GA-Landmark Communications (R): Obama defeats Romney by 4 points

[Tender Branson]

In a wave election year for Democrats, in a state with a substantial minority population and as he won the presidency in a landslide, Barack Obama lost Georgia to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by 5 points.

“If Obama is going to win a red state, this is his most likely pickoff state,” longtime Georgia Republican political consultant Mark Rountree said. “If he’s going to be making a play for one, I would be looking for him to be making a play here first.” Rountree, skeptical it could be done, believes Georgia’s demographic shifts have made an Obama victory there possible.

A Chicago-based source with knowledge of the Obama campaign said the re-election team would not ignore Georgia.

Rountree, who is also a GOP pollster, said his firm conducted a mid-May auto-dial poll of 1,577 likely Georgia voters showing an uphill climb for Obama.

It found 43 percent supported Obama’s re-election and 47 percent thought it was time to elect someone else. But when the survey put the president head-to-head with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), Obama led 43 percent to 39 percent.

“Mitt Romney is not going to excite Republican voters down here,” said former Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), who ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2008. “That is a danger, that it would suppress Republican turnout.”

In 2008, the Obama campaign briefly considered making a concerted push in Georgia. It figured demographics and Barr’s presence on the ballot could be on its side. But it never spent much money or devoted much of Obama’s time to the state, and in the end he lost to McCain 47 percent to 52 percent.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_135/Georgia-Barack-Obama-Electoral-Chances-206245-1.html

http://landmarkcommunications.net/team

[Tender Branson]

Interesting, because PPP and another group had Romney ahead of Obama by a moderate margin.

Anyway, new map:

Obama vs. Romney



Obama vs. Gingrich



Obama vs. Palin

[Bacon King]

Undecideds at 18%?

I'd bet real money that they'd end up breaking at least two-to-one for Romney if Romney's actually the GOP nominee.

[Tender Branson]

Undecideds at 18%?

I'd bet real money that they'd end up breaking at least two-to-one for Romney if Romney's actually the GOP nominee.

That would still make the end result close:

51% Romney, 49% Obama ...

[Badger]

Undecideds at 18%?

I'd bet real money that they'd end up breaking at least two-to-one for Romney if Romney's actually the GOP nominee.

That would still make the end result close:

51% Romney, 49% Obama ...

And if they "only" split for Romney at 60-40.....

[Gustaf]

Am I missing something or does this reek of a guy with an agenda making up numbers?

[krazen1211]

Romney in Georgia would be a concern against a Southern Democrat. Not so against the current officeholder.

[Tender Branson]

Am I missing something or does this reek of a guy with an agenda making up numbers?

Landmark has polled the Governor race last year and 2 US House races in GA.

They had Deal at 49% and Barnes at 42%, Deal won 53-43.

They also polled GA-02 and GA-08 and they were not really good:

Landmark: Keown (R) 47%, Bishop (D) 45%, actual result was 51-49 for Bishop

Landmark: Scott (R) 53%, Marshall (D) 39%, actual result was 53-47 for Scott

[Bacon King]

Undecideds at 18%?

I'd bet real money that they'd end up breaking at least two-to-one for Romney if Romney's actually the GOP nominee.

That would still make the end result close:

51% Romney, 49% Obama ...

True, but that's probably Romney's floor barring something huge happening in the campaign. "At least two to one", with the emphasis on "at least."

Most "undecided" voters in this state usually break heavily Republican, especially with a poll like this.

[Gustaf]

Am I missing something or does this reek of a guy with an agenda making up numbers?

Landmark has polled the Governor race last year and 2 US House races in GA.

They had Deal at 49% and Barnes at 42%, Deal won 53-43.

They also polled GA-02 and GA-08 and they were not really good:

Landmark: Keown (R) 47%, Bishop (D) 45%, actual result was 51-49 for Bishop

Landmark: Scott (R) 53%, Marshall (D) 39%, actual result was 53-47 for Scott

I'm not questioning whether he's a good pollster or not, but whether he has an agenda with this poll. It sounds an awful lot like someone who might be tied to a Georgian GOP candidate (say Gingrich) trying to make it look like Romney is a bad choice for candidate.

[Heimdal]

Romney might be too much of a Yankee for the Republican base in Georgia, but I think they would come home in an election, especially against a Democrat like Obama.

[Tender Branson]

Obama's base in GA is always about 40-45%.

