Obama's Katrina Moment

***Update: Several folks have contacted me insisting that Obama received 53% of the vote in 2012 and that he won by over 9 million votes... Newsflash folks, those were Obama's numbers in 2008. This piece makes specific reference to Obama's re-election in 2012. 

Original Post:
It has been a rough week for the Obama Administration. From Benghazi to obtaining reporters' phone records to the IRS admitting that it targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny, the press is in a frenzy and many are questioning Obama’s fate.  If President Obama does not soon regain control of the narrative, he is likely to suffer the same fate as his predecessor – a collapse in public confidence and a vastly diminished second term. To understand President Obama’s situation we need to explore a little presidential theory and some recent presidential history.

While still a college professor Woodrow Wilson wrote of the presidency, “Let him once win the admiration and confidence of the country, and no other single force can withstand him, no combination of forces will easily overpower him.” Wilson believed that presidents could rely on inspiring and soaring rhetoric to win over the public and overpower Congress. What Wilson failed to contemplate was what happens once a president loses the admiration and confidence of the public. George W. Bush provided the answer to that question in late 2005.

The day after Election Day 2004, President Bush confidently stated he had earned political capital in the election and he intended to spend it. It was a bold statement for a man who been reelected with a bare 51% majority. And history tells us that Bush had anything but a successful second term. His ambitious plans for Social Security reform foundered, he was thwarted in his efforts to achieve immigration reform, and much of his policy decisions regarding Iraq and Afghanistan were made via his use of the veto to overrule Congress. The veto is a powerful weapon, but it’s a weapon wielded in weakness, not in strength (strong Presidents need not resort to the veto). In November 2006, Republicans lost control of the House and Senate, and Bush’s political capital was nowhere to be found.

What happened to Bush between Election Day 2004 and the Democratic victories in the 2006 election is a cautionary tale that the Obama Administration would do well to consider. It’s debatable whether Bush’s reelection truly bestowed any political capital upon him. Fully 49% of the electorate voted for someone else and the Bush election team had made a concerted effort to define John Kerry as an unfit leader and political “flip-flopper.” Election 2004 was as much a John Kerry rejection as it was a Bush reelection. Bush had presented himself as a competent manager and a reliable leader – a stark contrast to Kerry. That image collapsed in spectacular fashion in latter half of 2005.

In late August of that year, hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans. What followed were weeks and months of media coverage of looting, violence, displaced people, and thousands stranded in the Superdome. As coverage of the post-storm situation continued, criticism of the

government’s response mounted. Criticism tended to focus on problems of mismanagement by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and a perceived lack of leadership. In our book, American Government and Popular Discontent, my coauthor Steve Schier and I argue that to lead effectively, contemporary presidents need support from federal courts and Congress, the steady allegiance of the public, and accordance with contemporary public opinion about the proper size and scope of government. Bush had argued for a scaled back government, yet Katrina undermined that argument. Fairly or not President Bush became the focal point for public dissatisfaction with the Katrina response and his image as a competent and reliable manager collapsed. His approval rating fell into the 30 percent range and never recovered. Then in October, the Special Counsel appointed to investigate the possible outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame indicted Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Bush was finished. The President lost the admiration and confidence of the country – he did not get it back.

This brings us to President Obama’s current troubles. and the similarities between Obama's 2012 reelection and George W. Bush's 2004 reelection.  Like Bush, Obama was reelected by the same 51% bare majority. Obama’s narrow popular vote victory was bolstered by a more substantial Electoral College victory. Like Bush, Obama was rejected by 49% of the electorate and exit polls showed a majority of voters favored full or partial repeal of the President’s signature legislative accomplishment – health care reform.  Much like the Bush 2004 strategy, the Obama campaign spent millions defining Mitt Romney as an unfit leader. Like 2004, 2012 was as much a Romney rejection as an Obama reelection. Obama was portrayed as the reliable and competent manager who understood there was a positive role for government to play in improving people’s lives. If Obama is not careful, that image will collapse in spectacular fashion.

