Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Jocabia]

I understand that what he was saying was readable, but I simply don't understand how it connects to me or what I said at all.

The train of replies is me, New Chalcedon, me, Wam, me, Random-Ass Name. Then this guy pops up to say we're talking past each other even though, without trying to sound rude, I don't remember talking at him. So I'm assuming I read it wrong, then, or something because I am not able to understand why he's saying half the things he's saying because they imply a previous correspondence that I don't remember making.

I'm not sure how both of you think the connection is clear, but I'm not catching it.

You seriously can't figure out how the connection here?

You realize this is a forum, right? Not a telephone call.

I'm sorry. Suggesting you are too stupid to understand or don't speak the language would be rude. And we both know that you're trying to honestly understand the points being made rather than just attack people when the facts disagree with you. We should all follow your example and avoid pointless snarky insults that are an attempt to cover up the shortcomings in our arguments.

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

I understand that what he was saying was readable, but I simply don't understand how it connects to me or what I said at all.

The train of replies is me, New Chalcedon, me, Wam, me, Random-Ass Name. Then this guy pops up to say we're talking past each other even though, without trying to sound rude, I don't remember talking at him. So I'm assuming I read it wrong, then, or something because I am not able to understand why he's saying half the things he's saying because they imply a previous correspondence that I don't remember making.

I'm not sure how both of you think the connection is clear, but I'm not catching it.

You seriously can't figure out how the connection here?

You realize this is a forum, right? Not a telephone call.

I'm sorry. Suggesting you are too stupid to understand or don't speak the language would be rude. And we both know that you're trying to honestly understand the points being made rather than just attack people when the facts disagree with you. We should all follow your example and avoid pointless snarky insults that are an attempt to cover up the shortcomings in our arguments.

I first want to point out that "we both know that you're trying to honestly understand the points being made rather than just attack people when the facts disagree with you" *seems* to have the exact opposite meaning of what you're attempting to say. If we're going to have a conversation on clarity, I think it would be better if we (and by that I mean *you*) didn't play Opposite Day.

To be fair to us, me and him are in near agreement. As he says himself, we were just arguing past each other. Though I understand how reading isn't your strong suit, and I think we're all willing to make sacrifices and allow you to play catch up. I don't know what 'facts' don't 'agree' with me, though my digestion is often off, but I'm guessing that we are both happy for suggestions.

The point is, he says that I was arguing with him before I read any of his posts but... I don't remember replying to TomKirk before now. And clearly, neither do you.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Can we please try and avoid getting this topic locked?

I, for one, LIKE ASB's analyses.

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

Can we please try and avoid getting this topic locked?

I, for one, LIKE ASB's analyses.

Apologies. It can be easy for me to see the solar system spinning around myself, and there's no good excuse for it. I'll simmer down.

ASB, continue onwards and upwards without distractions.

[Alien Space Bats]

ASB, you may want to look at this. This specific analysis only applies to Gallup, but I wouldn't be surprised if it also applied to other polling organizations.

I had already observed the discrepancy between Gallup's numbers and the Census Bureau's data; nonetheless, I thank you for the citation and recommend that the rest of you read the linked article for an inside look at the problems modern pollsters face. Polling may well be - in fact, almost certainly is - inaccurate; but it's important to understand that this inaccuracy doesn't come from ideology or any desire on anybody's part to skew polling results. Even Rasmussen - a firm liberals love to hate - is trying to do things right; it's just that right now "doing things right" has become exceptionally hard in the era of Caller ID, laws prohibiting the robo-calling of cell phone numbers, and a general refusal on the part of the public to submit to polls.

That's why I tend to use Gallup's data on individual group responses with Pew's assessment of ethnic group size; yet even then, I understand that I can only draw the broadest assumptions about the electorate and election dynamics. Beyond that, the one thing that is hardest to predict in the current environment is voter participation: We know how many eligible voters are out there within each ethnic group, but we can't necessarily tell who's actually going to vote, even when we ask voters if they will do so. Thus, even with identical data, two pollsters can disagree on what a poll means, just because they interpret the participation data differently.

