Does the Home-State Matter?

What made me initially ask myself this question was the thought of which state Mitt Romney actually will call "home" for the 2012 election.  Since his campaign is centered in Boston, and he was once Governor of the Bay State, it would seem obvious that Mr. Romney would choose Massachusetts to be the state he calls home and appears next to his name on the ballot.  

However, he certainly didn't have to choose Massachusetts; he had plenty of other options, and he perhaps would have been better suited to choose one of those.  For example, Mitt Romney grew up and was raised in Michigan, and he clearly is nostalgic for the height of the trees there.  Of course, if he were to choose Michigan as his home-state, he would have to acquire a house there, though I doubt that would be much of a problem for Mr. Romney.  

Besides Michigan and Massachusetts, Mitt Romney has a home in La Jolla, California, a ski lodge in Utah, and two lakeside homes in New Hampshire.  A couple of these options seem to represent zero political gain.  However, Michigan and New Hampshire are both currently considered swing states and could each potentially shift the outcome of the election.

But I am getting ahead of myself.  First, I'd like to examine the apparent effect of having a candidate from a certain state on the vote share of that state.  I have collected data on all Presidential elections since (and including) 1960.  I only focused on the winners of the elections, because, quite frankly, the other guys lost.

With the exception of 2004 and 2008, I used the two immediate preceding and following election cycles as the controls.  An argument could be made that I should have used more data points, but I believe states shift over time in political representation, and the extra years would only add more noise.  Further, with each year is the national vote share of the winning candidate, the home-state result of the winning candidate, and the difference between the two sets of data.  

Finally, for those (like myself) who prefer visual learning to charts with a lot of numbers, I created bar graphs for each election cycle and state.  Below are the results for those thirteen elections:

Year	National Result	Massachusetts Result	Difference
1952	44.33	45.46	1.13
1956	41.97	40.37	-1.6
1960	49.72	60.22	10.5
1964	61.05	76.19	15.14
1968	42.72	63.01	20.29

Year	National Result	Texas Result	Difference
1956	41.97	43.98	2.01
1960	49.72	50.52	0.8
1964	61.05	63.32	2.27
1968	42.72	41.14	-1.58
1972	37.52	33.24	-4.28

Year	National Result	New York Result	Difference
1960	49.55	47.27	-2.28
1964	38.47	31.31	-7.16
1968	43.42	44.3	0.88
1972	60.67	58.54	-2.13
1976	48.02	47.52	-0.5

Year	National Result	New York Result	Difference
1964	38.47	31.31	-17.16
1968	43.42	44.3	0.88
1972	60.67	58.54	-2.13
1976	48.02	47.52	-0.5
1980	50.75	46.66	-4.09

Year	National Result	Georgia Result	Difference
1968	42.72	26.75	-15.97
1972	37.52	24.65	-12.87
1976	50.08	66.74	16.66
1980	41.01	55.76	14.75
1984	40.56	39.79	-0.77

Year	National Result	California Result	Difference
1972	60.67	55	-5.67
1976	48.02	49.35	1.33
1980	50.75	52.69	1.94
1984	58.77	57.51	-1.26
1988	53.37	51.13	-2.24

Year	National Result	California Result	Difference
1976	48.02	49.35	1.33
1980	50.75	52.69	1.94
1984	58.77	57.51	-1.26
1988	53.37	51.13	-2.24
1992	37.45	32.61	-4.84

Year	National Result	Texas Result	Difference
1980	50.75	55.28	4.53
1984	58.77	63.61	4.84
1988	53.37	55.95	2.58
1992	37.45	40.56	3.11
1996	40.27	48.76	8.49

Year	National Result	Arkansas Result	Difference
1984	40.56	38.29	-2.27
1988	45.65	42.19	-3.46
1992	43.01	53.21	10.2
1996	49.23	53.74	4.51
2000	48.38	45.86	-2.52

Year	National Result	Arkansas Result	Difference
1988	45.65	42.19	-3.46
1992	43.01	53.21	10.2
1996	49.23	53.74	4.51
2000	48.38	45.86	-2.52
2004	48.27	44.55	-3.72

Year	National Result	Texas Result	Difference
1992	37.45	40.56	3.11
1996	40.27	48.76	8.49
2000	47.87	59.3	11.43
2004	50.73	61.09	10.36
2008	45.6	55.39	9.79

