National Pulse Index Update - August 16

To understand what this is, click here.

Not a lot of drama, poll-wise, over the last week, with a slightly favorable showing for Republicans:

 
The basic story, though, is intact, which is that we have an unbroken trend-line since the beginning favoring Republican candidates:

(Note that very little of these data come from after the Ryan announcement.)


Here's what's interesting, though. As you know, this metric looks at all polls, whether for president or the 3rd District in Ohio. The presidential polls really haven't moved very much, so what's driving the upward trend for Republicans is all the other races. This disparity can't continue; either the GOP house and Senate numbers will snap back, or Obama's numbers will erode.

What is likely happening is that as GOP House and Senate members have been getting their message out and it's selling. Perhaps people were more entrenched in their presidential views, so those polls remain stickier. But should these trends persist, it is likely that they will eventually be reflected in the presidential race numbers. Obama is skating on thin ice, as it were.

Check in next week to see if there's a "Ryan effect."

Slightly Better Week for Democrats, but...

To understand what this is, click here.

I fully expected to see a huge swing back to Democrats over the last week, what, with Obama seemingly bubbling up in most polls. the data say otherwise, though, because while there was a nice move by Dems, it was very brief, and by yesterday the momentum had shifted slightly back to Republicans:

Further, you can see from the following graph, that the basic trend is unbroken:

Again, this is cumulative, poll-over-poll changes, nationwide. Up is good for Republicans, down good for Democrats. If you were a Wall Street trader, and this was a stock, you would be "long" Republican. This remarkably consistent trend is something that seems completely unnoticed, or at a minimum, unreported.

And remember, despite the fact that the Naked Dollar believes it is vital to our nation's future to remove Democrats from power, this model is impartial. It's just a new way of looking at polling trends.

National Pulse Index Update - July 31

To see what this is click here.

Here's the latest:

And the cumulative graph:

The last week has been quiet with no real gain for either side. As there's a tendency for these data (in the top graph) to oscillate, one might expect to see things swing Democrat for a bit, but we'll see.

Overall, Republican polling gains have been relentless since April, and it's even started to be reflected in the presidential race numbers, however slightly. Also, as all these races are at least somewhat of a referendum on the battle for the White House, we can conclude that Obama's attacks on Bain have been ineffective and his "you didn't build that" gaffe may have hurt badly (the last big Republican polling surge happened after he said that).

Look for the White House to go even more negative and roll out any number of attack strategies. This will be self-defeating, though, as presidential candidates viewed as glowering pessimists almost never win. Think back through the last dozen elections or so - the cheery optimist wins every time. Obama played that role well in '08, but he has turned into the angry scold this time.

Introducing the National Pulse Index

In the run-up to the election, the Naked Dollar will keep you up to date on its two political models, the Electoral College Forecasting Model, and the National Pulse Index. Today we will talk about the latter.

I used to run a quant hedge fund. What we quants do is take lots of data and make sense out of it. So, how to use this approach to capture the ebb and flow of an election cycle at the national level? Is the national mood swinging Democrat or Republican?

The approach I came up with two years ago is a simple metric, and the purpose is to use data - not the media or the water cooler - to track short term swings in political momentum. As it happens, it's a quick way to determine if the media narrative has any merit.

Essentially, the Index aggregates polls from everywhere, from presidential down to the House level. The idea is to pull in a huge and continuous sample, exploiting the wisdom of crowds. Specifically, the Index compares each new poll with the previous poll from the same race. The other day, for instance, Rasmussen reported that Sherrod Brown, who's running for re-election for the Senate in Ohio, is up by 4 points. While this may seem like good news for Democrats, the last poll actually had him up by 16. I assign this a "minus 12" for the Democrats.

Each day, as new polls come out, they are compared to the previous polls from the same race. The numbers are added up to get a net score for the day. Then, I use a moving average of the last five days to smooth out the data. This gives us a very good picture as to which side has the momentum.

Allow me to make my case for why this works, and then we'll get to the numbers.