You will hardly see any poll where he starts with less than that, because of the Demographics of the state.

In 2012, the exit poll will likely be:

60% White
30% Black
  5% Hispanic
  3% Asian
  2% Others

Obama gets at least 95% of Blacks and about 60% from others.

That makes 34.5%.

He also gets at least 20% of Whites. Add another 12%.

Makes a base of 46.5%

With a more conservative electorate (65% White, 28% Black, 7% Others):

Obama with 90% of Blacks - 25.2%
Obama with 20% of Whites - 13.0%
Obama with 60% of Others - 4.2%

Makes a base of 42.4%

[TheGlobalizer]

Romney might be too much of a Yankee for the Republican base in Georgia, but I think they would come home in an election, especially against a Democrat like Obama.

[pbrower2a]

Romney might be too much of a Yankee for the Republican base in Georgia, but I think they would come home in an election, especially against a Democrat like Obama.

Don't be so sure. Georgia has a huge military presence, and that may have assured that John McCain would win it in 2008 out of deference to his undeniable sacrifice in war. The GOP will not be running anything close to a military hero in 2012, and the military (and dependents and base-related businesses) will be voting on the record of the President on military and diplomatic matters.

Barack Obama may be no less a d@mnyankee than Mitt Romney, but at least he will be the d@mnyankee that they know in 2012.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Obama isn't the worst fit as a Democrat running in Georgia, actually.

[Rowan]

I'd tend to agree with Gustaf in this case. I would need to know whether this guy has ties to any other candidates.

[auburntiger]

I don't buy this poll. Georgia is very much still part of the South culturally and politically. The only reason it's closer than Alabama or Mississippi is because  of Atlanta, whose suburbs are conservative.

[cope1989]

Georgia is undergoing a political realignment as we speak. It's not one that will make the state Blue by any means, but much more moderate. Think of Illinois, pre Obama or Clinton. The rural areas were solidly Republican, but Democratic strength in Cook county and some of the suburbs kept it moderate. This is not a perfect comparison, but close.

  The Suburban counties like Cobb, Gwinnett and Henry are trending dem while the core counties (Fulton, Dekalb) are more firmly dem than ever before. People look at the south as a very distinct and unique political region (which it is) but metro Atlanta is subject to political trends that are more national in nature. Atlanta and its suburbs are becoming more Democratic just like other metro areas.

   I think the biggest reason for this is the growing disparity between Atlanta and more rural areas of the state. The Metro has always been culturally different from the rest of the state and voting patterns reflected that. In the Clinton era, Georgia Dems won by winning rural Georgia while Repubs dominated in the metro. In the past decade, Repubs gained amazing traction in rural Georgia while the suburbs of Atlanta also remained Republican. But there is now a transition occuring: The rural areas are solidly red while the metro is trending blue which will change things in the near future.

[pbrower2a]

Georgia is undergoing a political realignment as we speak. It's not one that will make the state Blue by any means, but much more moderate. Think of Illinois, pre Obama or Clinton. The rural areas were solidly Republican, but Democratic strength in Cook county and some of the suburbs kept it moderate. This is not a perfect comparison, but close.

  The Suburban counties like Cobb, Gwinnett and Henry are trending dem while the core counties (Fulton, Dekalb) are more firmly dem than ever before. People look at the south as a very distinct and unique political region (which it is) but metro Atlanta is subject to political trends that are more national in nature. Atlanta and its suburbs are becoming more Democratic just like other metro areas.

   I think the biggest reason for this is the growing disparity between Atlanta and more rural areas of the state. The Metro has always been culturally different from the rest of the state and voting patterns reflected that. In the Clinton era, Georgia Dems won by winning rural Georgia while Repubs dominated in the metro. In the past decade, Repubs gained amazing traction in rural Georgia while the suburbs of Atlanta also remained Republican. But there is now a transition occuring: The rural areas are solidly red while the metro is trending blue which will change things in the near future.

That sounds like a good explanation. Suburbia was reliably R until recently. Suburbanites voted with their bosses perhaps because of the good will long engendered between executives and the middle class. In recent years, that has vanished. Suburbia is also legitimately urban in its problems -- like costly infrastructure. Barack Obama was one of the first nationwide politicians to recognize this reality -- and to demonstrate that states with fast-growing Suburbia would no longer vote only for lower taxes and less regulation.