That said, I suspect almost all current polls overstate Mitt Romney's support and understate the President's; that said, I'll stand by them for now, because we don't know to what degree voter suppression efforts (like Voter ID laws) are going to keep Democrats (their typical target) from voting. It's a glib thought that the two effects will cancel each other out; yet at a certain point, that's sort of where I'm leaning right now.

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 15th, 2012)



Obama 317, Romney 212 (9 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: NEW POLLS SHOWN STILL MAY NOT REFLECT ROMNEY'S CHOICE OF RUNNING MATE.

---

Four new polls were added to the map today; two cover a polling period that includes the first two days after Mitt Romney's announcement of Paul Ryan as a running mate, but does not fall entirely within that time frame, while one more represents the first completely post-Ryan poll of the campaign:

• In Missouri (10 EV's), a poll by Chilenski Strategies dated August 8th shows Romney leading by 1%; this confirms the August 12th PPP poll posted yesterday, which gave the same result. For the moment, at least, Missouri is back in play. The "Show-Me" State remains "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In New Hampshire (4 EV's), a new poll by PPP completed on August 12th shows Obama leading by 6%. Note that PPP began this survey on August 9th, so roughly half its data was collected before Mitt Romney's VP announcement. Averaging this poll with the August 12th UNH poll posted yesterday gives us a net lead of 4% for the President. The Granite State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Ohio (18 EV's), two new polls (one by PPP completed on August 12th and one by Rasmussen taken August 13th) show Obama leading by an average of 2%. Note that PPP began its survey on August 9th, so roughly half its data was collected before Mitt Romney's VP announcement; the Rasmussen poll was a one-day robopoll, so its data was collected entirely after the announcement. For the record, PPP showed Obama leading by 3% while Rasmussen has both candidates even. The Buckeye State shifts from "Likely Democratic" to "Barely Democratic".

As stated a few pages back, the next week or two will be critical for the Romney campaign. Traditionally, both Parties receive a surge of support in the wake of their respective conventions; in addition, the selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's VP was intended not just to bolster Governor Romney's chances, but to alter the fundamental shape of the race. If the GOP ticket can't take the lead over the next few weeks, then Democrats' post-convention bounce will likely drive things back to the way they were last week, before the Ryan pick - when pretty much everybody agreed that some kind of "Game Change" was needed to put the Republicans back in the hunt.

---

With yesterday's primaries in Connecticut and Wisconsin, almost all of the races for the U.S. Senate have names attached to each Party's spot on the ticket. Consequently, Senate polling should pick up sharply, allowing us to begin tracking control of that body. As for the U.S. House, I see no signs that Andrew Tanenbaum intends to track House races yet, but even if he decided not to, we should be able to get enough data from other sources to begin doing that as well.

[New Chalcedon]

And there's the point. Tennesse has voted Republican in every election since 1980 - why would anyone target it?



Riiiiiight. Because the neo-Gilded Age Ryan Budget isn't Paul Ryan's work at all. Also, WI-01 is an R+1 swing-district which George W. Bush carried twice and Obama carried by a lesser margin than his national vote margin. It has elected Republicans to Federal Congress (both Houses) several times in the past decade, voting for Paul Ryna (duh, obviously) six times, against Russ Feingold in 2004 and 2010, for Scott Walker in 2010 and 2012 and against Jim Doyle in 2002 and 2006 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

How a Congressional District that voted for Republican gubernatorial and presidential nominees in each of the last five elections (by narrow margins, to be sure EDIT: With the exception of Obama 2008) is a "blue swing-district" is beyond me. It's a swing district to be sure at R+1, but it's voting behaviour only confirms that it's a red-tinged swing-district. On a more simplistic level, any district that kept its Republican representative in office in both 2006 and 2008 cannot be called "blue-leaning" (with the sole exception of DE-AL - Delaware politics is more congenial, and Castle's victories were more to do with him than with the GOP).

I think you just proved my point. A district that goes for Clinton, Bush and Obama hardly sounds like some sort of ultra-rightwing bastion. He beat McCain’s performance in the district by 17 points.

