Obama +3 in Michigan — Detroit News

It is so on in the Great Lakes State.  Obama remains under 50%, leading 47.7 to 45 with 4% Undecided:

Mitt Romney is within striking distance of Barack Obama in Michigan in the final days before the election, buoyed by more who are convinced the Republican is a viable alternative to the president, with the ability to turn around the economy. Obama’s lead over Romney has shrunk to just under 3 points, 47.7 percent to 45 percent, with 3.8 percent undecided, according to a new Detroit News/WDIV Local 4 poll of likely voters. Obama’s lead was 6.7 points earlier this month and has eroded to within the poll’s 3.8 percentage point margin of error. It’s the smallest advantage for the Democratic president during the Michigan campaign.

“Mitt Romney’s numbers … are where they would need to be if he hopes to pull off an upset next week,” said Richard Czuba of Glengariff Group Inc., which conducted the poll. “But the question is: Is there enough for a final push?”

The Obama campaign Tuesday announced its first network TV ads will begin airing this week in Michigan. Neither candidate had bought airtime here, but earlier Tuesday, Romney’s super PAC launched a $2.2 million advertising final blitz in Michigan. That brings Restore Our Future’s investment in Michigan post-primary up to nearly $10 million, according to the PAC — which until now had been unanswered by the Obama campaign.



  1. ET4
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

    This is great news, but these last 7 days are going by so slow.

  2. William Jefferson
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Sub 48% is really, really dicey for an incumbent.

    • Brad
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:04 am | Permalink | Reply

      In a blue state no less. I mean, what’s name recognition in MI? 99.999%?

  3. Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

    That’ll be in the margin of error. Incumbent who saved the auto industry (supposedly) can’t get to 50% in Michigan. Ouch!

    • Pete
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Lol. Didn’t even see your response. Great minds …

      • Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

        Mediocre minds think alike too. 😉

      • Pete
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Permalink


  4. Pete
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Ouch! There’s that magic 47 again. Incumbent stuck @ 47 days before election …. (You know how this ends).

    • easternimm
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      btw, is any serious study proving that? what if half of those 7-8% that do no fall in either camp do not show up to vote. BO will still have more votes and carry the state.

      • Evan3457
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:26 am | Permalink

        Well, if you take a close look at Nate Silver’s study/evidence in which he denies the “undecideds go to the challenger 2 to 1” effect…in his table for true challengers/incumbents (not party, as in 2008, but the actual incumbent President, as in 2004) at the end of the election cycle, this is what you find…

        Sept: 7% undecided: Challenger 5.4%, Incumbent 1.6%. Undecided break to the challenger 3.4 to 1.
        Oct: 6.4% undecided: Challenger 4.8%, Incumbent 1.6%. Undecided break to the challenger 3 to 1.
        Nov: 3% undecided: Challenger 1.9%, Incumbent 1.1%. Undedcided break to the challenger nearly 2 to 1. (Well, OK, 5 to 3.)

        So, in spite of what Nate has said, his own study would seem to show the effect is true.

  5. Ryan
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Any cross tabs or party splits available?

    • Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I was wondering the same thing, but I cannot find them

    • Paul8148
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      they have Romney up 9 in Oakland and 16 in Macomb which is true romney should be up between 5-7 points.

      • Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

        !!!!!! Where do you see that??? Oh my!

      • Brian
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

        Where are you seeing that?

    • Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Can’t find any, but it says Romney leads among men and has a narrow lead among independents. So turnout matters here too. Michigan was D+12 in 2008, but its worth remembering that the GOP did well in 2010 and likely has a solid ground game in MI. 2010 was D+7, which I think is very possible. Remember, we saw a lot of union workers in Wisconsin who voted for Walker in the recall and may have not been honest with the pollster. I think we may have a decent amount of crossover union workers who may not show up in a poll. I also expect the black vote will decline somewhat.

      • Ryan
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

        MI 2010 partisan splits may be much better for the GOP than this year. Everyone was pissed at granholm and there were very few competitive races.