1. On any given day, this will capture the aggregate opinions of up to 20,000 people, whereas an individual poll (that might get one side or the other excited) can have as few as 300 people.

2. There really is a national "mood," and it really does matter which way it's moving. Opinions are infectious. It matters in Ohio what people are thinking in Alabama. They may not be perfectly in sync, but they do tend to move in the same direction at the same time. Thus, if Diane Feinstein just went from 20 points up to 30 points up, it doesn't mean anything for Feinstein - she's still going to win easily - but it does mean the mood in California is moving in a certain direction. This makes it likely the mood is moving in the same direction elsewhere.

3. Aren't some of these polls partisan and/or sloppy? Absolutely, but the Index takes them all, because it evens out. For instance, not long ago a Bloomberg poll came out showing Obama up by up by 13 points, which was a crazy outlier, and resulted in a +10 score for the Democrats (since the previous poll had shown him up by 3). A day later, though, another poll came out showing Obama to be down by two, which resulted in a -15 score. Bad polls tend to get balanced out, in other words. To the extent that they don't, they probably have useful information, which is why one doesn't want to make judgments about which polls to use.

4. What about the Generic Ballot polls, the ones where people are asked whether they intend to vote for a Republican or a Democrat? Don't those show the national pulse? Yes they do, but they don't come out every day, and they survey far fewer people (as few as 700).

So, the narrative over the last couple of months has been: good month for Romney/Republicans in June, good month for Obama/Democrats in July. But what do the numbers say?

This shows the swings. As you see, it's mostly an oscillator. Here, the positive swings mean Republican swings, and negative mean Democrat. Overall, the swings seem to favor Republicans.

Perhaps making this clearer is the following graph:

This time series started on April 1st. Each time a poll moves for a Republican, it's a positive, and vice verse. (Obama moving from +1 to +3 would mean the Index moves down 2 points, in other words.)

The trend is clear enough: momentum has been favoring Republican candidates, unrelentingly so. This is a tide that will be reflected in the presidential race, even if the those poll numbers don't reflect it yet. Interestingly, the media isn't picking up on any of this, probably willfully so. It also suggests that Obama's media buys are working against him.

The obvious caveat: we are a million years from election day, and momentum shifts in October will be more meaningful.

This is a lot of work, folks, so I hope somebody cares!

An Open Letter to Mitt Romney About Taxes

Dear Mitt,

You don't need The Naked Dollar to tell you that our current tax code, a Frankenstein monster of unimaginable complexity and perverse incentives, is a huge part of what's wrong with our economy. You acknowledge as much on your website. We all know the code is a monster that can no longer be tweaked - it must be destroyed.

But your solutions (which are there, if you click enough things) are not revolutionary. They can barely be called evolutionary. You leave the monster in place.

Right now, you are essentially avoiding the issue on the campaign trail. I suspect this is because you think you will leave yourself exposed to class warfare arguments. You believe you can run a disciplined, close-to-the-vest campaign and win. You probably can. With a wink-and-a-nod you assure your supporters that you'll solve the big problems after you dispense with the election.

I have a problem with this, because the goal is not so much to get you elected as it is to fix the country. We may not get another chance. For a president to pull off a big, structural change in something like the tax code, without saying up front it's what he wants to do, is highly problematic. On the other hand, if you say it, it's a mandate.

What's frustrating to me is that the tax issue is not something you need to hide from. In fact, embracing it will help you get elected. Follow me here:

• The tax code is the single biggest source of (legal) political corruption there is. Politicians sell exemptions to the code in exchange for contributions. The more complex the code, the easier it is for pols to pull this off. Our current code is unmatched in its complexity, and therefore its corruption.
• Most of those buying code exemptions are big corporations. There is an expression for this: crony capitalism.
• All true conservatives hate crony capitalism, because there's nothing capitalist or conservative about it. It's legalized cheating that distorts free markets.
• More importantly, the left hates it too. Big corporations buying favors? This is one of the things the Occupy types are marching in the streets about.
• So, rail against the tax code as the source of crony capitalism, as something that favors big, connected corporations over the little guy (all true).
• Make the point that the only way to heal the code is to scrap it and start over with something new, the simpler the better (even a little complexity will leave it open to corrupting influences later).
• Also point out that by doing this, you can dramatically reduce the size and scope of the IRS, nicely contrasting you with Obama's plans to enlarge it.
• Lastly, find a company, perhaps in Nancy Pelosi's district, that got a tax break that no one else got. Link it to a series of contributions. Make it the poster child for tax-code related corruption.