Learn to fucking read. WI-01 voted (narrowly) for George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole (I stated that it voted against Clinton twice, not for him) and then George W. Bush twice, before going for Obama by 51-47 when he beat McCain 52-46 nationally. So you're wrong on just about every point here.

How, by being more rightwing? And those margins were *all* close with the gubernatorial elections.

Given Wisconsin's overall blue tinge, a district that consistently votes Republican - by however narrow a margin - for Senate, House and Presidential elections must be viewed as a Republican-leaning district. It's simple arithmetic.

Is a district that is willing to split nearly down the middle for Russ Feingold going to send some right-wing extremist to congress with a sizable majority?

Except that's exactly what they've been doing: while Ryan has personal charms, his political positions are the most extreme of any Republican (or Democratic, for that matter) VP pick since 1908. He's further from the centre than Henry Wallace was, and Wallace was an avowed Socialist!

I think not.

Judging by your posts in this thread, you don't think at all.

It doesn't add up, and I think you can see in your own argument some of that basic unsoundness.

No, what I see is a vast pile of steaming bullshit in your posts, not unsoundness in mine. How noting the district's voting record is "unsound" as a means of determining the political alignment in said district is rather a mystery to me...but I'm sure your incomparable "Ryan is really a moderate!" brain will work it out.

Also, on a somewhat side-notish issue - please name one policy area that Paul Ryan can reasonably be called progressive on. I'll grant the possibility that he has personal charm, but his policies on just about any issue are hardcore conservative. There's no question here - Mitt Romney made this VP pick for one reason, and one only - to please the far-right of his base.

I suspect that you will find a few in his voting record. Check it out, and see for yourself. http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26344/

So you can't find any, and are determined to waste as much of my time as possible. Noted. Speaking of his voting record, his votes place him as being as conservative as Michele Bachmann....but don't worry, he's really a progressive, honest!

I, for one, am surprised that you can still be considered far-right after voting for TARP. But maybe I'm just old fashioned.

TARP wasn't an ideological matter: there were a whole lot of people on the left outraged that the banks were getting a strings-free $787 billion bailout to rescue them from their own greed, cupidity and shortsightedness even as a whole bunch of right-wing ideologues were annoyed that the government was intervening in business at all. Paul Ryan voted for TARP to keep his big business donors happy with him, which is much the same reason a whole bunch of Democrats voted for it.

You would be well served to check our his vote for the Violence Against Women Act.

Ah, now you name something specific. And Paul Ryan voted for VAWA's reauthorisation after immigrant, LGBT and Native American women were all excluded from its protection. Basically, he voted for the "Violence Against White Women Act". About what I'd expect from a far-right-wing ideologue like him.

To be honest, I'm wondering why Romney picked Ryan.

To enthuse the base? Possibly.
To win Wisconsin? Unlikely.
To appeal to moderates? Only if Team Romney are living in la-la-land!

[Jocabia]

You seriously can't figure out how the connection here?

You realize this is a forum, right? Not a telephone call.

I'm sorry. Suggesting you are too stupid to understand or don't speak the language would be rude. And we both know that you're trying to honestly understand the points being made rather than just attack people when the facts disagree with you. We should all follow your example and avoid pointless snarky insults that are an attempt to cover up the shortcomings in our arguments.

I first want to point out that "we both know that you're trying to honestly understand the points being made rather than just attack people when the facts disagree with you" *seems* to have the exact opposite meaning of what you're attempting to say. If we're going to have a conversation on clarity, I think it would be better if we (and by that I mean *you*) didn't play Opposite Day.

To be fair to us, me and him are in near agreement. As he says himself, we were just arguing past each other. Though I understand how reading isn't your strong suit, and I think we're all willing to make sacrifices and allow you to play catch up. I don't know what 'facts' don't 'agree' with me, though my digestion is often off, but I'm guessing that we are both happy for suggestions.

The point is, he says that I was arguing with him before I read any of his posts but... I don't remember replying to TomKirk before now. And clearly, neither do you.