    • JGS
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

      D +3.4% party ID, and independents favor Romney by 4.3%.

  6. Freddie
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Another state Oba-Bengazi cannot get above 47. 47.7 rounded is 48 but I think he will get less than 48 on election day in MI. I think R/R can get OH, MI, MN, IA, PA and WI. They threw everything at Scott Walker and Walker won in WI.

  7. KN
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

    OK for the last few days, all we’ve been hearing about are MI, MN, PA and WI. Realistically, if momentum is in Mitt’s favor, we should get at least one of these right? Or am I setting myself up for a mountain of disappointment? Assuming McCain states, NE- Omaha, IN, NC, FL, VA, OH and CO are in the bag (and not sure about those latter 3), we’re good to go. But personally, while a win is a win, I would rather a huge mandate meaning Mitt gets at least 300 EV, which he can’t unless he has all these states plus a PA or WI to go with it.

    NH appears to be in his court. IA is a tossup. Based on early voting trends, is NV a lost cause? Somebody help!

    • Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Depends on if the Democrats really are cannibalizing their election day vote or not. If they are then the Republican tidal wave could be huge on election day.

    • Kevin Paradine
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I don’t know if it helps much, but I have a feeling that Nevada will be lost by a sliver, Iowa will be won by a 2004-ish margin. Virginia and Ohio will go Republican by a couple percent. Colorado and Florida are in the bag, as is NC. The other states are iffy and you could roll dice, but my gut says WI might flip but the rest are just out of reach. The only data point we don’t have at this point is the undecided break, which we won’t see until next Monday’s batch of polls, though you might start seeing it over the weekend. I expect the break to be massively Romney but if it isn’t, that would be troubling.

  8. Jan
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Here are the internals. Party ID seems to be D+3,4 is you include the leaning people. 15,7% indie. White 79,9%, Black 12,5%


    • Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Not sure if D+4 is realistic unless Michigan has swung hard to the GOP. The black vote is likely oversampled. It was 11% in 2008, a high water mark. Independents should be around 29% of the electorate, so they are undersampled.

      • William Jefferson
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

        If you swap out 2% of blacks for 2% of whites, and crank it up to D+5 does the topline change?

    • Brad
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      2004 exits were D+5.

  9. margaret
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Mitt is a native son, son of a governor. It just might be possible to carry this state?!

  10. zang
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The Obama game plan is to turn out minorities in huge numbers.. Bus em in droves to the polls. But what if they were caught flat footed in Michigan?

    • William Jefferson
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Remember that weeks back Obama for America closed up shop in Michigan and sent their people to reinforce other states. Are their Michigan offices even open now?

  11. Jim S.
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

    http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/politics/Survey-Obama-has-slim-3-point-lead-in-Michigan-as-Romney-gains-support/-/1719386/17202496/-/1333dpiz/-/index.html “Romney leads Oakland County by 8.9 percent and Macomb County by 16 percent. Obama is up by 15.7 percent in Wayne County. That number does not include the city of Detroit where Obama owns nearly all votes.”

    OK, so someone familiar with MI politics chime it, it sounds like R leading in Oakland and Macomb Counties in this poll is a pretty big deal?

    • Brian
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

      That is a HUGE deal. You don’t win in Michigan (ESPECIALLY as a Republican) without taking Oakland County, and Macomb is close behind. Our governor, Rick Snyder, won the gubernatorial race in 2010 by nearly 20 points; he won Oakland County by 22 and Macomb County by 24. In 2008 Obama won Oakland County by 15 and Macomb by 9. In 2004 Kerry won the state by less than four points overall; he won Oakland County by less than half a point and Bush won Macomb by less than two.

      • Jim S.
        Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

        Solid news, even if this poll is a bit generous in weighting towards Romney, it sounds like Romney would still carry those counties. D+4 doesn’t seem totally impossible if the MI electorate is +5 for Democrats over the General electorate(D+12 vs. D+7 in 2008) if this thing really goes R+1 or 2 on a national scale.