These arguments will resonate with every point on the political spectrum. They will firmly plant you on the side of the little guy and small biz, helping offset your image as a Bain Capital, big time Fortune 500 type. Best of all, they are all true.

Time to step up, Mitt.

Sincerely,

The Naked Dollar

Elections Since 2008 - What Are the Voters Saying?

Last week's SCOTUS decision was was a horrible turn for the conservative movement, to be sure. John Roberts wants to be invited to better Georgetown cocktail parties, apparently. The invitations are in the mail. Alas, voters can't do anything about Roberts. He's untouchable.

But what have the voters been saying lately, when they've had the chance? Elections in off years are often viewed as referenda on the person occupying the White House, so what have they been telling us?

 The vox populi has been unequivocal: President Obama is in deep trouble.

The first stirrings of discontent manifested in 2009 with the elections of Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey. The Christie election was especially startling given New Jersey's status as a thoroughly blue state. Scott Brown won in an even bluer Massachusetts.

Then, of course, there were the house elections in 2010, where Republicans picked up 63 seats, the most in 72 years.

Then we had Bob Turner's election to Anthony Weiner's seat, which straddles Brooklyn and Queens. You would be hard pressed to find a bluer place.

More recently we had the emphatic rejection of Scott Walker's recall in Wisconsin, another blue redoubt.

Also, sometimes overlooked has been the huge swing towards Republicans in state house races across the country.

The only bright spot for Democrats was retaining Gabrielle Gifford's seat in Arizona, an election greatly influenced by Gifford's personal popularity and sympathetic story.

It is difficult to understand why anyone believes Obama is the favorite to win in November. For three years, voters have been champing at the bit to send a proxy message to the White House. What will happen when they have the opportunity to send a much more direct message?

Intrade betting markets still have Obama at about a 55% probability for re-election. I would put the odds at 35-40%.

How is Obama Really Doing in the Swing States?

There is a bit of received wisdom in the political world that incumbents need to be polling at 50% or higher to win on election day. I don't have the data at my fingertips, but I have observed this to be accurate over the years. The thinking is that incumbents are known quantities, and that anyone who's undecided will likely vote for the other guy as soon as they figure out who it is and what he/she stands for.

One could argue that in a presidential election this is less true since they "other guy," in this case Mitt Romney, is widely known. That would be investing too much faith in the American people and how much they really pay attention to this stuff in June.

So, to give an example, if a race is polling at 47-43 in favor of the incumbent, they are likely doomed. Historically, the 10% who are undecided will almost all break for the challenger.

With this in mind, I decided to see where Obama stands in every state that's thought to be remotely competitive. There are thirteen on the list, and up for grabs are 163 electoral votes.

In how many do you suppose Obama is at 50% or higher? Survey says: one, uno, and that's in Oregon where he's polling at precisely 50% (note: my reference for this is the RCP Polling Average).

Here are the other twelve, in order of electoral importance:

Florida                  46.8%
Pennsylvania         47.5%
Ohio                     46.2%
Michigan               46.5%
North Carolina      46.2%
Virginia                47.2%
Missouri                46.5%
Wisconsin             47.4%
Colorado              47.2%
Nevada                 49.3%

Note that in only one of these states is Obama even that close to 50, and that's Nevada which has a paltry 6 electoral votes.

There's a long, long way to go until the election. Hell, two weeks before an election is still an eternity. But these numbers bear watching, because if nothing changes they spell doom for Obama.

Rubio Being Passed Over? - Not a Chance

There are stories going around today that Marco Rubio isn't even being vetted by the Romney campaign for the VP slot. Don't buy it.

