Wednesday, August 15, 2012

The Electoral College Map (8/15/12)

Imagine the creakiest door closing the tiniest of amounts, squeaking ever so slightly in the process. Now, FHQ doesn't know how well that approximates the impact of today's battleground state polls from Purple Strategies, but it is not that far off if only for today. Putting the fact that the FHQ weighted averages only minutely changed after the introduction of these polls aside, this was a pretty good set of survey data for the Romney campaign. The former Massachusetts governor had not led a poll in Ohio since a late May/early June Purple Strategies survey showed him ahead by three points. Similarly, Romney had not held the advantage in Virginia since a June We Ask America survey had him up five points on President Obama. [A July Quinnipiac poll had the two men tied in Virginia.]

But the question remains: While this is a good day polling-wise for the presumptive Republican ticket, is this a blip or the first evidence of a change in the tide in some of the most competitive states? Better yet, is this related to the Paul Ryan rollout as the Republican vice presidential nominee? [The Purple Strategies poll was in the field Monday and Tuesday after the Saturday announcement.] Finally, is this just some rather pedestrian state-level narrowing a la Campbell (2008)?

The answers? It will take more than a day's worth of polling from one survey research group to affect that kind of change.

That said, there is an awful lot of Romney pink in otherwise light blue (to this point) Obama states:

New State Polls (8/15/12)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Obama
Romney
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Colorado
8/13-8/14
+/- 4.0%
600 likely voters
49
46
5
+3
+2.79
Florida
8/13-8/14
+/- 4.0%
600 likely voters
47
48
5
+1
+1.33
Missouri
8/8
+/- 3.8%
663 likely voters
46.8
47.9
5.3
+1.1
+4.88
Ohio
8/13-8/14
+/- 4.0%
600 likely voters
44
46
10
+2
+3.41
Virginia
8/13-8/14
+/- 4.0%
600 likely voters
45
48
8
+3
+2.63

Polling Quick Hits:
Colorado:
There was some evidence last week that the gap in Colorado may be closing. Contrary to that and quite opposite of the dynamics within this series of polls from Purple Strategies, Obama holds on to the lead in the Centennial state. Now, to be sure, this is more a matter of maintaining the status quo -- It is right at the current FHQ weighted average. -- than anything else. Still, the polling over the last week in Colorado feels like an exercise in polling variability rather than tide turner.

Florida:
Mitt Romney leads in Florida, and that is the governor's first advantage in the Sunshine state since July, but that was in a Purple Strategies survey that had him ahead by a slightly larger margin. Relative to that poll, the margin in Purple Strategies polls in Florida has drawn closer by a couple of points. And that is all Obama gain. Romney held steady at 48% while Obama's share of the response increased from 45% to 47%. [That is true to the direction of the Colorado movement as well, though both candidates' shares increased there poll over poll.] In context, Romney's share in this poll is where it has been when it has been at its zenith, while Obama is right in the heart of his polling range in Florida.

Missouri:
Changes (August 15)
StateBeforeAfter
MissouriLean RomneyToss Up Romney
The one surprise FHQ hinted at via Twitter earlier was in Missouri where a Chilenski Strategies poll echoing the +1 Romney margin from the latest Survey USA poll of the Show Me state was released. I am still not convinced that Missouri is this close or that deserves to be in the Toss Up category. These two surveys demonstrate to FHQ that Missouri is still underpolled, and while that may be the reality, a range is beginning to solidify there in terms of the margins between the two candidates. These two polls to this point represent the highest highs for Obama and the lowest lows (especially in the case of the Survey USA poll) for Romney.

Ohio:
If the trends in Colorado and Florida from one Purple Strategies poll to the other ran concomitantly to each other then the same is true of Ohio and Virginia in the aggregate at least. In Ohio, the president's share of support dropped off by four points while Mitt Romney's rate of support mostly held steady.

Virginia:
In Virginia, the opposite was true. Obama held steady while Romney's share of support in the Old Dominion increased by four points relative to the last Purple Strategies poll in the commonwealth in July. The 48% level of support is also the highest Romney has enjoyed there. The governor's 46% share in Ohio is at a similar crest (though one We Ask America poll in June had him higher at 48%).

All told, it is a good day for Romney, but with some interesting caveats/trends underneath the surface.