      • KN
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:22 am | Permalink

        Million Dollar question – this is awesome, but is it enough to conquer Detroit and Wayne County????

      • Brian
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:36 am | Permalink

        It’ll all be up to turnout. Romney won’t break 30% in Wayne County, but how many people actually show up will determine it. Gore and Kerry both won Wayne County by 69-29 margins, with Gore getting 530k and Kerry getting 600k….Obama won Wayne 75-25 and got 660k. Gore won Michigan by 5 while winning Oakland County by a little over a point and Macomb County by two and a half. Kerry won Michigan by less than 4 overall while barely winning Oakland and narrowly losing Macomb. If Wayne County turnout is depressed a bit because of Obamamania being dead and Mitt carries Oakland and Macomb by anywhere CLOSE to the margins he has in this poll…Michigan’s going to be VERY, VERY close.

    • Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:03 am | Permalink | Reply

      Romney at 50+ favorability in Oakland and Macomb with Obama in the low to mid 40s? Obama at 40% approval among independents? I am officially excited about Michigan!

  12. tmcvei
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Keith: I just stumbled on your blog and I love the focus on searching for actual facts to support issues and answer questions. I am an independent but am leaning left and there are two issues which drive me crazy and I wish there was a way to get your readers to comment on these issues which seem to me to be born out with facts.

    1- If anyone actually looks at the history of federal tax revenues it seems to me to be brutally clear that Bush’s tax rate decrease did not increase tax revenues … they caused a dramatic decrease in tax revenues for the next three years (at least a 20% decrease). This is also the case for just about every other previous tax rate decrease. What actual statistics support the theory that lowering tax rates increases tax revenues? I am not talking about corporate tax rates … just personal tax rates. Can anybody show statistics that support Bush’s tax rate decrease?

    2- Obama has been accused of failing to bring the country out of the recession and creating jobs as fast as he should have … while the “right” claims Reagan did a fantastic job during his first term. Here are the facts … the unemployment rate on the first month of Reagan’s first term and Obama’s first term was almost identical (7.4% and 7.8%). The unemployment rate went to just over 10% for both of them at the beginning of their first term … and … both of them had the unemployment rate back to exactly were they started in the October preceding the election at the end of their first term. Yes Obama has 3 million more people unemployed but their are 40 million more workers now than there were in the early 80s. We can only use rates and not net numbers sine there was a 40% increase in the labor market. Also … the financial crises that faced Obama was significantly worse than the problems Reagan faced.

    Is there any way to get reactions to these issues?

    Love your blog

    • Jan
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:03 am | Permalink | Reply

      Although not a full answer to your question and although I’m not Keith, i’d say first and foremost looking at only gross unemployment rates is not getting you a complete answer. You’d also want to look at underemployment, which Gallup has at 16,1%
      An interesting link regarding Reagan vs. Obama on this issue: http://cnsnews.com/blog/ron-meyer/great-youth-depression-16-unemployment-majority-underemployed-salaries-down-10

    • Pete
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:04 am | Permalink | Reply

      1. See Reagan.

      2. Give me some time to list all of the deficit cutting measures, budgets he passed, spending reductions and tax cuts 0 put in place while Obama was in office (especially during the time when Dems controlled WH and Congress) and I’ll get back with you.

    • Kevin Paradine
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:06 am | Permalink | Reply

      1) If you don’t believe in the Laffer curve, no amount of recasting the past without Bush tax cuts is going to convince you. You propose alternative history. Changing history changes all the details, not just one.

      2) In 1984 you could viscerally feel the country was improving and massive amounts of private sector jobs were being created. In 2012 you know another recession is right around the corner, if not already here. There’s your difference.

      There’s your answers.

      • tmcvei
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 8:11 am | Permalink

        OK … one can believe in the Laffer curve in theory but in practice it did not work when marginal tax rates were below 50% as is the case now. Lets just focus on the Bush tax cuts … does anyone have any empirical data to support claims that the Bush tax rate cut worked. The decade between 2000 and 2010 was the first decade were tax revenues did not double … they barely moved.