Year	National Result	Texas Result	Difference
1992	37.45	40.56	3.11
1996	40.27	48.76	8.49
2000	47.87	59.3	11.43
2004	50.73	61.09	10.36
2008	45.6	55.39	9.79

Year	National Result	Illinois Result	Difference
1992	43.01	48.58	5.57
1996	49.23	54.32	5.09
2000	48.38	54.6	6.22
2004	48.27	54.82	6.55
2008	52.87	61.85	8.98

Okay, so that's a LOT of data to digest.  There are clearly some years in which a candidate was awarded a home-state advantage, such as in 1976 for Jimmy Carter and 1992 for Bill Clinton.  Also, there are a lot of states where the effect is much more marginal, such as Reagan in 1980 and 1984.  Perhaps a better way to analyze these numbers is to take the average of all the years a candidate is not from the home-state (within the 5 election cycle window) and compare it to the share of the vote the candidate received in his respective election cycle.  Below is such a comparison:

Year (State)	State Average Without State Candidate	State Performance With State Candidate	Change
1960 (MA)	8.74	10.50	1.76
1964 (TX)	-0.76	2.27	3.03
1968 (NY)	-3.31	0.88	4.19
1972 (NY)	-3.92	-2.13	1.79
1976 (GA)	-9.87	16.66	26.53
1980 (CA)	-2.19	1.94	4.13
1984 (CA)	-1.92	-1.26	0.66
1988 (TX)	5.95	2.58	-3.37
1992 (AR)	-2.75	10.20	12.95
1996 (AR)	-3.23	4.51	7.74
2000 (TX)	9.14	11.43	2.29
2004 (TX)	9.14	10.36	1.22
2008 (IL)	5.86	8.98	3.12

The chart above seems to confirm that candidates do typically receive some sort of home-state advantage.  The only candidate who faired worse than his state's average was George H. W. Bush in 1988.  My guess is this is likely to be a factor of him having served as Vice President for eight years prior to running for President.  As such, he was less "from" Texas than he once was.  

However, again, these averages taken of vote share before and after an election could be masking less more or less favorable results by state trends.  For example, before John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960, Massachusetts voted fairly consistently with the national average.  However, after Kennedy was President (and was assassinated), Massachusetts has reliably voted strongly in favor of the Democratic candidate.  Other states, such as California, have also had huge shifts since the beginning of this time period.

To look at perhaps a more accurate result of how a home-state will help in real time, I decided to exclude any data from after the election cycle and only focus on how the state voted in the years prior to the election cycle.  Further, as with the other averages, I excluded years in which a candidate from the home-state was on the ballot.  For example, I excluded George H. W. Bush's Texas result from George W. Bush's data average.  Below are the results:

Year (State)	State Average Before State Candidate	State Performance With State Candidate	Change
1960 (MA)	-0.23	10.50	10.74
1964 (TX)	1.41	2.27	0.87
1968 (NY)	-4.72	0.88	5.60
1972 (NY)	-7.16	-2.13	5.03
1976 (GA)	-14.42	16.66	31.08
1980 (CA)	-2.17	1.94	4.11
1984 (CA)	1.33	-1.26	-2.59
1988 (TX)	4.69	2.58	-2.10
1992 (AR)	-2.87	10.20	13.07
1996 (AR)	-3.46	4.51	7.97
2000 (TX)	8.49	11.43	2.94
2004 (TX)	8.49	10.36	1.87
2008 (IL)	5.86	8.98	3.12

As you can see, the number of candidates who received at least a marginal boost from their home-state was relatively unchanged.  The only addition to the group who performed worse was Ronald Reagan in 1984.  However, this can be attributed to the fact that California was becoming much more Democratic after Mr. Reagan was elected in that year.  

Taken as a whole, since 1960, a candidate's home-state has performed better than the average of the election cycles surrounding it by 5.08% and has performed better than the average of its preceding election cycles by 6.28%.  Additionally, if we were to only look at the elections since 1988, the numbers would be similar (though slightly less) at 3.99% and 4.48%, respectively.  

This suggests (and I believe fairly accurately) that a candidate will, on average, get somewhere between a 4% and 5% boost in their home-state, and thus, the home-state advantage theory is validated.  

Therefore, I am confused as to why Mr. Romney chose, out of all his possible home-states, to allow Massachusetts to be his home-state.  Massachusetts will vote for President Obama by a very large margin and is therefore out of reach for Romney.  New Hampshire, on the other hand, is currently giving President Obama only a 5.7 point lead, which is hardly insurmountable.  Perhaps more importantly, Obama is only ahead in Michigan by 1.8%, and it offers 16 electoral votes!  