When House Republicans decided to reopen investigations into the White House and State Department response to the attacks on our embassy in Benghazi few thought it would inflict any serious damage to the President, though it was attracting press attention. Then came an admission from the IRS that it had unfairly singled out conservative groups for scrutiny during the 2012 campaign. Suddenly the press had two scandals to focus on. Then the Associated Press "wiretap" story made landfall. In April and May of 2012 the Department Of Justice secretly obtained two months of phone records for roughly two dozen AP reporters (no wires were actually tapped). It is suspected that the phone records were seized as part of an investigation into national security leaks. With the emergence of a third scandal, the press has seemingly turned on an administration that it had long treated with kid gloves.

The initial response from the White House appears to be “the President had no knowledge” of the IRS audits, the Justice Department wiretaps, or changes to Benghazi talking points. The White House is engaged in a confusing two-step – the President is responsible for the executive branch, but he is not responsible for the actions or misdeeds of executive branch employees or officers – actions and misdeeds that he did not know about. In reality, it makes no difference whether Obama was directly responsible for or knowledgeable of any of the actions alleged. The catastrophe of the Katrina aftermath was very much the fault of then Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, and FEMA Director Michael Brown. The Valerie Plame investigation never revealed any evidence that members of the Bush Administration illegally leaked her identity to the press. But pas is often the case in politics, perception mattered more than reality and the buck stopped with President Bush.

The perception emerging now is that President Obama is a detached bystander in his own Administration. Rather than embracing his role as Chief Executive he is otherwise engaged – too busy with the permanent campaign. Worse, the IRS and Justice Department wiretap stories undermine a central tenet the President’s agenda – that government can be a trusted and competent partner in improving lives. These scandals bolster conservative arguments about government as a malevolent force that should be constrained. It certainly does not help Obama that the IRS will play a central role in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Obama's best hope may be the GOP. When Bush was in meltdown in 2005, Democrats were wise to stand back and just watch the President implode. As a result, it was not possible for the Bush Administration to simply dismiss the accusations and investigations as political theatre. But Republicans are so eager to see Obama weakened that they have jumped headlong into the fray - even tossing the impeachment word around. If the GOP overplays its hand, they'll play right into Obama's and provide him with political cover. The next week or two will be critical. Ezra Klein is already arguing that the scandals are falling apart. Perhaps, but I think that's more a case of wishful thinking at this point. He seems to think that there must be direct involvement at the top for these scandals to have an impact. I don't think that's correct, especially if we're talking about public confidence in Obama's leadership and his argument about government as a positive force for change.

This is Obama’s Katrina moment, if he cannot regain control of the narrative then he will face the same loss of public confidence suffered by President Bush. If that happens, Obama will spend the next 3 years relying on little more than the power of the veto to influence the agenda of others. He's already at a disadvantage owing to GOP control of the House. Much as 35% of the public stood with George W. Bush until the very end, Obama can expect to maintain the support of a very committed segment of the public, and they will defend him no matter what. But legacies are not built on the cult-like adherence of a passionate and deluded minority. Just ask George W. Bush.

Maryland Cannot Afford to not Invest in Infrastructure

Last year, I criticized Governor O'Malley for proposing an increase in the gas tax in the midst of a weak economy. O'Malley's proposal went nowhere last year as neither Senate President Mike Miller or House Speaker Michael Busch were particularly interested in pursuing the increase.

This year, things are different. O'Malley, Miller, and Busch held a joint news conference today to announce a plan for infrastructure investment in Maryland. Under the plan worked out by the three party leaders, a new 2 percent sales tax on gasoline would be applied starting in July. The tax would increase to 4 percent in July, 2014. O'Malley's plan also would reduce the current excise tax on a gallon of gas by 5 cents, from 23.5 cents to 18.5 cents. The plan would then index the excise tax to the consumer price index to adjust for inflation.

The proposal is expected to generate $3.2 billion over 5 years to be dedicated to highway and transit projects. And make no mistake, Maryland is desperate need of infrastructure investments. A 2009 report card on Maryland's infrastructure found:

• 44% of Maryland’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition.
• 55% of Maryland’s major urban highways are congested.
• Vehicle travel on Maryland’s Interstates increased 52% from 1990 to 2004 while lane miles increased only 21%.
• 29% of Maryland’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

 My prior criticism of O'Malley's proposed gas tax increase was as much based on the weak economy as it was on the very regressive nature of excise taxes. Simply stated, excise taxes such as a gas tax or a sales tax on food or clothing has a disproportionately negative impact on lower income and working class folks. These folks have less disposable income to begin with and the added tax burden makes their situation worse. The couple hundred dollars lost each year to sales and gas taxes means a lot more to person earning $20,000 per year than it does to someone earning $150,000.