        Also … The unemployment rate for Reagan was still at 7% two years into his second term. It is not clear at all the we are about to go into another recession. Many claim that no matter who is president there will be 12 million more employed no matter who is president because of all the cash that companies are sitting on.

    • JGS
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:09 am | Permalink | Reply


      From $748 billion in 2003, after the end of the prior 2001-02 recession and after the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 were both in place, to $1,116 billion in 2007 (before the economy collapsed in 2008). (Even if you want to start with 2001, that is still a meaningful increase in revenues from 2001 to 2007. Also, look at the impact of the Reagan tax cuts put in place in 1981, short-term small drop from $282 billion in revenue in 1981 to $272 billion in revenue in 1983, but by the end of Reagan’s 2 terms in 1988, we were up to $413 billion in federal individual income tax revenues. Remember, the federal government now takes, out of the private sector, more than $900 billion more in federal individual income taxes (adjusted for inflation) than it did in 1980, but spends more than $1.9 trillion more (also adjusted for inflation). I know it is a cliche, but we truly do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. No one will ever re-evaluate government programs to see whether they’ve outlived their usefulness, there is no profit motive for government to act efficiently because they are spending “other people’s money” (i.e., taxpayers’ money), politicians of both parties act like a government program is being “cut” if it gets an actual increase that is less than the increase that it was projected to get based upon “baseline budgeting” etc.

      And as for Reagan, you have got to be kidding. Take a look at where unemployment was when Reagan took office, where interest rates were, where inflation was, and compare all three of those metrics to where they were when he left office. Do your homework.

      • easternimm
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:21 am | Permalink

        thanks for the link JGS. I did not have time to dig for the numbers at this time… to me the debt and entitlement legacy are the cardinal issues… we will not have money for the poor, for education, for SS or Heathcare if we go broke. you can not build prosperity on debt. it may work for short term and a few lucky ones but it won’t work for a whole country.

      • tmcvei
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 8:34 am | Permalink

        Take a look at how tax revenues have doubled every 10 years since we began tracking the data in the 1930s until the decade that was basically the Bush decade. Tax revenues doubled every 10 years primarily because of the growth in our population and normal inflation. If government expenses grow because of population growth and normal inflation then tax revenues should grow proportionally unless tax rates are cut. I know this is overly simplified but I never hear anybody note the dramatic change in the growth of tax revenues that happened under Bush. Tax revenues which doubled every decade from the 30s actually declined from 2000 until 2010. This is a huge shift in the trends and I cringe every time I hear someone state that the Bush tax cuts worked. There may be many other reasons why our tax revenue growth curve collapsed but there is nothing that supports the claim that the tax cut works.

        As far as the Reagan track record I assume you are looking at data at the end of his second term. Where was unemployment and the economy at the end of his first term. It was four tenths of a percentage lower than Obama and Obama faced a potential financial disaster that virtually everyone agrees was the worst since the depression.

    • easternimm
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:15 am | Permalink | Reply

      1) I think the total income taxes collected by our Uncle went up both for Bush and Reagan tax cuts – in 2-3 years compared to baseline ( the year before these cuts were enacted). I agree with you that economic growth is not all about tax rates, but likely there is a marginal incentive effect of lower tax rates. Also it is possible that people change the way they declare their income. I am an independent too, albeit leaning republican in the last 3 years. I am inclining for slightly higher revenue but I would prefer consumption taxes, carbon taxes. And if we agree to increase income taxes a bit and make the income tax rates more progressive than they already are we should do it in conjunction with addressing entitlements. we spend too much and we are too careless with debt. this where I do not trust BO. If the president last name would have been now Clinton and she would promise to ut a deal with the Republicans I would more likely tilt Dem… I am not sure yet if I am a blue dog Dem or a RINO, but surely I am not a Leftist.