First, there is zero chance that Rubio doesn't at least get vetted. Sure, he might not get the nod, but to not even get a look? Not a chance. Rubio is a highly popular pick for the base, and Romney has to at least appear to be interested.

The Naked Dollar also has a confidential source that confirms the is likely a red herring. We'll see soon enough.

For what it's worth, there's never been a more obvious pick for VP in our lifetime. Big swing state, young and handsome, popular with the base, and presumably Hispanics. Rubio is the dream package. My guess is that Romney's camp doesn't want to seem to be doing the obvious, at least not yet, so they planted this story to throw people off the scent. At the same time, playing coy helps Romney score points with other potentials veeps, like the Portmans and the Pawlentys, who will appreciate at least seeming they're in the hunt. Romney needs these people, and their states, in the fall.

Obama's Liberal Trap

It is interesting to watch Obama commit political suicide. Why is he doing it? Hard to say. It feels good, no doubt, to achieve an apotheosis among the left. Obama, Narcissist in Chief, relishes this role. More to the point, perhaps, is that he doesn't know how to do anything else.

It will cost him the presidency.

Bill Clinton, flawed as he was, was the consummate political strategist. What did he do when his party got thumped in the midterms? He "triangulated" to the middle, and selectively compromised with Republicans on a few issues like welfare reform. It worked, and he was re-elected easily. Two years ago, when Democrats were again thumped, prognosticators all assumed that Obama would follow this playbook, and conventional wisdom was that this would ultimately seal the deal on his re-election.

But he went the other way, hard. Class warfare, gay marriage, vilifying oil companies - you know the drill. All this will help with fundraising and the fawning media, but it's a trap. Simple mathematics doom the strategy.

You see, while most observers obsess about the middle, it's really turnout they should be focusing on, specifically conservative turnout. Practically every election is decided by whether conservatives turn out to vote. Why? Because there are a lot of them. There are more conservatives than there are Republicans or Democrats, and there are, by a 2-1 margin, more conservatives than liberals. 40% of Americans are self-described conservatives. This is a fairly consistent number.

So, while appealing to the "base" can - and does - get Republicans elected, the same is most definitely NOT true for Democrats. At 20% of the electorate, there simply are not enough liberals to get anyone elected, particularly since they tend to undervote as well. For a Democrat to win, he must excite the base while at the same time firing up a huge chunk of independents. This is a tall order, and one Obama pulled off in '08 by pretending to be a "post-partisan" moderate. (It also didn't hurt that he had a weak opponent and a nicely timed financial crisis.)

The amazing thing is that it wouldn't have taken much on Obama's part to sail to re-election in November. He could have picked one thing, say embracing his own Simpson-Bowles commission, or even just a Sister Soulja moment, and re-election would have been his. But, the cat's out of the bag. He is a committed leftist, and, this time, he doesn't mind everyone knowing.

The election will not be close.

Obama's Flip Flop on Gay Marriage: What's Really Going On

It wasn't supposed to go down this way.

It was too early, way too early. The White House, basking in the approbation of liberal elites everywhere, is pretending that this is a great moment for them, politically. Behind closed doors, though, I think David Axelrod is ripping Joe Biden a new one.

So, here's what's going on. Gay marriage is about a 50/50 issue, so in terms of political positioning, this doesn't do much for Obama. In fact, the opposite may be true. Evangelicals, who are not Romney's biggest fans, have now been handed a big fat reason to show up at the polls, and maybe even open their wallets. Obama's people surely know this, but they were willing to take a calculated risk, because the play here was to tilt the national debate towards social issues and away from the economy.

And, it has done that, spectacularly so. The Washington Post, in what was surely a coordinated move, chipped in with an absurd story about an alleged Romney anti-gay incident half a century ago. The two things combined have completely dominated national conversation for the last two days. Unemployment numbers came out yesterday. They were poor. Did you know? Didn't think so.

But, it's MAY. This was supposed to go down in September or October, when gaining control of even two or three news cycles is invaluable. But the logorrheic Biden - gotta love that guy, sometimes - forced Obama's hand early. This card was completely wasted.