Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Alien Space Bats]

Remember the last time the South thought they were losing their dominance over national policy?

Not personally... Weren't you wearing hoop skirts back then, Farn?

[Farnhamia]

Remember the last time the South thought they were losing their dominance over national policy?

Not personally... Weren't you wearing hoop skirts back then, Farn?

I was and they were a pain ... uncomfortable. I did try to avoid them but sometimes fashion cannot be denied.

I am still amazed at how the Party of Lincoln has become the Party of the South. Thaddeus Stevens would plotz.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Not personally... Weren't you wearing hoop skirts back then, Farn?

I was and they were a pain ... uncomfortable. I did try to avoid them but sometimes fashion cannot be denied.

I am still amazed at how the Party of Lincoln has become the Party of the South.

Why? There's a logical progression.

Lincoln --> Reconstruction --> Unholy Alliance.

Clear as day.

[Farnhamia]

I was and they were a pain ... uncomfortable. I did try to avoid them but sometimes fashion cannot be denied.

I am still amazed at how the Party of Lincoln has become the Party of the South.

Why? There's a logical progression.

Lincoln --> Reconstruction --> Unholy Alliance.

Clear as day.

I know what happened, it's just ... well, it boggles the mind, but proves, I suppose, that when great leaders die their followers can lose their way.

[Alien Space Bats]

I've been glancing at Gallup's cross-tab data, and I've made some interesting discoveries that I'm encapsulating into a coming post.

Suffice it to say that people who look at polls and think that a swing in the numbers indicates s shift in support forget that polls also move when enthusiasm rises or falls on the part of one party or another. Go back, look at the polls since Labor Day, and reconsider them in light of that possibility, and you might just see something you didn't see before...

[Wikkiwallana]

While the Pacific Northwest and North East are both largely considered "Liberal Hellholes", we couldn't agree on anything between each other except for the fact that we don't want Romney as president.

And that Starbucks is your life's blood.

[Geilinor]

Holy shit, this is actually up to the governor's discretion?

Voter suppression is becoming popular in Indiana too, but at least here keeping the polls open for everyone who's in line at the 6 PM deadline is required by statute.

Mail. In. Voting. Seriously, Oregon uses it and it works fantastically. No polls. No lines. No waiting. Get your ballot weeks in advance, deposit at any of a gajillion places. ???? Profit.

Washington has it now too.

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of October 20th, 2012)



Obama 286, Romney 248 (4 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: SOME NEW POLLS DO NOT YET REFLECT REACTION TO THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

---

Fourteen new polls are out today:

• In Florida (29 EV's), four new polls (one each by FOX News, SurveyUSA, ORC International, and Rasmussen, all dated October 18th) show Romney with an average lead of 1%; combining these four polls with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by PPP and Zogby) leaves the former Massachusetts Governor with this same 1% lead. The Sunshine State remains "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Virginia (13 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated October 18th shows Romney up by 3%; averaging this poll with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by ARG and PPP) leaves the former Massachusetts Governor with a net lead of 1%. Old Dominion slips from "Exactly Tied" to "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Iowa (6 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated October 19th shows Romney up by 1% lead; averaging this poll with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by ARG and Marist College) leaves President Obama with a net lead of 2%. The Hawkeye State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Ohio (18 EV's), a new poll by FOX News dated October 18th shows Obama up by 3%; averaging this poll with three others taken within a one-week look-back window (by SurveyUSA, Rasmussen, and PPP) confirms the President's net lead as 3%. The Buckeye State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Wisconsin (10 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated October 18th shows Obama leading by 2%; averaging this poll with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Marist College and Marquette Law School) leaves President Obama with a net lead of 3%. The Badger State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In New Hampshire (4 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated October 19th shows Romney leading by 1%; averaging this poll with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen and Suffolk University) leaves the two candidates in a dead heat. The Granite State slides back to "Exactly Tied" from "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Missouri (10 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated October 17th shows Romney leading by 11%. The "Show Me" State swings to "Strongly Republican" from "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In New Jersey (14 EV's), a new poll by SurveyUSA dated October 18th shows Obama up by 14%; averaging this poll with the one taken by Quinnipiac University on October 14th gives the President a net lead of 11%. The Garden State moves from "Likely Democratic" to "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In California (55 EV's), a new poll by Princeton Survey dated October 15th shows Obama leading by 16%; averaging this poll with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Pepperdine University and SurveyUSA) leaves the President with a net lead of 17%. The Golden State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Maryland (10 EV's), a new poll by the Washington Post dated October 15th shows Obama up by 24%. The Old Line State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In the District of Columbia (3 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated October 14th shows Obama up by 80%; given that the District is entirely urban and majority African-American, this is hardly surprising (its PVI is D+41, so the President is actually running a little behind expectations here, to tell the truth). The Nation's Capitol remains "Strongly Democratic" ("Ridiculously Democratic" would be better, but there's no such rating).

This might be a good time to take a step back and look at the map. If Arizona is actually redder than the last poll presented it (which I believe it is), we have a curious situation here in which all of the expected "battleground" States are now within the polling margin of error of even and no other State is. In theory, that still makes this anyone's election to win.

Yet Romney's position is still the weaker, and the preponderance of polls that show him in this position make that problem more substantial. His lead in Virginia and Florida is just 1%, against leads of 2-4% by the President in Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio. Only in North Carolina does he have a position good enough to make him feel comfortable.