Together the new information does little to alter the outlook in the electoral college. Missouri slips back over into the Toss Up Romney category (...but only just so). There is still a great distance between the North Carolina on one end of the Toss Up Romney spectrum and Missouri on the other. On the Electoral College Spectrum, Colorado and Virginia switch places with each other again, a move emblematic of the shifts within all of these polls: Colorado and Florida moving toward the president (comparing Purple Strategies polls) and Ohio and Virginia shifting toward Romney. FHQ does not want to take too micro a view of all of this, but if this ends up a close election, these sorts of shifts among the most competitive states matter in the electoral college calculus.

...particularly if the develop into longer terms trends (something only time will tell).

The Electoral College Spectrum1
RI-4
(7)2
NJ-14
(160)
NH-4
(257)
AZ-11
(167)
MS-6
(55)
HI-4
(11)
WA-12
(172)
OH-183
(275/281)
MT-3
(156)
ND-3
(49)
NY-29
(40)
MN-10
(182)
CO-9
(284/263)
GA-16
(153)
AL-9
(46)
VT-3
(43)
NM-5
(187)
VA-13
(297/254)
WV-5
(137)
KY-8
(37)
MD-10
(53)
CT-7
(194)
IA-6
(303/241)
IN-11
(132)
KS-6
(29)
CA-55
(108)
OR-7
(201)
FL-29
(332/235)
SC-9
(121)
AK-3
(23)
MA-11
(119)
PA-20
(221)
NC-15
(206)
LA-8
(112)
OK-7
(20)
IL-20
(139)
WI-10
(231)
MO-10
(191)
NE-5
(104)
ID-4
(13)
DE-3
(142)
NV-6
(237)
TN-11
(181)
AR-6
(99)
WY-3
(9)
ME-4
(146)
MI-16
(253)
SD-3
(170)
TX-38
(93)
UT-6
(6)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.

2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 272 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics.

3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The Watch List remains the same in terms of the line up of states, but Missouri now moves from being a Lean but almost a Toss Up to a Toss Up but nearly a Lean. The Show Me state bears watching, but only to see if the establishing range of polls continues. If the latest polls are any indication of Obama's best showing there, then the president will be on the outside looking in in Missouri on election night.

The Watch List1
State
Switch
Connecticut
from Strong Obama
to Lean Obama
Georgia
from Strong Romney
to Lean Romney
Michigan
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up Obama
Missouri
from Toss Up Romney
to Lean Romney
Nevada
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up Obama
New Hampshire
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
New Mexico
from Strong Obama
to Lean Obama
North Carolina
from Toss Up Romney
to Toss Up Obama
West Virginia
from Strong Romney
to Lean Romney
Wisconsin
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up Obama
1 Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Please see:


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 6:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

The Electoral College Map (8/14/12)

Well, FHQ wishes we could tell you that a group of new polls from a couple of Watch List states changed the presidential race in some way. But we can't. Sure, the weighted averages fluctuated some in both New Hampshire and Ohio, but both are still toss ups favoring Obama and none of the five new polls did anything to change that today.

[Actually FHQ is ambivalent toward the ups and downs of the polls. We just try to track the stuff and provide a little context. Changes do make for more varied writing though.]

New State Polls (8/14/12)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Obama
Romney
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
New Hampshire
8/7-8/8
<+/- 3%
1591 likely voters
50
44
6
+6
+4.78
New Hampshire
8/1-8/12
+/- 4.2%
550 likely voters
49
46
4
+3
--
New Hampshire
8/9-8/12
+/- 3.0%
1055 likely voters
51
45
5
+6
--
Ohio
8/9-8/12
+/- 3.2%
 961 likely voters
48
45
6
+3
+3.75
Ohio
8/13
+/- 4.5%
500 likely voters
45
45
4
0
--

Polling Quick Hits:
New Hampshire:
A couple of +6 polls in the Granite state for Obama (both from PPP, but one privately done) kind of stacks the deck for the president there in terms of the averages. For the sake of transparency, if the private PPP survey was dropped the New Hampshire weighted average would dip to 4.3. But a poll with a publicly released data is a poll. The private poll is included in the averages as well. Together what the two PPP polls show is that the president has the advantage, but one that has fallen from +12 when the company last surveyed the state in May. Of course, that survey was a bit of an outlier in the context of other time-proximate polls. A +6 seems to be the upper end of the range for Obama in New Hampshire at the moment whereas the new Granite State Poll from UNH/WMUR is closer to the lower bound of the range at +3 for the president. The latter poll does have Romney at his high water mark in polling of the state overall.