Make no mistake, the new O'Malley, Miller, Busch plan will place a serious burden on working class Marylanders. The plan would essentially place two taxes on the purchase of gas - a flat tax imposed per gallon that would increase with inflation (meaning it would likely increase every year) and a 4% sales tax applied to the total purchase. This means that as the price of gas increases, the additional charge generated by the sales tax will increase.

The flat tax indexed to inflation is perhaps the more troubling of the two - we have been blessed with relatively low levels of inflation for well over a decade, but there is no reason to assume that inflation will not return. The Federal Reserve has been pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the US economy and should we emerge from the current economic slowdown higher rates of inflation are quite possible. The Federal Reserve engaged in aggressive monetary policy in the 1970s as well and it contributed to several years of double-digit inflation. Should we experience a few years of high inflation, that newly adjustable flat tax is going to hurt. It would be better to simply eliminate the flat tax and replace it with a sales tax.

Criticisms and concerns aside, Maryland cannot afford to not make changes in infrastructure funding right now. Virginia recently enacted a major funding bill that will generate $3.5 billion in infrastructure funding. Maryland cannot risk remaining idle while Virginia invests billions in infrastructure upgrades. Such investments are crucial to attracting businesses as well as new federal investment - like a new FBI headquarters.

The infrastructure funding bill will hurt, but failing to take the initiative now will hurt the state far more in the long run. 

MD Assembly to Consider the Voter Irrelevance Act

The Maryland General Assembly's disdain for the voters is on full display with the introduction of a bill that would essentially end the right of the people to petition a law to referendum.

SB706 would change the criteria to bring legislation to referendum by increasing the number of necessary votes from 3% of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election to 5% of the total number of registered voters the day the bill was passed. 

The change to the petition process should be named the Voter Irrelevance Act. Much like Republicans in TX and NC, Maryland Democrats have used their majority power to strip away nearly all checks on their power by the voters. They've used legislative redistricting to gerrymander the state inflate their numbers in the House and Senate well beyond what would be expected based on them share of the vote Democrats and Republicans receive in the state.

Now they want to dramatically alter the petition/referendum process. Personally and professionally, I do not like referenda or direct democracy. We elect representatives to exercise their judgment, subject to our approval or disapproval come election day. But when a majority party manipulates the process to the point that elections have become meaningless (and that's what gerrymandering does) petition and referendum become one of the only means left to the public to check power. And that's why the Assembly is looking to take that last remaining check away.

Under existing law, a petition challenge to a law must gather signatures equal to 3% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. About 1.7 million votes were cast in the 2010 election so that means 56,000 signatures for any petition after the 2010 election and before the 2014 election. The new law would require signatures equal to 5% of all registered voters in the state at the time the bill was passed. There were 3.4 million voters in MD in April of 2010, so instead of 56,000 signatures the new requirement would be 177,000 signatures - triple amount of signatures. That's roughly 70,000 more signatures than the number of Marylanders who signed the petition to bring the Marriage Equality legislation to the ballot (the concept of holding a referendum to decide a question of basic civil rights is especially offensive to me, but it's allowed under Maryland law). The Marriage Equality challenge was an incredibly high profile piece of legislation. That it likely would have failed the new 5% of all registered voters standard suggests that few if any laws would ever be successfully petitioned to referendum - which is precisely the point of the proposed law.

Keep in mind, there have only been 4 succesful petition efforts in the last 30 years. True, 3 of them were in the last 2 years and appeared on the 2012 ballot, but the voters upheld each of the laws. It's unlikely, after that round of losses, that we're going to see another ballot with so many challenges. There's simply no need to make it even harder for the people to petition a bill to referendum.