OTOH, as recent events demonstrate, events can move the "swing" States by 1-2% either way, which makes Monday night's final debate crucial for both sides. As the last two debates have shown, neither candidate can walk in planning to play defense and hoping to hold their own; each will have to attack and try to put his opponent away with a knockout blow, hoping that the best way to avoid disaster is to inflict in on the other fellow.

We'll have a couple more days before we get our final pre-debate "snapshot"; at that point, we'll be able to compare Obama's recent rebound with Romney's early October surge. For now, we wait.

[Australasia]

<snip>

Good work as usual, ASB.

Question: I'm curious (especially when it comes to Ohio) - when pollsters publish results, do they include or exclude those who said they have already voted? Quite a lot of Ohio voters have voted early and have gone for Obama by a fairly substantial margin, so whether or not they are included in the poll numbers is obviously quite important. Thanks.

[Alien Space Bats]

<snip>

Good work as usual, ASB.

Question: I'm curious (especially when it comes to Ohio) - when pollsters publish results, do they include or exclude those who said they have already voted? Quite a lot of Ohio voters have voted early and have gone for Obama by a fairly substantial margin, so whether or not they are included in the poll numbers is obviously quite important. Thanks.

They're supposed to include such people. Marist College (which has done the most extensive work in this area) absolutely does.

The biggest advantage of early voting is that it avoids people missing their chance to vote because of work conflicts, or getting discouraged from voting because of ridiculously long lines which required them to stand in line all day to vote (which was a problem in Ohio back in 2004).

[ALMF]

That it true: this puts rominy back in the game.

I don't know, you think?

I didn't say up: I sead back in the game as in has a chance or needs only to flip Ohio.(within a state)

[Farnhamia]

I don't know, you think?

I didn't say up: I sead back in the game as in has a chance or needs only to flip Ohio.(within a state)

I don't know. The President can win without Ohio, though it's harder, but Romney has to win all the swing states if he loses Ohio.

[Australasia]

Good work as usual, ASB.

Question: I'm curious (especially when it comes to Ohio) - when pollsters publish results, do they include or exclude those who said they have already voted? Quite a lot of Ohio voters have voted early and have gone for Obama by a fairly substantial margin, so whether or not they are included in the poll numbers is obviously quite important. Thanks.

They're supposed to include such people. Marist College (which has done the most extensive work in this area) absolutely does.

The biggest advantage of early voting is that it avoids people missing their chance to vote because of work conflicts, or getting discouraged from voting because of ridiculously long lines which required them to stand in line all day to vote (which was a problem in Ohio back in 2004).

I was actually hoping for a no answer in this case, because it would have meant that Obama is far ahead in Ohio.

But I imagine that regardless of what a pollster does on this issue, the early voting advantage is probably going to end up being rather decisive in Ohio, Iowa, etc.

[Free South Califas]

ASB, to what extent do these polls reflect people likely to vote for third-party candidates? Is this considered to be a potentially decisive issue in Virginia?

ETA:

What are homeless voters supposed to do, exactly? Not everyone has a mailing address. Oregonians, is there a fee to get a ballot at the post office? What are the preconditions and what do you sign on the form?

Can I register to vote if I am homeless?
Yes, if you are a US citizen, an Oregon Resident and at least 17 years of age. Your residence address may be any place you sleep within the county. You must describe the physical location where you sleep. A homeless person may use the mailing address of the county elections official of the county in which the person is located.

Excellent, thanks Ailiailia.

We also have mail-in voting in California, and activist organizations tend to push people to register as mail-in voters because it carries some implied protections and no ill effects, while (according to political strategists I have worked for) increasing the odds that the average interested person will actually vote. I'm not sure what the minimum state standard is for homeless voters, but my county asks for either "address, or intersection nearest to where you most frequently sleep" (paraphrasing) on the registration form. I've always assumed there's a state law about it, but now that I think about it, for all I know that has never been the status quo in rural counties; I've always lived in a major urban area while I've been here. Imperial County, the southeasternmost county, has had unemployment as bad as 30% during the course of the recession, sparked by an intensely magnified home construction crisis, so the extent to which homeless people are consciously included could well be an issue there; not to mention Kern County and other Central Valley jurisdictions with their largely itinerant agricultural workforce. (That's a euphemism for "tent cities". Just in case you hear that one again.)

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of October 21st, 2012)



Obama 286, Romney 235 (17 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: SOME NEW POLLS DO NOT YET REFLECT REACTION TO THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

---

Four new polls are out today:

• In Virginia (13 EV's), a new poll PPP by dated October 19th shows Obama up by 2%; averaging this poll with three others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen, ARG, and [another by] PPP) leaves the two candidates in a dead heat. Old Dominion shifts back to "Exactly Tied" from "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Ohio (18 EV's), a mew poll by PPP dated October 19th shows Obama up by 1%; averaging this poll with four others taken within a one-week look-back window (by FOX News, SurveyUSA, Rasmussen, and PPP) leaves the President with a net lead of 3%. The Buckeye State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In New Jersey (14 EV's), a new poll by Richard Stockton College dated October 18th shows Obama up by 15%; averaging this poll with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by SurveyUSA and Quinnipiac University) leaves the President with a net lead of 13%. The Garden State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In California (55 EV's), a new Reason-Rupe poll dated October 15th shows Obama leading by 15%; averaging this poll with three others taken within a one-week look-back window (by SurveyUSA, Princeton University, and Pepperdine University) leaves the President with a net lead of 17%. The Golden State remains "Strongly Democratic".