Ohio:
After a couple of late July polls from We Ask America and Quinnipiac seemed to show a growth in the president's lead in the Buckeye state, the latest polls from PPP and Rasmussen there look to fit right in with where the polling in Ohio had been before that blip. In other words, Ohio, like New Hampshire, is competitive, but provides the president with a consistent cushion. Neither PPP nor Rasmussen saw much in the way of movement for either candidate in Ohio since they last polled voters in the state in June and July respectively. Obama's share dropped by a couple of points in the Rasmussen poll in August over July, but in the scope of all the Ohio polls that feels more like polling variation rather than anything like a significant decrease. However, time will tell the tale on that one.


Perhaps I should not have led this post off by saying that the introduction of these polls made no significant difference in the grand scheme of things. [Are people still reading?] But that is the truth. The steady state of the 2012 presidential race continues. New Hampshire and Ohio both remain toss ups favoring the president and maintain their positions on the Electoral College Spectrum. There is more daylight between New Hampshire and Ohio than there is between New Hampshire and Michigan, but that is little consolation here. New Hampshire may be flirting with moving into the Lean Obama category, but it may/will oscillate a great deal around that Toss Up/Lean line between now and November. And that may also prove true for Michigan and Ohio.

The bottom line is that Obama continues to hold a lead in the majority of competitive states and that is fueling his August lead in the electoral college outlook. The president simply has cushion now, but not a strong enough one to preclude any sort of Romney surge in polling or the averages over the next few months.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
RI-4
(7)2
NJ-14
(160)
NH-4
(257)
AZ-11
(167)
MS-6
(55)
HI-4
(11)
WA-12
(172)
OH-183
(275/281)
MT-3
(156)
ND-3
(49)
NY-29
(40)
MN-10
(182)
VA-13
(288/263)
GA-16
(153)
AL-9
(46)
VT-3
(43)
NM-5
(187)
CO-9
(297/250)
WV-5
(137)
KY-8
(37)
MD-10
(53)
CT-7
(194)
IA-6
(303/241)
IN-11
(132)
KS-6
(29)
CA-55
(108)
OR-7
(201)
FL-29
(332/235)
SC-9
(121)
AK-3
(23)
MA-11
(119)
PA-20
(221)
NC-15
(206)
LA-8
(112)
OK-7
(20)
IL-20
(139)
WI-10
(231)
MO-10
(191)
NE-5
(104)
ID-4
(13)
DE-3
(142)
NV-6
(237)
TN-11
(181)
AR-6
(99)
WY-3
(9)
ME-4
(146)
MI-16
(253)
SD-3
(170)
TX-38
(93)
UT-6
(6)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.

2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 272 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics.

3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The margin in Ohio decreased just enough to push the Buckeye state off of the Watch List. It was just a few hundredths of a percentage point from moving off of the list anyway. Regardless, that is the only change below today. New Hampshire remains on.

The Watch List1
State
Switch
Connecticut
from Strong Obama
to Lean Obama
Georgia
from Strong Romney
to Lean Romney
Michigan
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up Obama
Missouri
from Lean Romney
to Toss Up Romney
Nevada
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up Obama
New Hampshire
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
New Mexico
from Strong Obama
to Lean Obama
North Carolina
from Toss Up Romney
to Toss Up Obama
West Virginia
from Strong Romney
to Lean Romney
Wisconsin
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up Obama
1 Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Please see:


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Do the RNC Rules Allow a VP Selection to Be Dumped by the Convention?

Sure they do.

But of course, that won't happen in Tampa. And FHQ is not suggesting that it is a possibility. Rather, this is in answer to Jonathan Bernstein's follow up to Seth Masket on the influence of party over the vice presidential selection.

First the rules:
In the 2008 Rules of the Republican Party -- the rules governing the 2012 nomination process and convention -- Rule 40 covers nominations. Yes, the same Rule 40 that came up back in March and was the basis for all the talk about Ron Paul controlling a plurality of delegates in at least five states. The same is true for vice presidential nominations, but the procedure there is less regulated than for presidential nominations. By that I mean that delegates are not bound on the vice presidential roll call votes in the same way that they are on presidential roll call votes for nomination (...something Jon Ward covers here). I am not suggesting that there will be any Ron Paul delegate mischief or any other efforts to second guess Romney and oust Paul Ryan from the ticket in Tampa. Instead, the point is to show that it is possible.

Now the implications:
Within the framework of the party -- writ large -- influencing the selection of a vice presidential nominee, this merely adds another layer. But that is certainly a layer that strengthens the party's hand. It really is not unlike a president's decision in selecting a nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. There is a more than adequate supply of able jurists in the pool, but only a constrained number of them will ever be considered by any given president. There is a calculus to the decision and presidents can push the envelope -- ideologically speaking or in some other manner -- but the extent of said pushing goes only so far as the administration's perception of what/who is likely to get the requisite 60 votes in the US Senate for confirmation.