The urban/rural divide is huge in America -- except in Mormon Country (Utah has its population concentrated in a narrow strip of land from Logan to Provo) and in New England (Vermont was one of President Obama's strongest states, and it is one of the most rural).

Sarah Palin appealed to an idealized "Real America" in 2008 -- an America still rural, where people still go to Church on Sunday and to Wednesday prayer meetings, where the cost of public infrastructure is still cheap (two-lane blacktops are still adequate in much of rural America and schools rarely have to be expanded), teachers and cops don't have to be paid much because there is little real competition for their skills,  and of course, taxes can remain low. That America still exists, but it is not the one in which most Americans live. People are where the concrete is, and not where the cattle are plentiful. Sarah Palin had a message that would have resonated in America in the 1920s --  but it now rings hollow.

I remember one such incident. She was in rural Ohio, about 50 miles from Columbus. She made her spiel into some microphones with the markings for TV channels 4, 6, and 10. TV broadcasts typically go about 80 miles into the countryside, and so do TV news reporters when something gets interesting within the radius of their coverage. But broadcast channels 4, 6, and 10 in Ohio are the network affiliates of Columbus -- a huge city in its own right and home of one of the biggest universities in the US.

These days, the votes are where the concrete is, and not where the cattle and cotton are. Sarah Palin blundered badly.     

 

[cope1989]

Georgia is undergoing a political realignment as we speak. It's not one that will make the state Blue by any means, but much more moderate. Think of Illinois, pre Obama or Clinton. The rural areas were solidly Republican, but Democratic strength in Cook county and some of the suburbs kept it moderate. This is not a perfect comparison, but close.

  The Suburban counties like Cobb, Gwinnett and Henry are trending dem while the core counties (Fulton, Dekalb) are more firmly dem than ever before. People look at the south as a very distinct and unique political region (which it is) but metro Atlanta is subject to political trends that are more national in nature. Atlanta and its suburbs are becoming more Democratic just like other metro areas.

   I think the biggest reason for this is the growing disparity between Atlanta and more rural areas of the state. The Metro has always been culturally different from the rest of the state and voting patterns reflected that. In the Clinton era, Georgia Dems won by winning rural Georgia while Repubs dominated in the metro. In the past decade, Repubs gained amazing traction in rural Georgia while the suburbs of Atlanta also remained Republican. But there is now a transition occuring: The rural areas are solidly red while the metro is trending blue which will change things in the near future.

That sounds like a good explanation. Suburbia was reliably R until recently. Suburbanites voted with their bosses perhaps because of the good will long engendered between executives and the middle class. In recent years, that has vanished. Suburbia is also legitimately urban in its problems -- like costly infrastructure. Barack Obama was one of the first nationwide politicians to recognize this reality -- and to demonstrate that states with fast-growing Suburbia would no longer vote only for lower taxes and less regulation.

The urban/rural divide is huge in America -- except in Mormon Country (Utah has its population concentrated in a narrow strip of land from Logan to Provo) and in New England (Vermont was one of President Obama's strongest states, and it is one of the most rural).

Sarah Palin appealed to an idealized "Real America" in 2008 -- an America still rural, where people still go to Church on Sunday and to Wednesday prayer meetings, where the cost of public infrastructure is still cheap (two-lane blacktops are still adequate in much of rural America and schools rarely have to be expanded), teachers and cops don't have to be paid much because there is little real competition for their skills,  and of course, taxes can remain low. That America still exists, but it is not the one in which most Americans live. People are where the concrete is, and not where the cattle are plentiful. Sarah Palin had a message that would have resonated in America in the 1920s --  but it now rings hollow.

I remember one such incident. She was in rural Ohio, about 50 miles from Columbus. She made her spiel into some microphones with the markings for TV channels 4, 6, and 10. TV broadcasts typically go about 80 miles into the countryside, and so do TV news reporters when something gets interesting within the radius of their coverage. But broadcast channels 4, 6, and 10 in Ohio are the network affiliates of Columbus -- a huge city in its own right and home of one of the biggest universities in the US.

These days, the votes are where the concrete is, and not where the cattle and cotton are. Sarah Palin blundered badly.     

