is the race essentially tied to +1 for Obama?

The Romney campaign is turning into the gang that can't shoot straight.  Last night, they were giddy they might win Mississippi and suggested the race would effectively end if that happened.  Unfortunately, they lost and then Eric Fernstrom went on CNN and said winning AL and MS weren't important.  He then pointed to Samoa.

I understand the Romney gang is doing their best to spin a bad night, but the delegate math argument is a loser for them.  It gives the impression Mitt doesn't actually need to win any of these competitive states to win the nomination.  Maybe I'm old fashioned, but winning ought to matter.

Romney needs to excite the base and some sort of convoluted discussion about delegates is not going to do it.  Still, that's the best case Romney has right now because he knows the conservative base is opposed to him in the primary.  Newt was not a real candidate, yet he got more than 30% in both states and beat Romney.

Romney does not have this race sealed up at all.  He may still win it, but his path to 1144 grows more difficult with each race.  Romney's own numbers say he must win 47% of the remaining delegates, but he's shown no signs of being able to do that.  If Newt and Santorum hold Romney to 1000 delegates or less, the unpledged delegates probably won't put him over the top.

Romney pushing this delegate math argument because he is aware that if he can't win on the first ballot, he probably won't win at all.  When delegates are allowed to vote for whomever they choose, it's hard to envision Santorum and Newt voters abandoning their men in order to save Romney's flagging chances.  Same for the Pail delegates.  It's far more likely Romney's delegates begin to peel off in attempts to find a consensus choice, possibly someone not even in the race.

I will stand by my prediction of more than a month ago.  The nominee will either be Romney or someone not in the race.

Folks, Romney won more delegates yesterday than anybody else thanks to big wins in Hawaii and American Samoa. Like Obama (and unlike Hillary) four years ago, Team Romney knows that this is about delegates. And the Romney lead in delegates is insurmountable unless Santorum wins most everywhere from here on out, including New Jersey and Utah. Not just that, Santorum would need to crush, not just beat, Romney in places like Connecticut and Rhode Island (Home of the Winfield).

Folks, this game is over. Santorum is like a team trying to comeback from a 48-24 deficit in the third quarter of a football game. Yeah, you got off to a 3-0 start, but you're down 48-24 now. A comeback is not going to happen...

So Romney can lose all the way to the nomination?  Wow, that's exciting.  He'll be on quite a roll, won't he.

Why do Romney supporters pretend to not understand that the threshold that needs to be crossed for them to claim victory is not that no other candidate can get a first round majority, but that Romney can get a first round majority?  That is not yet certain.  If Romney arrives in Tampa with a plurality but not a majority, then he probably will not be the nominee.

I completely agree with this.  Newt and Santorum are now in this to block Romney from 1144.  If Romney doesn't get that number on the first ballot, he will not win on future ballots.

...and there is virtually no way to deny Romney the nomination short of upsets in winner-take-all California, New Jersey and *drum roll* Utah. Good luck with that!

If Romney wins Mississippi, the polar opposite of Romney's home state of Massachusetts, it is time for Santorum and Gingrich to endorse Romney. If they continue this circus, they are only helping the cause of Barack Obama and Co...

Congratulations Winfield!

Care to revise and extend these remarks?

It's becoming more and more possible each day Willard will need extra help, a deal unpledged delegates, to push him over the 1144 mark.

Romney is starting to get nervous as well.  He's begun to speak about the ills of a convention because he wants scare everyone into voting for him now.  He knows if he doesn't win it on the first ballot, he'll likely not win the nomination.

I don't think Rubio will be the VP nominee.  Polls indicate he won't make a difference in Florida and he's said a hundred times he will not be the VP choice.  He's only been in office for two years and I don't think Romney wants to run the risk of another Palin.  I'm not comparing the the two, but better to find someone with a longer track record and more known knowns to quote Rumsfled.

I think Romney is already in bad enough shape he must pick someone who guarantees him a state.  Obama already has the Kerry 2004 states locked up and that gives him 246 votes.  If Obama campaigns to be the governor of Florida and wins, he'll win the presidency.  Romney has to win Florida before he does anything else.