Tanenbaum's page shows a fifth poll (in the State of Washington), but this is the same University of Washington poll added yesterday. Interestingly enough, just as that poll wasn't added to the map, this one hasn't been added either: Obama is still shown as enjoying an 11% lead there (53-42), when his lead should be 10% (53-43). This doesn't affect the Evergreen State's status as "Strongly Democratic", of course.

---

Listening to the media can be hazardous to your understanding of this race.

Lacking any real understanding of the statistical math and the dynamics behind this election, the media (and this includes FOX, BTW) still imagines that a significant percentage of American voters are being "swayed" by events (such as the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates); thus, their "narrative" of this race is that Mitt Romney won tremendous support through his aggressive performance (against President Obama's listless one) on October 3rd, and that this "shift" in support among "undecided voters" - and especially women - moved him into the lead. This same "narrative" continues with the assertion that Joe Biden's strong performance in the Vice Presidential debate "halted the momentum" of the Romney-Ryan ticket (which, given that "momentum" in the usual sense of the word is something that would, in any contest where such a thing is present, result in a continuing improvement in that side's performance, resulting in that side expanding its lead until it reaches "landslide" proportions). President Obama's victory in the second Presidential debate then helped his fight his way back towards parity; depending on who you listen to, the race is now either dead even or one in which Governor Romney still has a tiny lead. As a result, everything all comes down to Monday night's third Presidential debate, which may well decide the Presidency.

<pause>

The only part of this "narrative" that's even remotely true is the last sentence, and even that is iffy. There are many factors that can still decide this election, of which the debate is just one. Beyond that, the rest of the media's "narrative" about this race is bullshit.

The media's problem is that it does not understand that in tracking the opinions of "likely" voters, polling organizations are not sampling a fixed or even remotely stable population, but sampling an ever-changing body of individuals. Let me explain through the use of a few formulas:

Likely Voters = Registered Voters × Likelihood of Voting

This is simple enough: Between 2000 and 2012, something like 85-90% of all registered voters actually voted. Here are estimates per the U.S. Census Bureau for the last three elections:

2000 - 85.5%
2004 - 88.5%
2008 - 89.6%

The number of actual voters relative to registered voters has increased due to efforts aimed at making it easier to vote; to the extent such measures are now under attack, we can generally expect the percentage of actual voters to decline somewhat - although at this stage no one can know by exactly how much.

The Gallup Organization publishes a "Definitely Vote" percentage that roughly predicts actual participation, although the connection isn't all that strong. Currently (as of October 14th) that number in Gallup's three-week tracking poll stands at 83%. Give that this number has been rising steadily since late August, I would expect that it will reach 84-85% by Election Day; it's hard to know precisely how this will map to actual turnout, but I'd expect something between 2000 and 2004 turnout levels, tending more towards the latter than the former.

The thing is, not all groups have the same likelihood of voting; if they did, then the media "narrative" of an electorate exhibiting "opinion swings" between the two candidates would be reasonable. As it turns out, likelihood of voting varies between different demographic and ideological groups, and it often moves more than any other single factor.

This means that it might be better to look at the electorate this way:

Likely Democrats = Self-Identified Democrats × Democrats' Likelihood of Voting
Likely Republicans = Self-Identified Republicans × Republicans' Likelihood of Voting
Likely Independents = Self-Identified Independents × Independents' Likelihood of Voting

If you take this view of the electorate, it becomes immediately clear that the relative positions of the two candidates depends both on the degree of support each candidate enjoys within each group and the likelihood of that group's members voting (it's actually a little more complicated than that, but for now we can keep it simple). This, in turn, suggests a way for the candidates' positions to change without anyone actually switching support from one candidate to the other: If one group becomes more (or less) likely to vote relative to the others, its effect on the election will change in a way that appears to the outside observer exactly the same way as does a shift in opinion.

Here are Gallup's tracking numbers by Party affiliation for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents across the last several weeks:

Date Range	Democrats O-R-U	Definitely Vote	Republicans O-R-U	Definitely Vote	Independents O-R-U	Definitely Vote	Total O-R-U	Definitely Vote
June 25, 2012 - July 15, 2012	90-6-4	82%	6-90-4	87%	41-43-16	71%	47-45-8	79%
July 2, 2012 - July 22, 2012	89-7-4	83%	6-90-4	87%	40-45-15	72%	46-45-9	79%
July 9, 2012 - July 29, 2012	88-8-4	83%	6-90-4	88%	42-44-14	71%	46-46-8	79%
July 16, 2012 - August 5, 2012	87-8-5	81%	6-90-4	87%	41-45-14	71%	46-46-8	78%
July 23, 2012 - August 12, 2012	89-7-4	81%	6-91-3	88%	42-44-14	72%	46-46-8	79%
July 30, 2012 - August 19, 2012	89-7-4	81%	6-91-3	88%	41-44-14	71%	46-46-8	79%
August 6, 2012 - August 26, 2012	90-7-3	82%	6-91-3	88%	42-43-15	72%	46-46-8	80%
August 13, 2012 - Sept. 2, 2012	90-7-3	82%	6-91-3	87%	42-43-15	71%	46-47-7	79%
August 20, 2012 - Sept. 9, 2012	91-6-3	83%	6-92-2	88%	43-43-14	72%	48-45-7	80%
August 27, 2012 - Sept. 16, 2012	92-5-3	85%	5-92-3	88%	43-44-13	72%	48-45-7	80%
Sept. 3, 2012 - Sept. 23, 2012	93-4-3	87%	5-92-3	88%	43-44-13	74%	49-45-6	82%
Sept. 10, 2012 - Sept. 30, 2012	93-4-3	87%	5-92-3	88%	44-43-13	75%	48-45-7	83%
Sept. 17, 2012 - Oct. 7, 2012	93-5-2	88%	6-92-2	89%	46-43-11	76%	49-45-6	83%
Sept. 24, 2012 - Oct. 14, 2012	93-5-2	86%	6-92-2	90%	45-43-12	76%	49-46-5	83%