Similarly, Presumptive Nominee Romney wants/wanted to select a running mate that was palatable to members of the Republican Party. Any of the finalists -- Ryan, Portman, Pawlenty -- would have accomplished that. Additionally, there was a reason certain trial balloons failed: They weren't passable in a convention setting. FHQ has attempted to raise the issue of breaking from the script moments at the Republican convention in Tampa. Mostly that was within the context of the role of Ron Paul delegates. But the same rule applies in this case. Selecting, for example, a pro-choice running mate like Rice or Sandoval would have been vetoed -- in Bernsteinian? Berenstain? terms -- by the convention. It may not have been enough to derail the ultimate nomination of that type of candidate, but it definitely would ruin the harmonious party atmosphere with which the two national parties like to leave conventions.

The last thing any party or nominee wants is discord within the party before, during or after a convention. And that is the power of party in this particular political decision.



Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 1:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Monday, August 13, 2012

The Electoral College Map (8/13/12)

Reports of Missouri's general level of competitiveness in the presidential race are greatly exaggerated. But Survey USA's first polling foray in the Show Me state this year certainly makes Missouri appear more swingy. The only problem is that this runs counter to most of the recent -- and by recent I mean arbitrarily polling over the last couple of months -- polls that have shown the race in the former bellwether breaking toward Romney.

Only Public Policy Polling -- in a May survey -- has shown Missouri to be as close as one point between the two nominees. And that type of proximity between the two candidates in Missouri, especially after a near tie there in 2008 and with an overall swing back toward the Republican Party in the time since, probably breaks with the conventional wisdom that a tight national race does not include a tight Missouri (presidential) race.

Of course, by that same logic, North Carolina would not be close in 2012 either. Alas, it is still pre-convention August.

New State Polls (8/13/12)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Obama
Romney
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Missouri
8/9-8/12
+/- 4.1%
585 likely voters
44
45
5
+1
+5.50

Polling Quick Hits:
Missouri:
The emphasis from this poll should be placed on its position within the existing pool of polls in Missouri. Obama's share in the Survey USA sample is comparable to the share the president has enjoyed -- if one can enjoy being behind -- in recent polling there, but the Romney share lags well behind the 49-51% portion of responses the former Massachusetts governor has garnered in those same recent surveys.

This happens to be the first state-level poll to be in the field during and after the newly-selected Republican vice presidential nominee was tapped. However, this poll certainly doesn't say much about the impact of the Ryan rollout. First of all, survey respondents were in no way prompted about Ryan within the poll (not that respondent have to be to show some impact). More importantly, we are likely going to need all two weeks worth of polling prior to the conventions to begin measuring the impact of Romney's selection of Ryan. We may require more data than the two weeks have to offer, but we will have the convention effects to deal with after the August 27-30 week in Tampa.

As always, don't read anything into that connection unless it is confirmed in the coming days in other polls.


As was the case with the lone Iowa poll last Friday, the Missouri survey does little to change how things looked coming into this new week. Sure, the result is that FHQ weighted average in Missouri contracts about 0.8 percent, leapfrogging the state over Tennessee in the Electoral College Spectrum. But the Show Me state is still comfortably red; one of those states that if Mitt Romney were to lose it, the Republican ticket would lose the overall race anyway. Missouri feels like a Lean Romney state in 2012 and it will take a lot of polling data to convince FHQ otherwise.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
RI-4
(7)2
NJ-14
(160)
NH-4
(257)
AZ-11
(167)
MS-6
(55)
HI-4
(11)
WA-12
(172)
OH-183
(275/281)
MT-3
(156)
ND-3
(49)
NY-29
(40)
MN-10
(182)
VA-13
(288/263)
GA-16
(153)
AL-9
(46)
VT-3
(43)
NM-5
(187)
CO-9
(297/250)
WV-5
(137)
KY-8
(37)
MD-10
(53)
CT-7
(194)
IA-6
(303/241)
IN-11
(132)
KS-6
(29)
CA-55
(108)
OR-7
(201)
FL-29
(332/235)
SC-9
(121)
AK-3
(23)
MA-11
(119)
PA-20
(221)
NC-15
(206)
LA-8
(112)
OK-7
(20)
IL-20
(139)
WI-10
(231)
MO-10
(191)
NE-5
(104)
ID-4
(13)
DE-3
(142)
NV-6
(237)
TN-11
(181)
AR-6
(99)
WY-3
(9)
ME-4
(146)
MI-16
(253)
SD-3
(170)
TX-38
(93)
UT-6
(6)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.