Ah, irony.

We're not having a conversation on clarity. We're talking about how you can't seem to follow and how you decided that must be the other party's problem with English, and the rest of us pointed out that we're all reading the exact same posts and having no trouble at all.

If clarity is a problem for you, I'll suggest a solution... stop flamebaiting and instead try talking TO the other person or people. Suggesting the other person has problems with English or, in my case, cannot read, is not helping you understand what they're trying to say. Instead, it's just making seem like you're less interested in solving the issue of clarity and more interested in hiding the fact that your assertions aren't well-founded.

Reading isn't my strong suit, so you'll have to bear with me. It seems to me, and to everyone else here, that he's pointing out the voting history doesn't match your claims and that citing the point of view of a biased group that would call Ronald Reagan a communist if he ran today isn't going to help you. As has been pointed out repeatedly, that district is considered right-leaning by history and by unbiased sources, or certainly less biased than Conservative groups.

Meanwhile, it was equally clearly pointed out that Ryan was just a standard Conservative until somewhat recently and that he's been an incumbent for a long time (which in nearly all districts practically guarantees victory). He's not particularly had much of a challenge for many previous elections, for that reason. And, like most areas, if you checked, you'd probably find that most people don't even know their incumbent all that well. But this election changes that, because Ryan has now become well-known, both due to his budget and due to his being picked for VP. Democrats saw this vulnerability (from the budget) and they put up a much stronger challenger.

So this year is much different than previous years for all of those reasons, but it is still a right-leaning district even if Mr. Ryan loses. And you have yet to present one fact that adequately disputes that notion.

[The Nuclear Fist]

And Paul Ryan voted for VAWA's reauthorisation after immigrant, LGBT and Native American women were all excluded from its protection.

Why would the act exclude Native Americans?

[Jocabia]

And Paul Ryan voted for VAWA's reauthorisation after immigrant, LGBT and Native American women were all excluded from its protection.

Why would the act exclude Native Americans?

The focus of this thread is on voting patterns and likely vote outcomes, not policy. I've posted a reply to you in the sticky thread on policy.

[Alien Space Bats]

And Paul Ryan voted for VAWA's reauthorisation after immigrant, LGBT and Native American women were all excluded from its protection.

Why would the act exclude Native Americans?

The original VAWA didn't exclude Native Americans; it did, however, leave jurisdictional loopholes in place regarding its enforcement on reservation land and/or by tribal police.

That said, the new version of VAWA itself is not a popular measure among whites in the Rocky Mountain States because it raises the issue of the role of the tribal police in local law enforcement; generally, tribal police are not viewed with favor by Western whites, and any law that potentially expands the authority of tribal officers over whites (even when those whites are on reservation land) is bound to ruffle feathers, as would any measure that expands the power of local (white) sheriffs over the reservations.

This gets are the heart of why Washington is so unpopular in the Rockies: Its land management policies often leave local residents unable to use their land as fully as they would like, the jurisdictional problems presented by the remnants of Native American sovereignty raise hackles on both sides of the West's racial divide, and all this happens atop the standard urban-rural political landscape that one sees across the rest of the country in such a way as to exacerbate ideological differences among constituents.

---

I want to remind everyone to frame their comments in terms of the election and to stay away from discussions of issues and ideology for their own sake.

I that context, I think it might be safer to address the issue of whether Paul Ryan is perceived to be a moderate vs. an arch-conservative, of whether there are opportunities for Democrats to depict him as a hard right-winger, and other questions of that sort.

[Jocabia]

I would say the voting history of Ryan's district and whether or not it's in play as a result of his being chosen as VP is right in line with the topic area, provided we can stay away from accusing posters of lacking reading comprehension or being unable to speak English, which is not just a bad idea in this thread, but in every thread.

[Tmutarakhan]

You seriously can't figure out how the connection here?

You realize this is a forum, right? Not a telephone call.