Start by scanning the columns showing relative support within each group for each candidate; what you'll find is actually very little change in any group (or in registered voters overall, which is even more telling) since late July: Democratic support for Obama has risen from 90% to 93% in three months as 1% of those considering a crossover vote for Romney came home to the fold while 2% of undecided Democrats finally committed to the President; during the same time frame, Republican support for Romney has risen from 90% to 92% - almost the exact same amount - all from undecided Republicans finally deciding to embrace the ticket. Independents have exhibited the largest change, with 4% of undecided independents finally choosing to back the President.

In a close race, these shifts can be substantial; and yet almost all of these shifts occured before the first Presidential debate. Between mid-July and early September, Obama lost 1% among Democrats (all from undecided Democrats embracing the Republican ticket), while Romney gained 1% among Republicans (from undecided Republicans coming home to the nominee); strangely enough, at the same time Obama gained 1% among independents (with this support once more coming from the ranks of the undecided). It was in September - after the conventions but before the debates - when Obama experienced his greatest gains: 2% of Democrats who were leaning towards Mitt Romney came back to the fold, and another 1% of Democratic undecideds came home as well. During the same time period, 1% of Republican undecideds came home to their nominee as well; but independents slid towards the President during September, with a whopping 4% of undecided in this category swinging towards the Democratic ticket.

The net result of all of this was a 3% increase in the President's support among registered voters overall; 2% of that swing involved voters changing their allegiance from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama (these being the aforementioned crossover Democrats returning to the fold); the other 1% came from independent voters deciding to back the President. Of much greater importance, however, was the surge in Democratic and Independent voter enthusiasm. Republican enthusiasm ticked up only 1% in September; Democratic enthusiasm rose by 5%, while independents became 4% more likely to vote. The increase in the likelihood of voter participation by that segment of the electorate more likely to vote for Barack Obama had at least as big an impact on the polls as any return to the fold by those few Democrats who'd contemplated straying, or any movement towards the President on the part of independents.

Then came the debates, and - according to the media "narrative" the pendulum swung back. Only it didn't. Neither Party appears to have experienced a major shift in its preferences following the first Presidential debate; among independents, a small number (1% of them overall) shifted back from supporting President Obama to being undecided). So where did Mitt Romney's "surge" come from? It came from a further 1% uptick in Republican enthusiasm versus a 2% decline in the likelihood of Democrats going to the polls.

And if you look at the formulas I've shown above, this makes sense: If the likelihood of a particular group of voters participating in the election isn't changing, then only a change in their underlying preferences will move the polls. Yet even when there is no underlying change in voter preference, the polls can also move if different voting groups respond to current events by becoming either more energized or demoralized.

The first Presidential debate didn't likely change all that many peoples' minds. What it did do was demoralize Democrats and excite Republicans, thereby changing the makeup of State and National "likely voter" samples. These samples determine everything from polling leads to favorability/unfavorability ratings, and so a small change in relative voter enthusiasm can move the numbers quite some distance. In light of that, what the Vice Presidential and second Presidential debates have done is restore the confidence of Democratic voters in the Obama-Biden ticket, which will probably result in a rebound once that increased enthusiasm kicks in.

And the media? Absent the understanding that most voters have made up their minds about who they like and who they support, but not necessarily whether or not they're going to vote, our failed "Commentariat" has mistaken post-debate changes in voter enthusiasm for post-debate changes in voter preference, and has thus correspondingly constructed an entire false "narrative" around this misperception. This leads them to look at the contest in a way that is entirely incorrect, both in terms of its dynamics and in terms of the way it will likely unfold depending on how events proceed from here.

[Brewdomia]

So, what do you think the chance is of democrats regaining that enthusiam before the election?

[Alien Space Bats]

So, what do you think the chance is of democrats regaining that enthusiam before the election?

I think it's already happening; the second Presidential debate saw to that.

[Aryavartha]

I don't know. The President can win without Ohio, though it's harder, but Romney has to win all the swing states if he loses Ohio.

I understand that a lot has already voted in Ohio, increasing Obama's chances there, because he is leading there now.

What other swing state has early voting, and has Obama leading?

IOW, what are the chances of Romney losing Ohio and sweeping the rest and making it?

[Greed and Death]

I don't know. The President can win without Ohio, though it's harder, but Romney has to win all the swing states if he loses Ohio.

I understand that a lot has already voted in Ohio, increasing Obama's chances there, because he is leading there now.