As I have cautioned numerous times, these polls will change as the election approaches, but one thing is very clear:  Mitt Romney should have chosen a swing state to base his campaign.

Who Won the Week? (July 1-7)

In comparison to the week prior, last week could never live up to the drama that was brought with the ruling on Obamacare.  However, the Justices' decision is what drove the news this past week; in fact, it was one small word in Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion: tax.

For years, Gov. Romney has been arguing that his mandate in Massachusetts is not a tax, but instead a penalty for not buying insurance.  So it would seem natural for this issue to be one of the few positions on which Mr. Romney agrees with the President.  However, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision and most importantly Roberts’ majority opinion, the Republican Party was branding the mandate as a tax.

Romney was then stuck between a rock and a hard place.  Luckily, his staff was ready by Monday for an answer to the tax/penalty question.  Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior advisor to Mitt Romney, told the media that Mr. Romney disagrees the mandate imposes a tax, and they agree with the President that it’s a penalty after all.

This is clearly not what Republicans wanted to hear, and by Thursday, Mitt Romney had again clarified that Obamacare was a tax but Romneycare was a penalty.  Clear now?

To be sure, Mr. Romney’s campaign had a miserable beginning of their week.  Even right-leaning publications and political commentators such as the Wall Street Journal, William Kristol, and Rupert Murdoch were urging Mitt to shake up the staff and the message.

But in the end, the election is going to come down to jobs and the economy.  On Friday, the monthly jobs report from June was released, and it wasn’t good.  The U.S. economy added a less-than-expected 80,000 jobs and the unemployment rate remained at 8.2%. 

To be fair, economists and forecasters were only anticipating 90,000-100,000 jobs to be added, but in reality, the President needs an increase of something like 150,000 jobs per month, as Nate Silver argued in February.  So, in that respect, the jobs report was a disaster for the White House and it completely halted the negative narrative for the Romney campaign that had been building throughout the week. 

All this is not to say that President Obama can’t win because he had another poor jobs report; in June, pundits began writing off his campaign after a lower-than-expected 69,000 jobs were added to the campaign, and Obama ended the month looking better than ever. 

Polling:  Relatively few polls were conducted last week, probably because of the holiday.  Polls from Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania all gave the President a sizable lead against Mitt Romney, and those are the states that will truly matter.  Further, Mr. Obama maintained his small lead over Romney nationally, though that again is the product of a small number of new polls. 

Who Won the Week?  Mitt Romney

The Upper Chamber

Many have been speculating, particularly after the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act, how Republicans would be able to fully repeal  the law.  To be completely honest, even with a President Romney, the GOP would likely not be able to repeal the entire law, but only parts of the law that directly relate to the United States budget.  Otherwise, they would need 60 votes, which, at least at this point in the cycle, seems entirely unfathomable. 

Therefore, with the fate of the Presidential election looking more and more like a toss-up, the Senate races are becoming much more important for each of the parties.  Today, I will break down each race and attempt to project the most likely outcome for November.

The Democrats and the Republicans have almost the same share of their respective seats declared “safe”, with the GOP having 5/10 and the Dems 12/22.  However, to complicate problems for the Democrats, they must defend 22 seats this cycle compared to only 10 for the Republicans.  Let’s begin with the seats each respective party is likely to keep.

John Barrasso-WY:  Mr. Barrasso hasn’t served in the Senate long, but Wyoming hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1970.

Tom Carper-DE:  There hasn’t been any general election polling in the state, but it is safe to say that Mr. Carper will be re-elected in the Democratic stronghold that is Delaware.

Maria Cantwell-WA:  Washington State has been trending more Democratic for years, and public polling shows that Cantwell enjoys large support in the state.

Bob Casey-PA:  Everyone expected this race to be much closer than it is.  However, Republicans ended up with a lackluster candidate in Tom Smith, and Casey enjoys double-digit leads over his opponent.

Ben Cardin-MD:  Cardin is finishing his first term as Senator for Maryland, and the public still really likes him.  He has a double-digit lead against the GOP challenger.

Bob Corker-TN:  Like in Delaware, Tennessee hasn’t seen any polling, but the fact that President Obama’s name will be at the top of the ballot and Tennessee’s strong GOP history suggests Mr. Corker has nothing to worry about.