 

Very true. It's the south, and Atlanta certainly isn't ultra liberal, but I think a day of reckoning is approaching for the region. Many voters will soon have to realize that a vote for low taxes and limited infrastructure doesn't really help things in a city of over 5 million people and growing. Next year, the 10 counties that make up the Atlanta Regional Commission will vote on a referendum that will increase the sales tax to fund transportation projects such as light rail and other forms of public transit. Supporters of the referendum have conducted polls and have found that about half of the voters are in favor of it. Anybody from metro Atlanta or familiar with it knows this is huge. Most suburbanites in metro Atlanta have fought tooth and nail against public transit for years, and to see this much support for it truly signifies a change in the biggest city in the deep South.

[pbrower2a]

... It's the south, and Atlanta certainly isn't ultra liberal, but I think a day of reckoning is approaching for the region. Many voters will soon have to realize that a vote for low taxes and limited infrastructure doesn't really help things in a city of over 5 million people and growing. Next year, the 10 counties that make up the Atlanta Regional Commission will vote on a referendum that will increase the sales tax to fund transportation projects such as light rail and other forms of public transit. Supporters of the referendum have conducted polls and have found that about half of the voters are in favor of it. Anybody from metro Atlanta or familiar with it knows this is huge. Most suburbanites in metro Atlanta have fought tooth and nail against public transit for years, and to see this much support for it truly signifies a change in the biggest city in the deep South.

I have never been to Atlanta, but I have heard stories about it -- that it has traffic jams as bad as LA and really-nasty air pollution. High temperatures makes possible some of the worst air pollution in America. See also Houston, which has smog as bad as LA.

In rural America, culture matters. In urban America, quality of life matters even more, especially when the population is heavily descended from immigrants who had no ties to the original rural culture. The rurality of much of America used to be an ally of the low-tax, low-service, low-wage ethos of the GOP. I don't know if it is still available, but as I recall the strongest correlation of how a county would choose between Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008 other than ethnicity was population density, a good surrogate for urban reality -- more than, for example, income. 

Urban infrastructure isn't cheap. An eight-lane interstate highway in either of the Dakotas would be pointless, but an eight-lane expressway in northeastern New Jersey could easily be woefully inadequate.   A cop in rural Nebraska isn't going to find any lawbreaker likely to offer a bribe except perhaps to 'fix a ticket', but cops in New York City have to be paid well enough that the gangsters don't put the cop on their formal payroll so that the cop can make a decent living and the crooks can get away with their numbers rackets or drug trade.       

[krazen1211]

Very true. It's the south, and Atlanta certainly isn't ultra liberal, but I think a day of reckoning is approaching for the region. Many voters will soon have to realize that a vote for low taxes and limited infrastructure doesn't really help things in a city of over 5 million people and growing. Next year, the 10 counties that make up the Atlanta Regional Commission will vote on a referendum that will increase the sales tax to fund transportation projects such as light rail and other forms of public transit. Supporters of the referendum have conducted polls and have found that about half of the voters are in favor of it. Anybody from metro Atlanta or familiar with it knows this is huge. Most suburbanites in metro Atlanta have fought tooth and nail against public transit for years, and to see this much support for it truly signifies a change in the biggest city in the deep South.

Low taxes doesn't necessarily imply bad infrastructure and high taxes doesn't imply good infrastructure. New Jersey has high taxes and outrageous government spending and has some utterly miserable infrastructure on state/local roadways. 295 and the Turnpike are OK, but once you go beyond that.......

[cope1989]

The difference is that New Jersey at least has the means to do that. Historically, there has been literally no money allocated toward public transit in this state, except for the few bucks that keep MARTA afloat

[pbrower2a]

I don't buy this poll. Georgia is very much still part of the South culturally and politically. The only reason it's closer than Alabama or Mississippi is because  of Atlanta, whose suburbs are conservative.

Georgia is politically somewhere intermediate between Alabama and North Carolina -- but closer to  North Carolina... because of Atlanta.

Alabama and Mississippi have few and small suburbs. 

[Bacon King]

Georgia's supposed "realignment" is pretty overstated, IMO. Sure, places like Gwinnett and Cobb are only voting ~55% R instead of ~65% R now, but that's just because of white flight from minorities moving into the suburbs. White Republicans from those counties have been moving further out of the city, to places like Cherokee, Forsyth, Barrow, etc which have always voted something like ~75% GOP, but now have twice as many voters as before.

These voters are the GOP's base in the state; heavily motivated by cultural issues and taxation. And they hate Obama.

The only reason 2008 was so close was due to the greatly increased black turnout that happened everywhere across the South. Sure, that'll happen again, but Obama in Georgia really doesn't have much room for improvement at all.