What other swing state has early voting, and has Obama leading?

IOW, what are the chances of Romney losing Ohio and sweeping the rest and making it?

Very slim for Romney, he needs Ohio (assume Florida, Virgina, and North Carolina go Romney), He needs Ohio and at least New Hampshire or Colorado. Without Ohio Romney must win Wisconsin and Colorado.

Obama is in the enviable position of being able to win without winning the major swing states.

[Farnhamia]

I don't know. The President can win without Ohio, though it's harder, but Romney has to win all the swing states if he loses Ohio.

I understand that a lot has already voted in Ohio, increasing Obama's chances there, because he is leading there now.

What other swing state has early voting, and has Obama leading?

IOW, what are the chances of Romney losing Ohio and sweeping the rest and making it?

Odd you should pick that acronym, because I believe IOWa is one that fits that bill. You could scroll on backwards for ASB's posts, the question's been considered, I believe.

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of October 22nd, 2012)



Obama 286, Romney 235 (17 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: SOME NEW POLLS DO NOT YET REFLECT REACTION TO THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

---

Just two new polls today:

• In Florida (29 EV's), a new poll PPP by dated October 18th shows Romney up by 1%; averaging this poll with six others taken within a one-week look-back window (by FOX News, Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, ORC International, Zogby, and [another by] PPP) confirms this same 1% lead for the former Massachusetts Governor. The Sunshine State remains "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Missouri (10 EV's), a mew poll by PPP dated October 21st shows Romney up by 6%; averaging this poll with Rasmussen's poll taken on October 17th leaves the former Massachusetts Governor with a net lead of 8%. The "Show Me" State drifts from "Strongly Republican" back to "Likely Republican".

Tomorrow or Wednesday we'll get a final snapshot of the National opinion in advance of tonight's third and final Presidential debate, and when that happens, we'll compare it with both the October 13th and October 8th maps to see how much of Mitt Romney's lead has been given back since the Vice Presidential debate, when the Democrats first began repairing their position in the wake of their debacle of the first debate. In the meantime, we have tonight's debate to watch - and most people see this one as being for all the marbles

---

There is going to be a tremendous temptation on everybody's part to find a winner in tonight's debate. In truth, we might not see one. Barring some gaffe, "gotcha", or lethal "zinger", it might just end in a draw.

So, as we did with the second Presidential debate, let's talk about what both candidates need:

Governor Romney

Simply put, this may well be Governor Romney's last chance at a knockout blow - or, at the least, a "game changer". HIs position is better than it was at the end of Septmber, but after almost six months of campaigning - first as the GOP's nominee-apparent, and then as its actual nominee, Romney still hasn't taken the lead where it really matters: In the Electoral College. His lead in Florida is stuck at 1%, where a huge Democratic GOTV effort could rip a State he absolutely must win from his grasp; Virginia and New Hampshire remain too close to call. He can probably consider North Carolina's 15 EV's in the bag, but massive early voting by Democrats in Ohio and Iowa have sharply narrowed Mitt Romney's path to the White House.

Romney will certainly sweep the "McCain" States; Indiana is also a lock for him as well. If he adds North Carolina - which, as stated above, is a likely win - and survives a Democratic surge in Florida - which, as stated above, he must do to triumph on November 6th - then he'll be looking at 235 EV's. Without Ohio and Iowa, Governor Romney must run the table: He needs to win Virginia (a toss-up as I write this), Colorado (where Obama leads by 3%), and Wisconsin (where Obama also leads by 3%) to reach 267 EV's; then he needs to win New Hampshire's 4 EV's to break through to 271 EV's and victory, albeit by a whisker. In theory Nevada exists as an alternative if the former Massachusetts Governor can't take New Hampshire - but he's down by 4% there and has no real organization on the ground; the Democratic GOTV in the Silver State will probably add another 4% to the President's totals there, and that virtually takes Nevada out of play.

Which means that victory for Governor Romney, as things stand today, requires a tightrope walk. Walking that tightrope isn't impossible, but there are simply too many places where the Republican nominee can be tripped. He needs a boost, and this debate is probably the only place he can go to get it.

On the debate stage at Boca Raton, then, Governor Romney has two competing objectives. One is to make himself look, not like a plausible President - because he achieved that goal back in the first debate - but like a plausible Commander-in-Chief and world leader. He has to look like a man we Americans can trust to keep us safe but not to needlessly send us into war; a steady hand with a calm demeanor. That's going to be a hard thing for Romney to do, and I'll be surprised if he pulls it off.

The other objective, then, is to tear Barack Obama down. Mitt Romney needs to make the President look like a terrible leader who has no idea what he's doing, and who lacks the strength to do what must be done should the need arise. That's going to be a hard sell as well, especially in light of Obama's successes (i.e., killing Osama bin Laden and toppling Muammar Gaddafi), but it's not an impossible one: Indeed, at a certain level all it requires is for Romney to expand the right-wing alternate reality bubble enough to make it look as though these things only happened on Obama's watch, and not because of anything he did.

It's a fine line for Romney to tread, because while he must accuse the President of weakness, he can't make himself look like a warmonger. His best approach is to try and depict the President as a weak and indecisive ditherer, as someone out of touch with reality and unable to get beyond a certain rosy view of the world that sees Muslims as people with whom one can negotiate, or sees Russians as anything other than intractible foes.