The new requirement is really just another example of the Assembly's attempt to make voters irrelevant. Consider, the state constitution calls for a vote on a constitutional convention every 20 years. In 1930, 1950, and 2010 the call for a convention received majority support. But the General Assembly refused to call a convention.  Article XIV of the state constitution reads "It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to provide by Law for taking, at the general election to be held in the year nineteen hundred and seventy, and every twenty years thereafter, the sense of the People in regard to calling a Convention for altering this Constitution; and if a majority of voters at such election or elections shall vote for a Convention, the General Assembly, at its next session, shall provide by Law for the assembling of such convention, and for the election of Delegates thereto." In order to prevent a convention that may threaten their power, Assembly Democrats have relied on a disingenuous interpretation of the constitutional language. They have argued that the constitutional convention question must receive majority support from all folks who voted on election day, not just those who voted on the specific question of holding a convention. In effect, folks who don't vote are counted as no votes. In 2010, a majority of folks voting on the convention question voted to hold a convention, but because several thousand people didn't vote on the issue, it fell short of a majority of all voters who participated in the election.

Refusal to accept the judgment of the people on the question of a constitutional convention wouldn't be so bad, if not for the fact that the Assembly refuses to consistently apply it's majority of all voters standard. Article XIX of the MD constitution makes clear that gambling can not be expanded in the state unless "approval is granted through a referendum, authorized by an act of the General Assembly, in a general election by a majority of the qualified voters in the State." The language is clear - a gambling expansion requires approval by a majority of all registered voters. But the assembly ignored that requirement in November and declared that casino gambling needed merely a majority of those voting on that specific questions. The Attorney General's office happily complied with that determination (just as it has agreed with the more strict requirement for calling conventions).

The reason for the hypocrisy is clear, if you simply want to have a check on the Assembly's power by petitioning a law to referendum or by voting for a constitutional convention then the Assembly sets the bar impossibly high. But if you are a multi-billion dollar special interest group - like the gambling industry - the Assembly sets the bar very low.

That the Assembly is out to erect yet another barrier to the peoples ability to serve as a check on the power of the Assembly is not surprising, but it's still quite a sad thing to observe...

** In an earlier version of this post I lumped HB493,the Referendum Integrity Act, in with SB796. I regret the error. HB 493 would not curtail the right to petition, rather it would better guard against fraud.

O'Malley Delivers His Best State of the State Address... Ever

I like to think that I am mostly immune from hyperbole, so please forgive the title of this post, but I see no way around the conclusion that Martin O'Malley's 7th State of the State address was his best address ever - it was certainly one of his best speeches ever - and I fully expected that he would conclude the speech by saying "and that's why I am asking for your support to be the Democratic nominee for President in 2016."

Perhaps he should have ended with that request... though I suspect that everyone viewing or listening to the speech got a free preview of his nomination battle stump speech.

O'Malley is a policy wonk, he is strongest when discussing policy and this speech was full of policy and thankfully lacking in his tendency to engage in poetic flourish (life is an evolving story...).

Consider his opening salvo:

Remember seven years ago? Our State had veered off course. We started following the same, never-mind-the-math approach that created our federal deficits. Democrats and Republicans alike – in this very Chamber – had voted to cut taxes for millionaires, and to greatly increase state spending, without paying for either one.

The result: a $1.7 billion structural deficit. What’s less, we were paying taxes for a government that was not working; that was failing to deliver results. Underperforming schools. Tuition hikes approaching 40%. Rising crime outside of Baltimore.

But in 2007, together, we started making better choices. We cut spending growth. We added a penny to the sales tax to improve our children’s education. We restored revenues by making our tax code more progressive and fair. We took concrete action to close our structural deficit.

But beyond talking about what Maryland has done, O'Malley focused much of his speech on what Maryland must do moving forward.



O'Malley called for job creation through needed infrastructure investment - clearly reminding people that their is a clear role for government in the economy through the provision of desperately needed services. He tackled gun control and called for a ban on assault rifles and handgun licensing. And he made another push for green energy via offshore wind.

O'Malley spoke of an end to the death penalty and he did so passionately. It is no small thing that a sitting governor and aspirant for the White House made the following comparison  "across our ever-more-closely connected world, the majority of executions now take place in just seven countries: Iran. Iraq. The People’s Republic of China. North Korea. Saudi Arabia. Yemen. And the United States of America."  A nation should be judged by the company that it keeps and when it comes to executions we're in some very sorry company. 

