Obama opens up 9 point lead on Romney nationally (Harris Poll)

[Drunken Irishman]

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articleId/966/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/Default.aspx

If the presidential election were held today, 46% of Americans would vote for President Obama, 37% would vote for Mitt Romney and 17% are not at all sure. Last month, two in five U.S. adults (43%) said they would vote for President Obama while 39% said they would vote for Mitt Romney. Among Independents, it's a slightly closer race with 43% voting for the President and 37% voting for the former governor and 46% of adults in the 2012 Swing States (Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia) would vote for President Obama and 39% would vote for Mitt Romney.

Here is a look at the trend:

October: Obama 41, Romney 40
November: Obama 41, Romney 41
December: Obama 43, Romney 40
January: Obama 43, Romney 39
February: Obama 46, Romney 37

So, it's clear, after tying with Obama in November, that Romney has faded against Obama nationally. He's improved his numbers in the last three months. So, going by the trend alone, on election day, Obama will hold a 60-35 lead over Romney nationally.

[calimary]

1. Never mind! Don't get complacent!!!

Look what's happening in Massachusetts - all of a sudden Elizabeth Warren is trailing scott brown rather badly.

[The Wielding Truth]

2. How can there be so many people who would support Romney????Why would anyone prefer him?

[Tx4obama]

3. It is the ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES that matter, not the popular vote or polls. n.t

[Drunken Irishman]

4. It's both...

The electoral college means squat if you're getting pounded by nearly 10 points nationally. You can dismiss it, but the electoral college only comes into play when the popular vote is extremely narrow - at least in modern times.

If Obama's winning by nearly 9 points nationally, he's going to be winning the states needed to win the electoral college. So, you can focus entirely on the electoral college and ignore the popular vote, but it's not really either or - it's both.

They're connected. All you have to do is look at 2000 for proof of that. If Gore had won the popular vote by 9 points, instead of .5 like he eventually did, he most certainly wins Florida, probably New Hampshire and wins the election.

[DCBob]

5. I really do wish Romney would be our opponent.

I think we can be more assured of the outcome. If its Santorum or some other "white knight" that might come out of a brokered convention then its less predictable... althought I think Obama still wins.

[graham4anything]

6. Obama will easily win electoral vote

Gore did win FLorida

It was Ralph Nader that 100% caused New Hampshire.
Had Nader not been the worlds #1 egotist, Gore would have easily won NH and Florida would
not even have mattered (and because it would not have mattered, the repubs wouldn't have stolen it, so Gore would easily have won Florida
(some say he did win by 65,000 votes or more anyhow).
Don't let Ralph Nader get away from what he did- which was allowing Bush to be seated.
That alone is Ralph Nader's 100% accomplishment in politics. He got Bush seated.
(IMHO).
(anyone tells you different is a nader-ite).

Remember something about the popular vote-
a 4% spread is a landslide in modern times in popular vote.
Wyoming can give the repub 100%(and Kansas and the other few red states), and President Obama can be reelected with over 500 electoral votes

If Santorum or Romney is running, my own prediction is

Obama 507
losers 31
in electoral votes

and popular vote might not be more than 53 for Obama and 47 for others.
(remember-the two major candidates won't equal 100%, there will be some others running

[Drunken Irishman]

7. You're right. There is an increasing correlation between popular vote/electoral college.

The more the popular vote ticks up, the higher the victory in the electoral college - well, most of the time. '92, a three-man race, was a rare election where the vote was split three-ways and thus, kept the popular vote closer than it would have been had Perot never thrown his hat into the ring (though, I suspect Clinton still would have failed to win a majority).

States don't act in a vacuum. The idea that Obama could garner a ten-point margin in the popular vote and lose the electoral college assumes he's running up huge numbers in traditionally Democratically strong states and losing, barely (I mean, razor thin margin here) in every swing state.

Well, like I said, these states don't operate in a different universe. If Obama is over performing in California compared to Kerry in '04, who lost, it most assuredly means he's also doing that in other states - like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Missouri. It's not going to be contained to just California & New York.

Obama won New York by a 26.9 margin in '08. Kerry won it by a 17.57 margin and Gore 24.98.

What you can take away from those numbers is that Kerry won New York by about ten-points less than Obama and even less than Gore. It's not a surprise, across the country, Kerry took in less overall of the popular vote than either Obama or Gore.

The voter amount most definitely spreads more evenly across the country than I think some people assume. It's not going to be concentrated in one state, as it would need to be for Obama to win the popular vote by a comfortable margin and still lose the electoral college.

If he's polling ahead of Romney nine points nationally, it means he's probably winning most, if not all, the major swing states.

But you're right, the popular vote might not be larger than it was last go around. I think it actually will, though, especially if it's Romney and a candidate from the right can take enough votes away from him.

My guess, as of today, I think the popular vote would be:

Obama: 55
Romney: 40
Other: 5

[Tiggeroshii]

8. actually i dont think your prediction is an improbability

But we will definitely find out If the trends remain as they are. So far its looking good!