<pause>

O.K., I'm being admitted sharp here - but only to point out an obvious problem. To see the President as a foolish idealist requires that we see the world in stark terms, with America having implacable enemies who can only be dealt with through threats and raw power; and while Americans may sympathize with that view, it's not a long step from there to figuring that the only way to deal with these "enemies" is war, which Americans don't want - and that cycles back into the imperative Mitt Romney faces not to look like a warmonger.

It's going to be a very intricate dance Mitt Romney must attempt tonight, and I don't envy him one bit when it comes to his efforts at pulling it off.

As an alternative, Governor Romney could try to pivot off foreign policy and make the debate about defense spending and China policy, essentially heading for the (politically) safer ground of military Keynesianism and anti-China protectionism. But there are obvious problems there, too - and not just from a policy perspective. Mitt Romney really needs to take the President on in a way that strips Obama of his foreign policy advantage and makes the Governor look like a viable alternative; if he can't, the unanswered questions and the contrast could be used as a lever to move those few remaining undecideds and wavering partisans (not wavering in loyalty, but in commitment to actually vote) away from the former Massachusetts Governor.

President Obama

Technically, all that Barack Obama needs is to emerge from tonight's debate no worse off than he was when the night began - but as that attitude leads to the kind of lackluster performance he had in the first Presidential debate on October 3rd, he's going to want to come out swinging.

In Obama's case, the best defense is a good offense: One of the biggest changes since the first Presidential debate has been Mitt Romney's approval ratings "surfacing" after having been "underwater" for most of the year. This is an important development because it makes Romney a viable alternative for those undecided about giving the President a second term: Without a net positive favorability/unfavorability balance, choosing Mitt Romney over Barack Obama collapses into a "devil-you-know-vs.-devil-you-don't" choice, and we all know how that works out.

Ordinarily, the "conventional wisdom" (CW) says that negative campaigning turns independents off; yet this is a base election, and negative impressions of the other candidate help motivate one's own partisans, demotivate the other sides' partisans, and bring stragglers back on board (or get the other guy's stragglers to desert for good). In Romney's case, his inexperience and the general perception that he is less comfortable with negotiation than with simply using power as a lever to get what he wants from people he thinks owe him respect just because of his position works against him: If President Obama can make Governor Romney look uninformed, unsuited to negotiation and diplomacy, and a little too prone to issuing demands instead of making deals, he can poison the waters against his opponent.

Defensively, the President isn't on bad ground at all, even with the manufactured brouhaha over Benghazi. His efforts against Al-Qaeda are really unchallengable; his Libya policy turned out to be the right one; he can rightfully assert that the situation in Syria is still too complex for direct outside involvement and call for continuing engagement; Iran is clearly suffering under sanctions and may yet bend without the need for force; it's clear our time in Afghanistan needs to come to an end, and the President's committed to getting us out; his trade policy towards both China and our allies has been about as successful as anyone else's could be, to the point where everybody knows that Mitt Romney is engaged in bluster on the issue. This gives Barack Obama a good chance to talk up his own accomplishments while waiting for a chance to cut Governor Romney's legs out from under him.

But there's a subtler argument to be made here, and while subtle arguments are always dangerous, there are great payoffs to be had in making them. Mitt Romney's world-view is one in which America is generally alone in a hostile world: Our allies are weak and feckless, and must be driven hard to back us up; our adversaries and many and wily, and we must press them hard to bring them to heel. Against this world-view, the President is in a position to offer an alternative picture, one that makes his policies look optimal and makes Mitt Romney look dangerous.

Our allies are not feckless; given the chance to lead in Libya, they led - and in letting them lead, we made our alliance stronger. This is a point Obama should make, in hopes that he can then accuse the GOP of small-mindedness when it says that it is always America's place to lead in every effort, and our allies' place to blindly follow. Americans want our allies to be partners, and it will help Obama to talk about how we're dealing with them more as partners and less as clients to be bossed around.

Nor are all would-be rivals implacable: Obama can point to the success of the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration) in rounding up nuclear materials from all around the world and securing them against theft by criminals and terrorists; he can then point out how Russia has been a strong partner in this effort, because it is in Russia's interest to work with us in making the world safer from nuclear terrorism. Efforts like this make the point that would-be rivals need not be our enemies, and that treating them as equals and negotiating with them on the basis of common interest can work to the benefit of everyone. He can then contrast this with Governor Romney's name-calling, which can only serve to make diplonacy harder.

Governor Romney may point to this attitude as naive, but President Obama can defend it as "positive realism": The understanding that the world isn't black-and-white, and that in many cases we can find some basis for common action with the worst of rivals. Making this case would serve to both boost the President's credentials as a strong world leader and make his adversary look like a reckless fool.

To that end, the President should resist efforts by Mitt Romney to side-track the debate, and should challenge the right-wing "reality" as fraudulent whenever it surfaces. At the very least, doing this well should be enough to win him a draw in the debate, which preserves his advantage; and if he has a really good night, he might come away with an election-winning debate victory.