Diane Feinstein-CA:  Mrs. Feinstein has represented California since 1992 and has never had a truly difficult re-election.  The state is solidly Democratic, and the Republicans haven’t recruited a formidable challenger.

Kirstin Gillibrand-NY:  In 2008, Gillibrand was essentially picked by President Obama to serve the remainder of Hillary Clinton’s term.  Few expected Gillibrand to be quite the powerhouse she has become, and her polling lead over her rivals clearly demonstrates her broad popularity in New York.

Orrin Hatch-UT:  Mr. Hatch has been fighting for his political life all year, but not from a challenging Democrat; he first had to prevail against insurgent Tea Party backed Dan Liljenquist.  If Liljenquist were to have knocked Hatch off in the primary, Democrats may have at least stood a chance.  However, with Hatch running for another term, they don’t have a prayer at winning the seat.

Kay Bailey Hutchison-TX:  Though the Senator is retiring, Democrats haven’t fielded a strong challenger to whomever wins the GOP primary (Dewhurst or Cruz).  Further, Texas is still ruled by Republicans and 2012 won’t be the year to change that.

Amy Klobuchar-MN:  Though both of its U.S. Senators are Democrats, Minnesota’s legislatures are controlled by the Republican Party and the state has a history of independence.  That is why it is surprising to see Klobuchar polling so well in the state with only four months to go before the election.

Joe Manchin-WV:  This one is something of an anomaly, and truthfully, I initially overlooked it as a “safe” seat.  However, despite how terribly the President is expected to perform in West Virginia, Mr. Manchin, the Democrat is currently polling in the mid 70s.

Bob Menendez-NJ:  For a bit it seemed as though Mr. Menendez would have a tough path to re-election, as he isn’t greatly popular in the state.  However, Kyrillos, the Republican challenger, seems to be even less popular, and, for now, Menendez is leading by double digits. 

Bernie Sanders-VT:  This independent Senator from Vermont is running for yet another term, and all polling shows it is likely Vermont will give it to him.

Debbie Stabenow-MI:  All signs were leading to what looked like a close race between Mrs. Stabenow and Pete Hoekstra.  However, the GOP challenger hasn’t been able to recover in polling since his widely criticized (and racist) ad in February.

Sheldon Whitehouse-RI:  Mr. Whitehouse isn’t a high-profile Senator, and perhaps this is why he is performing so well in his state; he trounces each of his potential opponents in head-to-head matchups.

Roger Wicker-MS:  Mississippi is the last place Democrats will pick up a seat.  Move along.  Move along. 

The remaining races will be placed in order with increasing likelihood of changing party:

Daniel Akaka-HI:  The retiring Senator is leaving an open seat and a (small) chance for former Republican Governor Linda Lingle to take the seat that has long been held by Democrats.  However, she will have an uphill climb: the two Democratic challengers are each leading Mrs. Lingle by about 10%.  However, if the primary were to get too bloody and the party not heals before the election, the former Governor would have a chance to pull off a major upset.

Sherrod Brown-OH:  At the moment, Brown seems to be in a favorable place.  He is leading his GOP opponent, Josh Mandel, by about 10%, while the Republican has had weeks of bad press and just doesn’t seem to be ready for the limelight.  However, Ohio will be an extremely competitive state in November, and it is likely the gap will close in the coming months.

Joe Lieberman-CT:  No sitting Senator has upset both sides of the isle as much as Mr. Lieberman, and after this year, he will be retiring from politics.  The race to succeed him is relatively close, given Connecticut’s strong Democratic background.  Linda McMahon, the candidate who lost to Richard Blumenthal, is trying her luck again, this time most likely against Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy.  Polling has the Democrat with a 9-point lead, but Mrs. McMahon has a lot of money and name recognition that could work to her advantage in the fall.  This is one race that could heat up very quickly and put the Democrats on the defensive.

Jon Kyl-AZ:  Though Mr. Kyl is retiring, Republicans have a deep bench in Arizona, and Rep. Jeff Flake is currently leading Democratic challenger and former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona by an average of about 7%.  However, if President Obama is to invest as heavily in Arizona as some campaign officials are projecting, Mr. Carmona’s chances at winning could be buoyed, and the Republicans will at least have to spend money to keep the seat from flipping. 

Dick Lugar-IN:  Unlike Senator Hatch of Utah, Mr. Lugar didn’t survive his primary battle with Richard Mourdock.  That is only good news for Democrats, who have a fairly strong challenger in Joe Donnelly.  Whereas Lugar would have likely cruised to victory, the race between Mourdock and Donnelly is quite literally tied, according to two polls.  However, President Obama isn’t expected to run nearly as well in Indiana as he did in 2008, and that will likely have down ballot effects on the Democrat.  The seat will likely remain in GOP control.