O'Malley offered an unapologetically progressive vision, but he wisely wrapped it up in commonsense rhetoric and placed it atop a very moderate (politically) record of accomplishments.

Consider, he prefaced his speech by reminding voters that under his leadership:

We used the pressure of sinking revenues to make government more efficient. For the first time, we started setting public goals with more immediate deadlines. We started measuring weekly performance to make government more effective.

We constrained budget growth and made government smaller. We strengthened our rainy Day Fund and protected our Triple A Bond Rating.

We fixed our pension system. We reformed hundreds of pages of regulations, streamlined permitting, and fast tracked jobs projects. We eliminated paperwork, simplified applications for business licenses, and reduced waiting times from months to days.

O'Malley's record as governor is not one of left-wing ideological leadership. Two years ago, commenting on O'Malley's re-election, I wrote O'Malley had "made some very difficult choices as governor. And, despite his progressive leanings, has presided over an era of very conservative budgeting." I stand by that assessment and believe that O'Malley highlighted that record very well today.

I have been very critical of O'Malley at times (when deserved) and suspect that I will continue to be. I believe that O'Malley will have a very hard time rising above the crowd should he seek the Democratic nomination in 2016 - but this speech is a positive sign.

Make no mistake, O'Malley's 2013 Maryland State of the State address was very much a 2016 campaign launch speech - and it was a damn good one. Watch your back Andrew Cuomo.

Obama's Power Problem

In an op-ed in today's Baltimore Sun I make the case that Barack Obama faces a daunting challenge if he truly expects to see his second term agenda become a reality. I argue that all presidents since the 1960s have had a problem of eroding political capital - defined as a mix of public approval, Congressional support, and victory margin.

None of Barack Obama's recent predecessors solved the political capital problem or avoided the power trap. It is the central political challenge confronted by modern presidents...

Pressed by this governing reality, recent presidents have tried to defy the political capital deficit via ever more claims of executive power - signing statements, executive orders, and recess appointments have all increased in the post-1960s world. But these claims of power ten to further erode public support and antagonize Congress - so political capital falls more.

The president's recent issuance of multiple executive orders to deal with the issue of gun violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress, the president must rely on claims of unilateral power. But such claims are not without limit or cost and will likely further erode his political capital. Only by solving the problem of political capital is a president likely to avoid a power trap.

One element of my argument has annoyed a few people; namely my reference to Obama's narrow reelection. Many are suggesting that Obama's reelection was not so narrow. I stand by what I wrote. Consider these important facts - few dispute that George W. Bush was narrowly reelected in 2004 when he bested John Kerry 51%-48%. Obama's margin over Romney was little different at 51%-47%. Folks are quick to point to Obama's clear electoral college victory - but political capital is linked to public support and the electoral college is a poor proxy for public support.

Aside from the narrowness of Obama's victory margin, there is something far more substantial which points to seriously diminished political capital - Obama's lost voters. Barack Obama is the first president in at least 100 years to be elected to a second term and receive fewer total votes than in his first election. Obama received 65.9 million votes in 2012, roughly 3.6 million fewer votes than his  69.5 million haul in 2008. By comparison, every other president elected to a second term in the last 100 years added to their first election total. George W. Bush received a  whopping 12 million more votes in 2004 than in 2000. Bill Clinton added 2.5 million to his 1992 total, and Ronald Reagan added 11 million voters. Richard Nixon added over 15 million more voters.You must look to Franklin Roosevelt election to he fourth term to really see a fall of in support for a reelected incumbent. Typically, when an incumbent receives fewer total votes when seeking reelection they lose. Even Mitt Romney managed to best John McCain's vote total by about 1.5 million voters.

Unlike every other president to be elected to a second term in the last 100 years, Barack Obama's base of support shrank after 4 years in office. That is a very bad indication of the state of his political capital. Obama talked a good game in his inaugural address today, but with a bare majority approval rating, a bare majority reelection, a diminished base of mass support, and a Republican House of Representatives Obama is unlikely to see much of what he envisions ever come to pass. That's simply the reality of modern presidential politics.