I'm sorry. Suggesting you are too stupid to understand or don't speak the language would be rude. And we both know that you're trying to honestly understand the points being made rather than just attack people when the facts disagree with you. We should all follow your example and avoid pointless snarky insults that are an attempt to cover up the shortcomings in our arguments.

I first want to point out that "we both know that you're trying to honestly understand the points being made rather than just attack people when the facts disagree with you" *seems* to have the exact opposite meaning of what you're attempting to say.

OK. You are capable of detecting and understanding Sarcasm. That is an excellent step forward.

If we're going to have a conversation on clarity, I think it would be better if we (and by that I mean *you*) didn't play Opposite Day.

Ah, but you think you are going to ban sarcasm from NSG. You must be new here.

To be fair to us, me and him are in near agreement. As he says himself, we were just arguing past each other. Though I understand how reading isn't your strong suit...

Whoa. This is back to what is referred to here as "flaming".

and I think we're all willing to make sacrifices and allow you to play catch up. I don't know what 'facts' don't 'agree' with me, though my digestion is often off, but I'm guessing that we are both happy for suggestions.

The point is, he says that I was arguing with him before I read any of his posts but... I don't remember replying to TomKirk before now. And clearly, neither do you.

Ah, well this was actually my fault. I switch back and forth between my Tmutarakhan and TomKirk nations without always noting in which threads I have posted under which name.

[Zaras]

That said, the new version of VAWA itself is not a popular measure among whites in the Rocky Mountain States because it raises the issue of the role of the tribal police in local law enforcement; generally, tribal police are not viewed with favor by Western whites, and any law that potentially expands the authority of tribal officers over whites (even when those whites are on reservation land) is bound to ruffle feathers, as would any measure that expands the power of local (white) sheriffs over the reservations.

Ah, so tribal police aren't viewed with favour by whites because of racism. Not that surprising.

Its land management policies often leave local residents unable to use their land as fully as they would like.[/quote]

Wait, I thought the Rocky Mountain states would be more ecological...

[Alien Space Bats]

Wait, I thought the Rocky Mountain states would be more ecological...

I keep forgetting that not everybody knows about the Sagebrush Rebellion.

Negative feelings towards Washington over land use policy erupted in the 70's, and helped fuel the transformation of the Mountain States into a bastion of Republicanism. The issue is economic opportunity; Westerners in the 13 so-called "public lands" States (where the Federal government directly controls between 30-50% of all land) often feel that Eastern urban interests unconcerned with the state of the economy in the Mountain West place excessive restrictions on public land use - and thereby cost Westerners income and jobs.

[Ardchoille]

*** CUT IT OUT! ***

This is the analysis thread, right? Where analysts on both sides get together and talk strategy and tactics -- the hows, not the whys, of the campaign. If all you want to do is thump your partisan chests, go do it somewhere else. If you want to discuss policy, take it to the megathread.

Jocabia, Fal Dara in Shienar and New Chalcedon, I'll be reviewing your posts later when I've got time to spare. In the meantime, cool it.

The Nuclear Fist, your query (and the rest of the policy discussion) belongs in the megathread.

[Wamitoria]

Wait, I thought the Rocky Mountain states would be more ecological...

I keep forgetting that not everybody knows about the Sagebrush Rebellion.

Negative feelings towards Washington over land use policy erupted in the 70's, and helped fuel the transformation of the Mountain States into a bastion of Republicanism. The issue is economic opportunity; Westerners in the 13 so-called "public lands" States (where the Federal government directly controls between 30-50% of all land) often feel that Eastern urban interests unconcerned with the state of the economy in the Mountain West place excessive restrictions on public land use - and thereby cost Westerners income and jobs.

And here I thought it was just because they have had a high degree of religious radicalization in those areas.

ASB, any thoughts on what the Pennsylvania voter ID law means for the general election? Could the Justice Department block the law?

[ALMF]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 15th, 2012)

(Image)

Obama 317, Romney 212 (9 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: NEW POLLS SHOWN STILL MAY NOT REFLECT ROMNEY'S CHOICE OF RUNNING MATE.