Bill Nelson-FL:  Florida is yet again a swing state, and both Senate candidates will be affected by the Presidential campaign.  Currently, Mr. Nelson holds a six-point lead over rival Connie Mack, but that is likely to narrow as the general election campaign heats up.  Nelson isn’t overwhelmingly popular in the Sunshine State, though neither is Mack.  The Democrats are currently favored to keep the seat, but a strong performance by Mr. Romney in Florida could spell the end of Nelson’s political career.

Dean Heller-NV:  Heller hasn’t been Senator for long; he was appointed just a year ago when Senator John Ensign resigned amid growing scandal.  This seat is competitive because Nevada as a state is competitive and the Republican Party in the state is in shambles (remember Sharron Angle circa 2010?).  Still, Heller has an average lead of 4.7 points on Democrat Shelley Berkley, one that is likely to shrink, especially if President Obama wins the state in November.  Look for more polling in the coming months, but for now, it’s advantage GOP.

Jim Webb-VA:  Virginia will likely host the most competitive Senate race all this cycle.  The race has remained deadlocked for the past 18 months.  The winner will most likely be based on who wins the Presidential election in the state.  If Obama wins Virginia, so does Kaine.  If Romney wins, so does Allen.  In that respect, perhaps it’s constructive to look at recent polling in the state on the Presidential level.  President Obama is currently leading by about 2.5%, a small lead that could be reversed with just a couple polls. 

Jon Tester-MT:  The Republicans in Montana are doing everything they can to tie Tester to the President, especially on issues like Obamacare and the economy.  However, Senator Tester is holding on to a miniscule 1-point lead against his Republican Danny Rehberg.  However, Montana is very likely to swing for Romney in November, and Rehberg will likely benefit from down-ballot spillover.  Tester needs to build up a lead larger than 1% before November; otherwise, the GOP will likely flip the seat.

Scott Brown-MA:  There is no race Democrats and liberals are more excited about (including the Presidential race) than the Massachusetts Senate race.  Liberal champion Elizabeth Warren is facing off against Senator Brown after he has been in office since early 2010.  The race is currently tied, and has been for a while.  However, if polling still has the race tied by Election Day, Warren wins.  Why?  For the same reason Rehberg wins in Montana: down-ballot spillover and overall state dynamic.  Scott Brown will likely be a one-term Senator. 

Kent Conrad-ND:  Senator Conrad is yet another retiring Democrat this cycle, and, initially at least, the seat was expected to be an easy pickup for Republicans.  However, Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota’s former Attorney General, has run a smart campaign and is only down by 3 points to Republican Rick Berg.  Again, because North Dakota is expected to vote for Romney by a large margin, Heitkamp will likely lose unless she can take the lead in the state by a few points.

Herb Kohl-WI:  Former Republican Governor Tommy Thompson is running in hopes of securing the seat being vacated by Senator Kohl in November.  Currently, polling has Thompson leading Democratic Representative Tammy Baldwin by about 9%.  However, Thompson isn’t guaranteed to survive the primary, as he has taken a number of positions at odds with the ever-growing conservative base in the state.  If Mark Neumann were to defeat Thompson in the August primary, it’s jump ball for the general election.  Until then, however, the GOP is looking like they will pick up the seat.

Clair McCaskill-MO:  There is perhaps no greater imperiled incumbent than Mrs. McCaskill.  Not only is she representing an ever-increasing conservative state, but she has also had her fair share of scandals and controversies since being elected in 2006.  Further, she is a fervent supporter of the President’s, which does not sit well with many of her constituents.  Luckily for her, the GOP primary is downright bloody.  If she survives, it will be because the Republicans beat themselves up too much to credibly convince the electorate they would be better than Senator McCaskill. 

Olympia Snow-ME:  The Republican Senator from Maine is retiring, and with the announcement came an even larger one: a three-way race.  Former Independent Governor Angus King is enjoying massive leads in the state against Democrat Cynthia Dill and Republican Charles Summers.  All indicators lead to a King victory, and the Democrats have essentially given up on the race, instead all-but supporting King.  Both sides will court him heavily to caucus with them in the Senate, as he could be the deciding vote on who obtains the majority.  He has openly said that he supports Barack Obama, and most analysts, myself included, believe he will caucus with the Democrats.