I think Jeb Bush is the only person who can guarantee Romney a win in Florida.  Romney might win it with other choices, but he would have to spend time and money to do it.  With Jeb, that money can be spent more effectively in his other must win state, Ohio.

Call me crazy, but I think Kay Bailey Hutchinson would be the best pick to complement Romney.

You're crazy.

The last thing Mitt Romney needs to do is burnish his moderate credentials with base voters by choosing KBH.  At some point, Mitt must win over the base, or he will not unify the party.  KBH is not in step with the majority of the party anymore.

I understand you're making a general election case, but Romney's concern is a base that's weary about his authenticity on conservatism.

Both Nate Silver of NYT and Sean Trende of RCP have stories today suggesting the same thing.  Romney could end up 70-100 delegates short of 1144 and would need to rely on unpledged RNC delegates.  That would put him over the top.

This can all change quickly though.  If Romney wins Alabama or Mississippi, the race is over.  If Newt gets out and gives Santorum a one on one shot, Romney has some concerns.  Right now, I think it's more likely Romney wins in either Alabama or Mississippi.

Again I never said it was easy or a given. I just reject the notion that it is more likely for Romney to fall short.

He is going to have a rough couple of weeks with three southern primaries and I think by the end of March he may no longer have a majority, But April is going to be a very good month for him with lots north east primaries so it is hard to imagine him not making up for that lost ground and again having a good sized majority at the end of April, but still well short of what he needs. Then May is again going to be a tough month, with some wins and losses, but picking up delegates all the way, with Texas as his biggest challenge. If he can make it through May with anything close to 50% of total delegates awarded so far, then he has it in the bag with a series of friendly primaries in June (CA, NJ, UT, NM).

I shouldn't have said likely, but I was basing it on Romney's consistent ability to get 40%.

Assuming Mittens falls short in the end of getting X number of delegates (whatever that is, to put him over the top on his own power), just who is the zombie person who gets nominated?  How is this all going to work? The story line is going to have to get really convoluted, and whomever the zombie is, it is then put two months until the General election. How is that going to work out?

There in my view just a surreal quality to all of this chatter.

Romney would very likely be the nominee, especially if he cam very close to 1144, but he would likely need to cut a deal with Paul.  Given what we know about Paul voters, are they going to follow his lead and vote for Romney?  They might not.

If Romney gets stymied and ends up with 900 or 925 delegates, is it a given the party would still nominate him if he couldn't seal the deal in the voting process and if he's trailing badly in the polls?  Of course, this is the unlikely doomsday scenario, but what about this process hasn't been crazy?

Another to view the chase for delegates was stated by Chuck Todd on MSNBC this morning.  He says the view is Romney must win between 45% to 47% of all remaining delegates to win.  His throwing the WTA states in with the proportional states, but he's just making the point as to how many Romney must still win.  As I said, if Romney is only getting 40% in competative states and Santorum doesn't fall apart, what is the reason to believe Romney suddenly starts getting 45% to 47% of the vote?  Of course, that could all change if Romney wins in the south next week.

Once again, there is not a one to one relationship between popular vote % and delegate winnings. Romney has garnered a majority of delegates with a plurality of votes. And he can continue to do so all the way to Utah. That is how the delegate math works.

Even John McCain didn't get a majority of votes in 2008 and he was the presumptive nominee by March.

There might not be a one to one relationship between votes and delegates, but even Romney's own delegate math presser yesterday showed he has a hard time coming to 1144.  Santorum is going to continue to win conservative areas and that is going to be a problem for Romney.

In the last two days, Jay Cost, John Avlon of the Daily Beast, Chuck Todd of MSNBC, and even Joe Scarborough have said it will be difficult for Romney to get to 1144.  It is not a given and if he continues to win just 40% of the vote while Santorum gets 39% of the vote, it's hard to see him clearing the 1144 mark.

Romney needs a break out win or he might have to cut a deal.

Another to view the chase for delegates was stated by Chuck Todd on MSNBC this morning.  He says the view is Romney must win between 45% to 47% of all remaining delegates to win.  His throwing the WTA states in with the proportional states, but he's just making the point as to how many Romney must still win.  As I said, if Romney is only getting 40% in competative states and Santorum doesn't fall apart, what is the reason to believe Romney suddenly starts getting 45% to 47% of the vote?  Of course, that could all change if Romney wins in the south next week.