[Neutraligon]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of October 22nd, 2012)

(Image)

Obama 286, Romney 235 (17 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: SOME NEW POLLS DO NOT YET REFLECT REACTION TO THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

---

Just two new polls today:

• In Florida (29 EV's), a new poll PPP by dated October 18th shows Romney up by 1%; averaging this poll with six others taken within a one-week look-back window (by FOX News, Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, ORC International, Zogby, and [another by] PPP) confirms this same 1% lead for the former Massachusetts Governor. The Sunshine State remains "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Missouri (10 EV's), a mew poll by PPP dated October 21st shows Romney up by 6%; averaging this poll with Rasmussen's poll taken on October 17th leaves the former Massachusetts Governor with a net lead of 8%. The "Show Me" State drifts from "Strongly Republican" back to "Likely Republican".

Tomorrow or Wednesday we'll get a final snapshot of the National opinion in advance of tonight's third and final Presidential debate, and when that happens, we'll compare it with both the October 13th and October 8th maps to see how much of Mitt Romney's lead has been given back since the Vice Presidential debate, when the Democrats first began repairing their position in the wake of their debacle of the first debate. In the meantime, we have tonight's debate to watch - and most people see this one as being for all the marbles

---

There is going to be a tremendous temptation on everybody's part to find a winner in tonight's debate. In truth, we might not see one. Barring some gaffe, "gotcha", or lethal "zinger", it might just end in a draw.

So, as we did with the second Presidential debate, let's talk about what both candidates need:

Governor Romney

Simply put, this may well be Governor Romney's last chance at a knockout blow - or, at the least, a "game changer". HIs position is better than it was at the end of Septmber, but after almost six months of campaigning - first as the GOP's nominee-apparent, and then as its actual nominee, Romney still hasn't taken the lead where it really matters: In the Electoral College. His lead in Florida is stuck at 1%, where a huge Democratic GOTV effort could rip a State he absolutely must win from his grasp; Virginia and New Hampshire remain too close to call. He can probably consider North Carolina's 15 EV's in the bag, but massive early voting by Democrats in Ohio and Iowa have sharply narrowed Mitt Romney's path to the White House.

Romney will certainly sweep the "McCain" States; Indiana is also a lock for him as well. If he adds North Carolina - which, as stated above, is a likely win - and survives a Democratic surge in Florida - which, as stated above, he must do to triumph on November 6th - then he'll be looking at 235 EV's. Without Ohio and Iowa, Governor Romney must run the table: He needs to win Virginia (a toss-up as I write this), Colorado (where Obama leads by 3%), and Wisconsin (where Obama also leads by 3%) to reach 267 EV's; then he needs to win New Hampshire's 4 EV's to break through to 271 EV's and victory, albeit by a whisker. In theory Nevada exists as an alternative if the former Massachusetts Governor can't take New Hampshire - but he's down by 4% there and has no real organization on the ground; the Democratic GOTV in the Silver State will probably add another 4% to the President's totals there, and that virtually takes Nevada out of play.

Which means that victory for Governor Romney, as things stand today, requires a tightrope walk. Walking that tightrope isn't impossible, but there are simply too many places where the Republican nominee can be tripped. He needs a boost, and this debate is probably the only place he can go to get it.

On the debate stage at Boca Raton, then, Governor Romney has two competing objectives. One is to make himself look, not like a plausible President - because he achieved that goal back in the first debate - but like a plausible Commander-in-Chief and world leader. He has to look like a man we Americans can trust to keep us safe but not to needlessly send us into war; a steady hand with a calm demeanor. That's going to be a hard thing for Romney to do, and I'll be surprised if he pulls it off.

The other objective, then, is to tear Barack Obama down. Mitt Romney needs to make the President look like a terrible leader who has no idea what he's doing, and who lacks the strength to do what must be done should the need arise. That's going to be a hard sell as well, especially in light of Obama's successes (i.e., killing Osama bin Laden and toppling Muammar Gaddafi), but it's not an impossible one: Indeed, at a certain level all it requires is for Romney to expand the right-wing alternate reality bubble enough to make it look as though these things only happened on Obama's watch, and not because of anything he did.

It's a fine line for Romney to tread, because while he must accuse the President of weakness, he can't make himself look like a warmonger. His best approach is to try and depict the President as a weak and indecisive ditherer, as someone out of touch with reality and unable to get beyond a certain rosy view of the world that sees Muslims as people with whom one can negotiate, or sees Russians as anything other than intractible foes.

<pause>

O.K., I'm being admitted sharp here - but only to point out an obvious problem. To see the President as a foolish idealist requires that we see the world in stark terms, with America having implacable enemies who can only be dealt with through threats and raw power; and while Americans may sympathize with that view, it's not a long step from there to figuring that the only way to deal with these "enemies" is war, which Americans don't want - and that cycles back into the imperative Mitt Romney faces not to look like a warmonger.

It's going to be a very intricate dance Mitt Romney must attempt tonight, and I don't envy him one bit when it comes to his efforts at pulling it off.

As an alternative, Governor Romney could try to pivot off foreign policy and make the debate about defense spending and China policy, essentially heading for the (politically) safer ground of military Keynesianism and anti-China protectionism. But there are obvious problems there, too - and not just from a policy perspective. Mitt Romney really needs to take the President on in a way that strips Obama of his foreign policy advantage and makes the Governor look like a viable alternative; if he can't, the unanswered questions and the contrast could be used as a lever to move those few remaining undecideds and wavering partisans (not wavering in loyalty, but in commitment to actually vote) away from the former Massachusetts Governor.

President Obama

Technically, all that Barack Obama needs is to emerge from tonight's debate no worse off than he was when the night began - but as that attitude leads to the kind of lackluster performance he had in the first Presidential debate on October 3rd, he's going to want to come out swinging.