Ben Nelson-NE:  After deciding there was no way he would win, Senator Ben Nelson decided to call it quits.  The GOP will almost assuredly win the seat, as Republican Bruning is leading the Democrat Bob Kerry by double digits. 

To conclude, it seems as though the Senate will likely be very stable.  According to this analysis, the Democrats will probably pick up two seats and the GOP will pick up five.  That will give a net +3 seats to the Republicans, dividing the chamber 50-50.  However, it is entirely possible that, if Democrats were to have a really good night, they could net +4 seats, bringing their majority to 57-43.  Conversely, if the GOP were to truly outperform on election night, it is not improbable for them to pick up a net of +9 seats, which could sway King to caucus with the Republicans, bringing their majority to 57-43.  The most likely scenarios are obviously somewhere in the middle, with 50-50 Battleground270’s current projection.

Who Won the Week? (June 24-30)

This past week has probably been the most consequential thus far throughout the entire campaign.  Oddly enough, the main player and newsmaker was neither of the two candidates.  The Unites States Supreme Court ruled on a number of cases this week, most notably the Arizona immigration law and the Affordable Care Act. 

On Monday, in what was seen as a big win for the administration, the Supreme Court struck down three of the four challenged sections of SB1070, the Arizona immigration law signed by Gov. Brewer in 2010.  The provision the court saw as constitution was the so-called “show me your papers” section, which states that Arizona police officers may inquire the legal status of a person if there is reasonable suspicion the person may be illegally in the country.

This provision has essentially been the heart of the legislation and has also sparked the most fury from those who believe the law will lead to racial profiling.  However, the high court mentioned in its opinion that the law would be struck down if cases arise in which racial profiling has been used.

To get to the politics of the decision, this is a clear win for the Obama team and bad news for Mr. Romney and his campaign.  To be honest, it’s not clear if anything could be deemed a win for Romney on the subject of immigration, as he is desperately trying to peel away Latino support for Obama while vocally supporting the Arizona immigration law, which Hispanics loathe. 

However, the decision was a win for Mr. Obama on two fronts.  Not only did the government essentially win the case in court, it also brought the attention back to the (still legal) “show me your papers” portion of the law.  Obama was again seen as fighting for the Latino community while the perception held that Mr. Romney doesn’t understand their problems.

But Monday was a pinprick compared to the explosion later in the week.  Anticipation had been building for months with observers, myself included, guessing how the Supreme Court may rule on Obamacare and what the implications would be in each scenario.   

Ever since the oral arguments in late March, pundits and politicos had been gravitating toward the near unanimous conclusion that at least part of the ACA would be found unconstitutional.  On Intrade, an online bettors market, the odds of the individual mandate being struck down rose to over 75% the night before the decision was announced.

Let’s just say that the other 25% made a lot of money on Thursday.  In what will be remembered as one of the landmark Supreme Court decisions in U.S. history, the high court ruled 5-4 that the entire law was constitutional.  What’s more, conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts sided with the liberal members of the court (for the first time in seven years) to give the ruling a non-partisan skew. 

In the wake of the announcement, it was immediately clear who was to benefit most, politically.  The President was able to keep his signature legislation.  Further, a conservative member of the court validated Obamacare.  Progressives seemed more fired up about the law than at any other point since it was signed into law.

Mitt Romney lost a main argument he was testing out before the ruling was made: that President Obama wasted the first year of his Presidency focused on an overreaching, unconstitutional law.  Romney was going to make the claim that Obama is an ineffectual President. 

There are probably still more examples Mitt can use to make that claim, and he likely will.  Further, Mr. Romney’s supporters have likely never been more fired up about electing him in November.  Sure, they don’t’ really like him much, but they loathe the President, and that energy will likely prove useful as the general election campaign heats up. 

Finally, on to polling.  As I noted last week, with the exception of the Bloomberg poll, which gave the President a commanding 13-point lead, the average of the polls had essentially remained about the same, with the President inching up only slightly.  However, this week’s polling has shown a pretty clear shift away from Mitt Romney and towards Mr. Obama. 

The RealClearPolitics average now has the President up by 3.7%, the largest margin Obama has had since April.  What’s more, even Republican-leaning pollsters like Gallop and Rasmussen are now showing the President with a lead (albeit small).  It will be interesting to see if Obama also gets a slight bounce in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decisions this week. 

Who Won the Week?  President Obama