      • Pete
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:16 am | Permalink

        Carbon taxes? Nice try.

      • easternimm
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:24 am | Permalink

        pigovian taxes work. but this is for another time. for now we need a change…

      • tmcvei
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink

        Everyone focuses on federal income taxes when they compare us to the rest of the world. The more important issue is total taxes. Of the 33 OECD countries there are only 3 with lower taxes when compared to Gross Domestic Production. US taxes are 10% below the average OECD country.

      • easternimm
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 10:47 am | Permalink

        most countries report total tax income. if you add federal, state and local total tax burden goes to 40% which is about average or a little above. also most include most of health care expenditure – USA get still 45% of its health expenditures from the private sector ( albeit we do spend more and what we spend from government sources is on par with what other countries spend for universal health care). if you add all that up we come out with above average revenue as percent of GDP.

    • Vadim
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:21 am | Permalink | Reply

      2) Reagan’s gains in the unemployment rate were not driven by shrinking work force which is the case under Obama. Additionally, under Reagan recovery GDP was growing much faster compared to Obama’s weak growth of 2% (and 1.3% last quarter).

      • JGS
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:32 am | Permalink

        From the end of 1982 (the end of the 1981-82 recession) to the end of 1984, the unemployment rate went down by a full 3.5%. Comparing apples to apples, the unemployment rate under Obama peaked at 10.0% in 9/2009, and two years later, the rate was still 8.9%. The difference is millions and millions of people without work, and the slowest recovery in the modern era.

    • Dean
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:25 am | Permalink | Reply

      Hi TMC,

      This article should help understand the difference between the Reagan and Obama economies out of a recession, and why he won a landslide in 1984. for comparison, in the 4th year of Obama’s presidency the growth rate of GDP is about 1.8%.

      “In the fourth quarter of 1982, the economy grew at a slow 0.3 percent rate. Starting in 1983 the quarterly growth rates were 5.1 percent, 9.3 percent, 8.1 percent and 8.5 percent, respectively. The 8 percent-plus growth rate continued into the first two quarters of 1984, before slowing to the 3.5 to 4 percent range.”

      • Evan3457
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:34 am | Permalink

        Thanks, Dean, you beat me to it. When the BLS put out their B(L)S unemployment figures for October, the gain of 900,000 jobs (2/3 of them part-time, many of the rest government jobs) would normally have a required a massive GDP growth rate. As that isn’t happening, many refused to take that number at face value. The last Administration to gain that many jobs in a month? Reagan’s 1st term, Sept. 1983, when the economy gained 1.1 million jobs in one month. The economy was coming to the end of consecutive quarters of 9.3 and 8.1% GDP growth, as Dean showed above. Furthermore, Reagan didn’t have to “disappear” millions and millions of people from the job-seeking rolls. That’s why not 7.6% unemployment rates are created equal.

    • Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:27 am | Permalink | Reply

      Thing to remember with the Bush tax cuts is 9/11 and the recession afterwards. Reagan and JFK’s tax cuts both saw revenue increases as did Bush’s, but Bush’s were delayed due to 9/11. The Bush cuts were passed in June of 2001 and likely would have caused an increase in revenue quickly if not for 9/11.

    • Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:36 am | Permalink | Reply

      Here is what I wrote about the press misrepresenting the Bush tax cuts and deficits:

      In the post with pretty charts and data is the following on Federal Revues before the Bush tax cuts and after. I focus on the 2003 tax cuts because that is the one that reduced marginal rates which is what all the controversy is over. If you back it up one more year and include 2001 it tells the same story. In the tax cut year of 2003 revenues dipped 0.07tr and then steadily rose every year far outpacing the government revenues prior to the Bush tax.

      Total Federal Receipts:
      2002: 1.85 trillion (tr)
      2003: 1.78tr
      2004: 1.88tr
      2005: 2.15tr
      2006: 2.41tr
      2007: 2.57tr
      2008: 2.52tr

      There were large deficits following the Bus tax cuts NOT because of tax cuts reducing revenue but because of reckless spending by Congress unapologetically agreed to by Bush.