2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 272 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics.

3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

Missouri does re-enter the Watch List with the new polling data, but FHQ is less concerned with the red states appearing there than the blue ones with Toss Up next to them.

The Watch List1
State
Switch
Connecticut
from Strong Obama
to Lean Obama
Georgia
from Strong Romney
to Lean Romney
Michigan
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up Obama
Missouri
from Lean Romney
to Toss Up Romney
Nevada
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up Obama
New Hampshire
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
New Mexico
from Strong Obama
to Lean Obama
North Carolina
from Toss Up Romney
to Toss Up Obama
Ohio
from Toss Up Obama
to Lean Obama
West Virginia
from Strong Romney
to Lean Romney
Wisconsin
from Lean Obama
to Toss Up Obama
1 Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Please see:



Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:15 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Paul Ryan, GOP Vice Presidential Nominee: Some Thoughts

FHQ will not go all long form here (or will try not to anyway). Plenty of others have more than adequately gotten the ball rolling in reaction to the Mitt Romney campaign's decision to tap Wisconsin representative, Paul Ryan, as the governor's running mate.

First thing's first: Let's check the speculation at the door here, shall we? I think we can all agree that the Ryan selection will have an impact. Subtract him and add, say, Tim Pawlenty and you get a potentially different outcome long term. That's the fun part, right? Treating this like the NBA Trade Machine. You can trade and trade and trade parts until you subjectively/hypothetically improve your team's chances of success. But other than gaining some insight into what the campaign is thinking, I don't know that the risk/reward calculus is all that fruitful an exercise. Hindsight is always 20/20 on these things. The one rule to always remember on VP selection is exactly what George W. Bush said about presidential debates, "I don't think you can ever win them, but you darn sure can lose them." In other words, these things are always "do no harm".

Instead of the calculus many are talking about then, let's talk about what we know. What data do we have?

1. Who is Paul Ryan?
A majority of Americans don't know. Those that do know Ryan are slightly more likely to view him unfavorably. That means that the race is on over the next two weeks -- before the Republican Convention kicks off in Tampa (and perhaps afterward) -- to define Ryan in much the same way that the campaigns' efforts have been about defining Romney this summer. Republicans will want to paint the Wisconsin representative as the visionary their standard bearer made the then-unknown pick to be in a recent NBC interview. Oppositely, Democrats will both want to tie Ryan to the frame they have attempted to construct around Romney (well off and out of touch with ordinary Americans) and to link Romney to the House Budget Committee chairman's controversial budget plan (which they view as a liability for the Republicans).

Just know that this attention on Ryan will be short-lived.  He is a number two and unless the Romney campaign roll out is gaffe-prone and rife with problems, the attention will ultimately shift back to the person at the top of the ticket and the race will, in Holbrook's terms, revert to its Romney equilibrium.

2. VP selection bounce
From FHQ's perspective, the best thing about the Ryan announcement occurring when it did is that the race will have a full two weeks before the Republican Convention in which to look at polls. That's a plus for a couple of reasons. First, we should see an uptick in polling starting now. Formerly risk-averse polling outlets will have a reason to go into the field: to test Ryan's impact. Secondly and unlike the two 2008 selections, we will have some time between the VP announcement and the conventions in which to -- admittedly only partially -- tease out the impact of each event. Both the Biden and Palin selections happened on the eves of their respective conventions. And in the Palin case that made it very difficult to discern whether or how much of McCain's early September jump in the polls was convention effect or VP effect.

As Jonathan Bernstein rightly pointed out, this VP bounce is a built-in part of the process. The structural impact of a vice presidential selection is approximately two points nationally. On the state level, however, that may be felt slightly differently. It isn't necessarily uniform across states. This is particularly true of the vice presidential nominee's home state. The Palin selection, for example, turned scantily-polled Alaska from a surprisingly competitive state to a rock-red state (a position the Last Frontier would likely have ended up in on election day anyway). Ryan's Wisconsin has been a comfortably blue state (Lean Obama throughout), but that consistency may bely the fact that the state hovers close to the breaking point in the FHQ metric between Lean and Toss Up (Obama) state. This could also potentially aid the Republican ticket in other midwest/blue-collar states.

But again, let's wait and see how the polls react to that instead of speculating.

Regardless, Romney will enjoy something of a bump out of the Ryan rollout, but we'll have to wait and see how exactly that manifests itself and where (in terms of location and groups of voters).



Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 3:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)