---

Four new polls were added to the map today; two cover a polling period that includes the first two days after Mitt Romney's announcement of Paul Ryan as a running mate, but does not fall entirely within that time frame, while one more represents the first completely post-Ryan poll of the campaign:

• In Missouri (10 EV's), a poll by Chilenski Strategies dated August 8th shows Romney leading by 1%; this confirms the August 12th PPP poll posted yesterday, which gave the same result. For the moment, at least, Missouri is back in play. The "Show-Me" State remains "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In New Hampshire (4 EV's), a new poll by PPP completed on August 12th shows Obama leading by 6%. Note that PPP began this survey on August 9th, so roughly half its data was collected before Mitt Romney's VP announcement. Averaging this poll with the August 12th UNH poll posted yesterday gives us a net lead of 4% for the President. The Granite State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Ohio (18 EV's), two new polls (one by PPP completed on August 12th and one by Rasmussen taken August 13th) show Obama leading by an average of 2%. Note that PPP began its survey on August 9th, so roughly half its data was collected before Mitt Romney's VP announcement; the Rasmussen poll was a one-day robopoll, so its data was collected entirely after the announcement. For the record, PPP showed Obama leading by 3% while Rasmussen has both candidates even. The Buckeye State shifts from "Likely Democratic" to "Barely Democratic".

As stated a few pages back, the next week or two will be critical for the Romney campaign. Traditionally, both Parties receive a surge of support in the wake of their respective conventions; in addition, the selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's VP was intended not just to bolster Governor Romney's chances, but to alter the fundamental shape of the race. If the GOP ticket can't take the lead over the next few weeks, then Democrats' post-convention bounce will likely drive things back to the way they were last week, before the Ryan pick - when pretty much everybody agreed that some kind of "Game Change" was needed to put the Republicans back in the hunt.

---

With yesterday's primaries in Connecticut and Wisconsin, almost all of the races for the U.S. Senate have names attached to each Party's spot on the ticket. Consequently, Senate polling should pick up sharply, allowing us to begin tracking control of that body. As for the U.S. House, I see no signs that Andrew Tanenbaum intends to track House races yet, but even if he decided not to, we should be able to get enough data from other sources to begin doing that as well.

setting aside rasmuten or no rasmuten. I think we head to look at turnout. Pall will be good for turnout for both sides. But the youth-vote and the retired left put you up 5 points for all Congregational and 10 points in presidential raise agents the GOP.

[Jocabia]

I keep forgetting that not everybody knows about the Sagebrush Rebellion.

Negative feelings towards Washington over land use policy erupted in the 70's, and helped fuel the transformation of the Mountain States into a bastion of Republicanism. The issue is economic opportunity; Westerners in the 13 so-called "public lands" States (where the Federal government directly controls between 30-50% of all land) often feel that Eastern urban interests unconcerned with the state of the economy in the Mountain West place excessive restrictions on public land use - and thereby cost Westerners income and jobs.

And here I thought it was just because they have had a high degree of religious radicalization in those areas.

ASB, any thoughts on what the Pennsylvania voter ID law means for the general election? Could the Justice Department block the law?

He replied to this a couple of pages ago.

It's likely the law will be blocked (frankly they aren't even putting up much of a defense), but even if it isn't, it's not likely to have enough impact to deliver the state to Romney. It disproportionately affects Dems, no doubt, but it's not going to swing a state by as much as Pennsylvania is in the tank for Obama.

[Gauthier]

Pennsylvania's "Voter ID" law was upheld by a judge who naively believed that the disenfranchised voters would be provided with proper ID ahead of November. Life am not good.

[Jocabia]

Pennsylvania's "Voter ID" law was upheld by a judge who naively believed that the disenfranchised voters would be provided with proper ID ahead of November. Life am not good.

Wow, how did I miss that?

In fairness to the judge, he basically said that he's not in a position to overturn the law unless it clear violates the state constitution (which is what the challenge was put up against) and it doesn't. Frankly, as much as it seems to be counter to common sense, it seems like his analysis is fair.

It's somewhat amazing given the admissions of the side defending the law, but the judge has to work within his role as adjudicator and the decision seems in line with that.