      “These are the facts and they are undisputed”
      –Kevin Bacon, A Few Good Men

      • Terry
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 5:00 am | Permalink

        Thanks for posting this Keith… there was a 40% increase in Fed Revenue between 2003-2007… this was the largest increase in revenue in the entire history of the country for a 4 year period.

      • tmcvei
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 8:55 am | Permalink

        Why are you starting with the 2003 tax changes and not 2001? The drop from 2001 is obvious and real. 9/11 should have stimulated the economy and tax revenues as evidenced by the drop in the unemployment rate that occurred during the height of the Iraq war.

      • tmcvei
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 9:20 am | Permalink

        The 40% increase in 4 years was primarily because of the dramatic drop in the preceding years because of the 2001 tax cuts. Look at the entire decade between 2000 and 2010 and compare that to what happened in every decade starting from 1930. Tax revenues more than doubled in every decade BUT they dropped in the “Bush” decade. Unemployment was at or near the historical lows for most of the decade and yet tax revenues declined and did not come close to growing at historical rates. Those who complain that the US expenses are to blame for the deficit miss the point that tax revenues have to grow every decade to keep up with inflation and the growth in population. Now I certainly agree that expenses can be trimmed and managed much better but unless we get our tax structure to the point where it is growing by close to 100% every 10 years we will not dig out of the hole that was dug in the decade starting in 2001. We have near the lowest total tax structure in the world when compared to our GDP.

      • easternimm
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 10:58 am | Permalink

        the growth is real all right. the problem with 2006-2007 is that part of it reflected the economic and stock market growth fueled in those years mainly by the housing bubble. we are paying for it now. anyway the main point that revenue from income taxes does go up sometimes even if the tax rates are decreased is proven as being real in many cases ( including recently in countries like Sweden). I do not think economic growth has to do only with tax rates but having low marginal tax rates does help if that is managed correctly and other ingredients are present ( educated workforce, smart regulatory environment, strong currency, manageable deficit, increasing work productivity).

      • tmcvei
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

        Keith: Thanks for the reply. I read your comments about the Bush tax cuts but I still don’t see how anyone can argue that there is any data to support the theory that the cut in tax rates caused an increase in tax revenues. What is your position regarding the historical and traditional growth in tax revenues where we experienced a minimum doubling in tax revenues every decade since the 1930s with higher tax rates in effect. . Am I correct that if we do nothing population growth and inflation should produce a significant increase in tax revenues over a 10 year period. I suppose you could argue that a doubling of tax revenues every 10 years (including the years prior to 1980 when top marginal tax rates were over 50%) is not due to inflation and population growth but then what would you contribute it to? It is just a fact that tax revenues from 2001 to 2010 was the worst 10 year period in our history by a mile … despite almost full employment for the first 8 years.

        Also … while we were near full employment during that period the unemployment rate went up when compared to Clinton’s second term so the tax rate cut didn’t even create jobs and of course at the end of the decade the unemployment rate doubled.to over 10%.

      • tmcvei
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

        Keith: One more point. By looking at total tax receipts you are including Social Security and Retirement tax which continue to go up despite cuts in income tax rates so we should really be looking at individual income tax receipts which shows the picture more clearly. By 2008 they were about 12% higher than 2001 when historically they grew by about 70% over any other similar period since 1934. I just don’t see how the data supports a positive impact because of the Bush tax cuts. To try to measure the impact of tax rate cuts or tax rate increases don’t we have to agree that tax revenues should increase by some reasonable amount because of population and inflation? You may not agree that revenues should double every 10 years if we don’t touch the tax structure but surely it can’t be below 50% in 10 years. How can 12% be anything to brag about?