Obviously I was Wrong about Romney

There have been multiple postmortems on the Romney campaign and all reveal significant flaws. The campaign had virtually no get out the vote machine, they became over confident about their position in key swing states and they spent a lot of precious time in PA instead of VA, FL, OH or CO. It was a lower turnout election with Romney receiving fewer votes than McCain in 2008 and the President winning far fewer votes than he did in 2008. And then there was Hurricane Sandy.

If you look to the Real Clear Politics polling data for the two/three weeks prior to the hurricane Romney had established a consistent lead. But more important than the Romney lead, the President had a poll ceiling of 47% and most polls had him at 45, 46 or 47% - this is deadly for an incumbent. Then Sandy hit and the numbers shifted quite clearly in the President's favor. His 46 and 47% poll numbers jumped to 49 and 50%. His approval rating increased as well. It certainly gave him a boost on election day.  Of course any discussion of the hurricane impacting the race is immediately dismissed by the Left as they try to magnify the significance of what was a rather poor 50%-48% re-election margin for the President. And the Right is trying to avoid facing the facts that they are losing racial and ethnic minority voters and are too reliant on the votes of a shrinking white electorate. I don't much care what the Left or the Right have to say - but to deny that Sandy had a positive impact on Obama's bid and a negative impact on Romney is to deny common sense. Much as would any attempt to deny the Romney campaign's serious failings.

A review of pollster accuracy by Nate Silver reveals something pretty amazing - nearly every pollster overstated GOP strength. This is an historic anomaly, polls tend to understate GOP strength. The systemic bias in favor of the GOP suggests just how impressive the Obama campaign's turn-out machine was. Turn-out overall was done by several million voters, but based on exit polls youth, African-American, and Hispanic voters turned-out at the same numbers as they did in 2008 (the Hispanic numbers were actually up a bit), but they accounted for a greater share of the electorate because so many white voters simply failed to show up. The GOP needs white voters to win and when millions stay home, the GOP loses (Of course, if the GOP had not succeeded in turning away Hispanic voters in recent years then all of those white voters would not have mattered. Had Romney won the same share of Hispanics as McCain in 2008 he would have likely eked out a win. Had he received the same share as Bush in 2004 he would have won comfortably.).

On election day the Obama folks found and turned-out their voters and the GOP did not. There have been reports the Romney campaign's turn-out program - code named Orca - was based on a proprietary software program designed to identify likely GOP voters who not yet voted. The program was top secret and in an effort to keep it that way the Romney folks barely tested it and did minimal training. Worse, it crashed on election day. So field workers, ready to turn-out voters, were left twisting in the wind as their voters stayed home. It was a colossal failure. In a lower turn-out election, the team with the better ground game will win, and in this case they did.

As with any election, winners win and losers lose for a multitude of reasons. Blaming any one reasons is pretty much folly. The losers will look to find any excuses so as to avoid a painful period of self-reflection. The winners will look to ignore any factors that serve to diminish the significance of their victory. As New Republic's Timothy Noah recently wrote there appears to be no clear reason for Obama's win or Romney's loss. Exit polls reveal no clear endorsement of Obama's agenda or a rejection of Romney's. Rather the election results point to a status quo election in which the voters sent to no clear message to anyone. Regardless of the voters' lack of a message, the loss makes quite clear which side is better able to win when no national wave is carrying either party to the finish.

Perhaps ABC's Political Director Amy Walter wrote it best: "In 2006, 2008 and 2010 voters punished the party it saw as too consumed with its own agenda and unfocused on the concerns of average Americans. But each "wave election" only served to convince the winning party that they had a mandate for their ideological agenda. Ironically, it took a "status quo" election to finally convince the two sides to hear what voters have been telling them along: stop the posturing and work together to get something done to fix the many problems this country is facing."

We can only hope she is correct.

If Early Voting Numbers are Correct, Obama is a Goner

And it's a big "IF", But here are Gallup’s stats from October 28, 2008: Obama led in early voting by 15 points (55/40).  His election day edge was just three points.  He ended up winning by seven points.  One more note.  According to Gallup, by 10/28/08, the percentage of Americans who said they’d already voted or planned to vote early was 33 percent.  Four years later, that number sits at…33 percent.

Today, Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.

If these numbers are even close to accurate - and Gallup's presidential track record is solid - then Romney will take the national popular vote by roughly 4% - and with it an electoral college majority.