Here's the math John Avlon of Daily Beast did.  

Consider this: if Mitt wins every remaining all-or-nothing state but one, and half of the remaining proportional delegates, he would likely still fall short of the magic nomination number of 1,144—which would force him to rely on unpledged delegates, the Republican version of the infamous Democratic super-delegates in 2008, to claim his party’s mantle.

And if Romney musters only 40 percent of the proportional delegates going forward—equivalent to his share of the popular vote total to date—it would mean the first Republican race undecided when the convention opened in a generation.

Having read that, why is there any reason to believe Romney will suddenly begin to get 50% when he hasn't been able to so far?  Why would Paul, Newt, or Santorum get out knowing this?  Of course, if Romney wins one state next week, this all changes.

In states where there has been a real contest, all or most of the candidates on the ballot, Romney has essentially failed to garner more than 40% of the vote.  If that trend continues and Santorum stays strong in March with wins in KS, AL, MS, and LA, it seems unlikely there would be some massive move to Romney that would ensure 1144 gained.

Perception is reality and the perception today is Romney, depsite winning 6 of 10 or gaining more delegates, didn't have a good night because of his poor performances in the South.  That's why Santorum isn't gone and that's why Newt is still sculking around.  A month from now, Santorum could have Romney back on his heels with 4 wins to Mitt's 1.  If that's the case, why would the April contests become easy wins for Romney, espcially with most being proportional?

One thing to consider about any deal is this.  Most likely Romney would have to cut a deal with Paul.  I doubt Santorum or Newt would be a forgiving mood after the firebmbing Romney gave them.  If there is a deal between Romney and Paul, it's easy to imagine Paul's supporters ignoring any deal and going their own way on the voting.  That's a doomsday scenario for Romney, but we're a long way from that.

Romney came into Super Tuesday with a majority of delegates and he left with an even bigger majority of delegates. So how is it suddenly "clear" that he will not end the primary season with a majority.

Sure it's possible that he will only end with a plurality, but winning with a majority still seems to be the more likely outcome.

And if he comes out short, he will work out a deal with whoever can put him over the top. Assuming Paul has enough delegates to make up the shortfall he seems a likely choice as he can probably be bought with some additions of his issues to the platform and a prime time speaking slot. Santorum would likely demand space on the ticket. Not sure what Gingrich would ask for, but they dont get a long so he is not likely to work with Newt.

Despite winning, Romney can't shake the zombies chasing him.  I didn't realize this, but there are only four or five winner-take-all states left.  That means Romney may keep winning, but with just 40% wins he's not going to come close to the 1144 mark.  Jay Cost wrote today on NRO Romney will have a strong plurality of delegates, but not a majority.

The reason it now seems likely he won't earn 1144 through the voting process is because he failed to deliver a knockout blow that would effectively end the resistance to him.  Heading into yesterday, the spin was Romney was closing fast in TN and GA while pulling away in OH.  Yet everywhere we look, he underperform the expectations.

Although Romney won Ohio and five other states, the manner in which he did it has not gone unnoticed by conservative pundits and other members of the media.  Without a steep financial advantage, it seems pretty clear Romney would not be winning the competitive states.  Michigan and Ohio best illustrate that.

The net result is Romney has once again failed to effectively put away the weakest field in modern presidential politics.  Santorum was allowed to fight another day and will likely do significant damage to the perception of Romney over the next month.  Losses in Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi along with other unfavorable terrain will damage Romney's weak frontrunner status even more.  Romney does have Illinois in his sights though.

While Romney will likely be the nominee, it seems clear to me he will do so without winning the Southern states (we all know Florida is different).  It also now seems likely Romney will not be able to win 1144 delegates through the voting process.  In order to get over the magic number, he'll likely have to strike some sort of deal with Ron Paul.  God only knows what that might produce.

I've always hoped for a scenario that would produce a new candidate, but that is not likely.  While a contested convention could produce a new candidate, it's far more likely a deal will be struck that puts one of the four current contestants in the driver's seat.  Regardless, it now seems the nomination will be a symbolic victory as the process has and will continue to do great harm to Romney.