      • easternimm
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

        you have the data above. 2003 – tax rates decreased. 2004, 5, 6, 7 – tax receipts up. best would be to calculate tax receipts as a percentage of GDP, that way you correct for population and GDP growth. also would be more informative to do a graph with the GDP so you can judge the effect of business cycles and recessions. otherwise either side can make arguments based on some numbers. in the end any statistic would confess what you want from it if you torture it long and hard enough. the point is however to inform your thinking and policy making form the statistic rather than to prove your a priori political opinion through a statistic.

        you are right that employment gains were not great after the 1999-2001 recession ( this may have to do with other factors – globalization, increased productivity through technology), however our peak workforce was in 2007. Obama’s admin has not managed to beat that in 4 years despite 5-6 trillions of debt spending. what Obama have done so far is to shift private debt on the taxpayer balance ( bailouts), without recovering the workforce participation rate and at the same time expanding future entitlements. this is what drives a lot of moderate independents like me crazy… basically, in 2008 we went from a bad Republican to a bad Democrat. we need somebody moderate ( blue state Republican or red state Democrat) to clean up the 12 year of economic mismanagement.

      • easternimm
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

        here you go:

        income tax receipts as percentage of GDP 2000-2009.

      • tmcvei
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

        I really respect your points. I would be interested in your opinion regarding my point about tax revenues doubling every 10 years vs negative growth between 2001 and 2010 (individual tax receipts). Do you have any gut feel for the percentage growth in tax revenues that would be produced by just traditional population growth and inflation. I know it would be impossible to calculate but there must be some base line growth that we should expect if we did not touch tax rates. In other words if we could all agree that tax revenues should increase by X% every 10 years if we do nothing then we have some way of measuring the effect of an adjustment to the tax structure. It really scares me when I see what happened to our tax revenues in the last ten years compared to any 10 year period since 1934.

        To solve our deficit problem I feel we need to reduce military expenses … reduce entitlements … and increase tax revenues (not just from projected growth). It has to a balanced approach and it seems to me that Obama is a lot closer to sharing that view than Romney who is against any increase in tax revenues (from the tax system) and he wants to increase military spending not cut it. That is clearly kicking over two legs of the three legged stool. I also feel that Obama has given everyone a peak at what he would be willing to do as far as entitlements. If any president is going to take a whack at entitlements it will be during their second term.

        I really enjoy your blog. Keep up the good work.

  13. Brad
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Two numbers you need to remember for OH on election day. Mitt needs to exceed 35 in Cuyahoga Co. and 45 in Franklin. If he does, he should win OH easily.

    • KN
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

      What you mean by “exceed 35 and 45”?

    • Brad
      Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

      KN – % of vote. Mitt needs to lose each county something like 35-65, and 45-55 respectively.

    • Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:31 am | Permalink | Reply

      Also depends on which other counties he loses. I could see Romney taking Lake. I’m not sure which way my home county of Lorain will go. It does appear that Hamilton will go Romney. Also wonder which way Mahoning county will go (Youngstown). I could see Youngstown going Obama with Warren going Romney. But I think Obama is really only safe in Lucas, Franklin, and Cuyahoga counties. He could win some others but those three are his only sure bets.

  14. JN
    Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Looks like GOP plus 340 in washoe county today

  15. Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The Obama campaign should be seriously freaked out about this poll. The last internal at the end of the survey is a huge red alert.

    Oakland County: Romney leads Obama in Favorability 52-44

    Macomb County: Romney leads Obama in Favorability 50-42

    Obama favorability is at 40% among independents.

    • Posted October 30, 2012 at 11:59 pm | Permalink | Reply


    • William Jefferson
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:05 am | Permalink | Reply

      Mitt should win independents by about 20 points then.

    • wmart
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:08 am | Permalink | Reply

      That number with independents is why the storm is such a bad break for us politically. Getting this kind of press coverage with a week to go will shoot that number up.

      • William Jefferson
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:11 am | Permalink

        lol; you are now officially doing parody.

        *high five*

      • Pete
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:18 am | Permalink

        Was worried the concern trolls weren’t going to show up

      • Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:26 am | Permalink

        Seriously wmart, it’s getting old.
        ~ Brittany

      • Evan3457
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:37 am | Permalink

        Moe? Be?