That said, the other bit still stands. This law simply won't have a broad enough effect to actually impact the outcome of the state based on current polling. Now, it may affect one or two lower races. Frankly, I hope it does, because it will open the doors for a better challenge.

[Jocabia]

I find this bit interesting -

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... ccain.html

The race is much more settled than it was at this time 4 years ago. On this date 4 years ago, polls had 13.2% of the electorate as undecided or not voting for either candidate. Today, only 8.6% hasn't chosen Obama or Romney. Given the really large gaps that Romney has to overcome in order to even have a shot at winning, that's got to be a really scary number.

In 2008, 3.4% did not vote for either candidate. In 2004, 3.7% of the electorate did not choose Bush or Kerry. Let's assume that holds true for this time as well. I'll even use the lower of those two numbers. That means that Romney only has 5.2% of the electorate to work with to get enough votes to get a victory. Even if he wins that group by a 75/25 margin, he would still be behind in the popular vote and the electoral vote is an even more uphill challenge.

So either Romney needs to change the game so well that people who have already chosen a candidate shift their positions or he needs to win the undecided voter by margins that would be shocking, to say the least.

[Bodegraven]

I find this bit interesting -

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... ccain.html

The race is much more settled than it was at this time 4 years ago. On this date 4 years ago, polls had 13.2% of the electorate as undecided or not voting for either candidate. Today, only 8.6% hasn't chosen Obama or Romney. Given the really large gaps that Romney has to overcome in order to even have a shot at winning, that's got to be a really scary number.

In 2008, 3.4% did not vote for either candidate. In 2004, 3.7% of the electorate did not choose Bush or Kerry. Let's assume that holds true for this time as well. I'll even use the lower of those two numbers. That means that Romney only has 5.2% of the electorate to work with to get enough votes to get a victory. Even if he wins that group by a 75/25 margin, he would still be behind in the popular vote and the electoral vote is an even more uphill challenge.

So either Romney needs to change the game so well that people who have already chosen a candidate shift their positions or he needs to win the undecided voter by margins that would be shocking, to say the least.

Best hope that Romney has is making sure that the Democratss (or Democratic-leaning people) dont get out to vote. Make commercials that de-energize the Democratic base (Obama did a lot, but by saying that one of his biggest promises the one on healthcare, wasn't achieved, could mean a few less Democrats turning out to vote, which could mean a win for Romney in some states, and thus the EC)
A few well placed superPAC ads can make or break this election, as far as I can see what's happening at the other end of the Atlantic Ocean.

[Alien Space Bats]

Best hope that Romney has is making sure that the Democratss (or Democratic-leaning people) dont get out to vote.

This.

Romney will still try to change voter perceptions of Obama, mainly among white voters; but it's unlikely this will carry him very far. Beyond that, his best bet is to energize his own base as much as possible (hence, the choice of Paul Ryan as his Veep) and to demoralize the Democratic base as much as possible (largely through attacks ads). What Romney should be doing, of course, is to find a way to win over white female voters; but given the positions he's taken on various issues, that's going to be difficult.

For Democrats, the way forward is clearer: Mobilize black voters in an effort to maximize African-American turnout; aggressively register and mobilize Latino voters, while seeking to widen the Democratic Party's lead within this constituency group by pushing hard for immigration reform; appeal to white female voters on a wide variety of issues, mainly to make it harder for Romney to gain ground with this key constituency group (which is the primary "wild card" in Presidential politics); and limit Mitt Romney's appeal with white male voters by attacking him on the grounds of dishonesty, evasiveness, political pandering, and poor leadership skills (focusing on political, diplomatic, and military decision-making, depicting Romney as a poor negotiator, a poor poker player, and a man who is both ill-equipped and temperamentally unsuited to make life-and-death decisions - the iconic "3 AM phone call" issue).

[Zaras]

the iconic "3 AM phone call" issue

I don't think I've ever heard that mentioned. Let me guess, it's basically asking if you think the candidate can be trusted to deal with an incredibly important situation at 3 AM?