In Obama's case, the best defense is a good offense: One of the biggest changes since the first Presidential debate has been Mitt Romney's approval ratings "surfacing" after having been "underwater" for most of the year. This is an important development because it makes Romney a viable alternative for those undecided about giving the President a second term: Without a net positive favorability/unfavorability balance, choosing Mitt Romney over Barack Obama collapses into a "devil-you-know-vs.-devil-you-don't" choice, and we all know how that works out.

Ordinarily, the "conventional wisdom" (CW) says that negative campaigning turns independents off; yet this is a base election, and negative impressions of the other candidate help motivate one's own partisans, demotivate the other sides' partisans, and bring stragglers back on board (or get the other guy's stragglers to desert for good). In Romney's case, his inexperience and the general perception that he is less comfortable with negotiation than with simply using power as a lever to get what he wants from people he thinks owe him respect just because of his position works against him: If President Obama can make Governor Romney look uninformed, unsuited to negotiation and diplomacy, and a little too prone to issuing demands instead of making deals, he can poison the waters against his opponent.

Defensively, the President isn't on bad ground at all, even with the manufactured brouhaha over Benghazi. His efforts against Al-Qaeda are really unchallengable; his Libya policy turned out to be the right one; he can rightfully assert that the situation in Syria is still too complex for direct outside involvement and call for continuing engagement; Iran is clearly suffering under sanctions and may yet bend without the need for force; it's clear our time in Afghanistan needs to come to an end, and the President's committed to getting us out; his trade policy towards both China and our allies has been about as successful as anyone else's could be, to the point where everybody knows that Mitt Romney is engaged in bluster on the issue. This gives Barack Obama a good chance to talk up his own accomplishments while waiting for a chance to cut Governor Romney's legs out from under him.

But there's a subtler argument to be made here, and while subtle arguments are always dangerous, there are great payoffs to be had in making them. Mitt Romney's world-view is one in which America is generally alone in a hostile world: Our allies are weak and feckless, and must be driven hard to back us up; our adversaries and many and wily, and we must press them hard to bring them to heel. Against this world-view, the President is in a position to offer an alternative picture, one that makes his policies look optimal and makes Mitt Romney look dangerous.

Our allies are not feckless; given the chance to lead in Libya, they led - and in letting them lead, we made our alliance stronger. This is a point Obama should make, in hopes that he can then accuse the GOP of small-mindedness when it says that it is always America's place to lead in every effort, and our allies' place to blindly follow. Americans want our allies to be partners, and it will help Obama to talk about how we're dealing with them more as partners and less as clients to be bossed around.

Nor are all would-be rivals implacable: Obama can point to the success of the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration) in rounding up nuclear materials from all around the world and securing them against theft by criminals and terrorists; he can then point out how Russia has been a strong partner in this effort, because it is in Russia's interest to work with us in making the world safer from nuclear terrorism. Efforts like this make the point that would-be rivals need not be our enemies, and that treating them as equals and negotiating with them on the basis of common interest can work to the benefit of everyone. He can then contrast this with Governor Romney's name-calling, which can only serve to make diplonacy harder.

Governor Romney may point to this attitude as naive, but President Obama can defend it as "positive realism": The understanding that the world isn't black-and-white, and that in many cases we can find some basis for common action with the worst of rivals. Making this case would serve to both boost the President's credentials as a strong world leader and make his adversary look like a reckless fool.

To that end, the President should resist efforts by Mitt Romney to side-track the debate, and should challenge the right-wing "reality" as fraudulent whenever it surfaces. At the very least, doing this well should be enough to win him a draw in the debate, which preserves his advantage; and if he has a really good night, he might come away with an election-winning debate victory.

Obama even has a chance when it comes to Israel by pointing out things that top Israeli officials have said about the US. If this is done successfully than the Republican line of stepping back from our "strongest ally" can be broken.

[New Chalcedon]

*snips*

Obama even has a chance when it comes to Israel by pointing out things that top Israeli officials have said about the US. If this is done successfully than the Republican line of stepping back from our "strongest ally" can be broken.

So...by using reality to his advantage, then.

[Socialist EU]

Mitt Romney's bailout bonanza
Mitt and Ann made millions, Mitt's hedge fund donors made billions from the auto-industry bailout, yes, the one he condemned.
So corrupt.

The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/article/170644 ... t-bonanza#

Hispanic Voter Registration: Why It’s on the Decline
http://www.utne.com/politics/hispanic-v ... 0zwar.aspx

The Progressive
So These Ten Nuns Walk Into a . . . By Greg Palast
http://www.progressive.org/voter-id-palast

7 Ways to Beat the Ballot Bandits
http://www.gregpalast.com/7-ways-to-bea ... #more-6939

I don't really care who wins (I consider both parties' corrupt), but what the Romney campaign/Republicans are doing is absolutely shameless!

[Farnhamia]

*snips*

Obama even has a chance when it comes to Israel by pointing out things that top Israeli officials have said about the US. If this is done successfully than the Republican line of stepping back from our "strongest ally" can be broken.

So...by using reality to his advantage, then.

wellyesbutyouknowRomneyisgoingtobetalkingasfastandasfuriouslyashecanandinterruptingsoitmightbedifficultforthePresidenttomakehiscase.

Wow, typing without spaces is hard.