      • Guest
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 4:24 am | Permalink

        If what you say is true, it’d be bad anyway, number or not.

  16. Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:10 am | Permalink | Reply

    wont get my hopes up, wont get my hopes up, will not get my hopes up 🙂

    • Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:20 am | Permalink | Reply

      I know Shane, I know. It’s really hard to keep the excitement at bay. But this is huge. It’s just one poll but the trend is unmistakenly on the upswing for Romney there. Combine that with Romney outspending Obama 3:1 the final week could very well tip Michigan red.

      • wmart
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:25 am | Permalink

        What are the dates on the poll?

      • Pete
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:40 am | Permalink

        New Marshall poll in PA w/ Romney within 4. 49-45 LV 48-44 RV. Last month Obama led by 9. 50D37R/12I

      • Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:42 am | Permalink

        wmart, it is a weekend poll, done October 27-29

    • Evan3457
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:39 am | Permalink | Reply

      Ride that negative karma, shane! I’m right with you. It always works.


  17. Eric
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:18 am | Permalink | Reply

    I haven’t seen this posted anywhere, so I’ll comment on it. That poll says that 15% of Michigan voters have already voted.

    Slight problem with that

    Pulled from the Michigan Secretary of State’s website:
    Does Michigan allow early voting?
    No. While some states allow all voters to cast ballots prior to Election Day, Michigan does not have early voting. Of course, qualified Michigan voters can cast absentee ballots prior to Election Day.

    So we KNOW that 0% have early voted. It says 7.5% are absentee in the poll, 15% early, 77.5% election day. We know that to be false.

    So, 15% are liars who want the phone to stop ringing.

    Apply that to Ohio….around 15% are reporting to have voted early in Ohio more than what the Ohio Secretary of State says have early voted according to Ohio polls.

    So, those polls are wrong in Ohio. THIS IS HUGE!!!!!!

    • Eric
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:22 am | Permalink | Reply

      The Michigan poll also says that 40% of undecideds independents, 40% Republicans, 20% Democrats. Michigan might be going Romney. I had it as narrowly going to Obama. Have to move it to tossup after this.

    • Dean
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:36 am | Permalink | Reply

      Something funky there. This shows MI early vote about 20%, 21% in 2008. They must allow early voting.


      • Eric
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:39 am | Permalink

        There is no early voting in Michigan except absentee voting by mail. I live in Michigan. You can’t early vote here. Certainly possible that that study is using absentee voting. The MI poll says there are 7.5% absentee this year though.

    • mike
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:51 am | Permalink | Reply

      I am sure some percentage lie, but would guess some percentage have a hard time tying their shoes yet alone distinguishing between absentee ballot and early voting. In other words I Think some that report EV were actually AB.

  18. John
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 6:19 am | Permalink | Reply

    According to this USA Today piece, the population of Detroit (city proper) declined 25% between the 2000 and 2010 census, continuing a multi-decade decline like many large upper-midwest cities. I don’t know if that has relevance to the election but would think so.

  19. lotmini
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 7:30 am | Permalink | Reply

    maybe too late to add this but: if i would have told u 3 months ago that MI would be too close to call on election day, you know you would have taken that and what does that tell you about OH? if RR is withn the margin in MI, OH is a R win of about 52-48.

  20. Guest
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 9:29 am | Permalink | Reply

    Sure way to win Michigan- tie Obama to Granholm. The woman’s toxic. To help Hoekstra, put Stabenow next to them.

    After all, they all sound the same. Raise taxes! Raise spending!

  21. Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Interesting take by RCP’s Sean Trende on the difference between state and national polls. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/31/whats_behind_the_state-national_poll_divergence_115979.html

    article short: National Polls and States Polls are both right and both saying different things. He expect one to merger toward the other to give us a clear pic if not this will be the wildest, most unknown presidential election in history.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: