Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Norstal]

Oh good lord. Now they're giving up any pretense of knowing anything about economics.

Agreeing to discuss an idea is good. Agreeing to GO with an idea is bad. Why do you think I supported debate about things like Obamacare? Discussing bad ideas is OK.

Discussing about geocentrism is a good idea now? Because that's what the Gold Standard is to economists. Geocentrism.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Agreeing to discuss an idea is good. Agreeing to GO with an idea is bad. Why do you think I supported debate about things like Obamacare? Discussing bad ideas is OK.

Discussing about geocentrism is a good idea now? Because that's what the Gold Standard is to economists. Geocentrism.

Absolutely. That way all the loonies in my party can understand it's a bad idea when it's shown to be an obviously bad idea.

[Shofercia]

I have a feeling that the race will come down to Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Nevada, and quite possibly Colorado are staying Democrat throughout the race. Minnesotta, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, (without Rahm’s Chicago Values,) are also staying Democrat. Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine are also going to go Democrat, with perhaps New Hampshire being the exception, but that is highly unlikely.

Alaska, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, (no longer bleeding,) Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, the Carolinas, and Georgia, (not the one Jessica B thinks about,) are staying Republican.

That’s 266 electoral votes for Obama, and 212 votes for Romney, with Virginia’s (13), Ohio’s (18) and Florida’s (29) Electoral Votes in dispute. One is enough for Obama to win, but Romney needs all three. Anyone recalling the Hayes-Tilden race? Another problem is that all three of the swing states have Republican Governors.

Florida is a very troublesome state, where some Democrats cannot fill out ballots, and some Republicans cannot count them, see the 2000 election for proof. Florida Democrats – when you vote, make sure that you are actually voting for the candidate that you’re voting for, not Pat Buchanan. Yeah, the ballots sucked, but that should’ve been caught at the voting booths. Florida Republicans: 1 + 1 = 2, not whatever Jeb Bush, or whomever is in charge, says it was, ok?

To be honest, Florida’s just nuts! First, Florida was one of the three states in the disputed Hayes-Tilden race, which effectively ended reconstruction and enabled Jim Crow Laws to thrive in the South. Since Romney’s crazier than Obama, I’m predicted Florida for Romney, with the electoral count being: Obama – 266; Romney – 241.

This leaves Virginia and Ohio. The Republicans have a state of the art, well oiled campaign machine in Ohio – can the Democrats stand up to it? Ohio was the state that placed Bush in power in 2004, despite the Iraq War. Diebold also promosed Ohio for Republicans. So, I’m calling Ohio for Romney: Obama – 266, Romney – 259, Virginia – 13.

Thus, whomever wins Virginia, wins the election. Unlike in Ohio, the Republicans do not a well-oiled machine in Virginia, and that’s where Democrats should focus at least half of their funds. Start up community centers, help out youth programs, do whatever it takes, cause as long as Obama takes Virginia, the Democrats retain the presidency. Otherwise, Americans might end up with a Republican version of Boris Yetlsin. Hey, that’s just my two cents and I can be wrong.

But hey:

In Florida (29 EV's), a new poll by Quinnipiac University dated August 21st shows Obama leading by 3%. Averaging this with the two other recent polls from the Sunshine State results in a dead heat between the two candidates. Florida swings back from "Barely Republican" to "Exactly Tied".

In Ohio (18 EV's), two new polls (one by the University of Cincinatti dated August 21st and one by Quinnipiac University on the same date show Obama up by 3% and 6% respectively. Averaging these two polls with the other two from the same time period gives us a net edge of 2% for the President. The Buckeye State remains "Barely Democratic".

As long as Obama wins, it’s all good, but this race is gonna be close!

Also, you guys can see why I hate the damn Electoral College!

[Wamitoria]

My current prediction.
The gray are states that could go either way.

[Ashmoria]

Fox News was rolling at the cigar shop for a bit (fortunately it was the day of the moderates, so the channel was changed after a bit) and they have "You...you didn't build that" running on a constant loop. I know there's a whole day themed for that at the convention, so it seems that's what they're placing their money on. I think they're hoping that if they just keep saying that over and over again it will work in the same way the whole tax return thing has.

the thin-skinned businessman demographic seems like to small a slice of the electorate to matter.

my cousin took it to heart because her parents had a little mom and pop vacationland store back in the 60's that "they built on their own" even though it was an utter failure due to being a summertime store in a tiny town in coastal maine.

but she was already voting republican because of abortion. (i hate it when my highly educated relatives are so stupid).

[Shofercia]

My current prediction.
The gray are states that could go either way.

You're predicting Ohio for Obama, but not Colorado? I'm curious - why?

Actually, I'm more curious about why you're predicting Ohio for Obama, cause I predicted Ohio for Romney

[Wikkiwallana]

My current prediction.
The gray are states that could go either way.

You're predicting Ohio for Obama, but not Colorado? I'm curious - why?

Actually, I'm more curious about why you're predicting Ohio for Obama, cause I predicted Ohio for Romney

I'm guessing the importance of the auto-industry in Ohio.

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 25th, 2012)



Obama 297, Romney 212 (29 Undecided)

---

Nine new polls were added today:

• In Virginia (13 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated August 23rd shows Obama and Romney in a dead heat; averaging this with PPP's August 19th poll showing Obama up by 5%, we end up with a net 3% lead for the President. Old Dominion remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Missouri (10 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated August 22nd shows Obama leading Romney by 1%; this reverses the August 20th PPP poll posted yesterday in which Mitt Romney led Barack Obama by 10%. Averaging the two polls together gives us a net 4% lead for Governore Romney, which is mucn more consistent with polling here back in late July and early August. The "Show Me" State slips back to "Barely Republican" from "Strongly Republican".
  
  
• In California (55 EV's), a August 7th poll by Tulchin Research Obama leading by 23%. The Golden State remains "Strongly Democratic".

The map is beginning to slip back towards where it was at the start of the summer, save with a couple of differences: Among the 10 "swing" States expected to be in contention, New Mexico and Indiana seem more or less locked up again by the Democrats and Republicans, as many observers expected even before this year's polling began. New Hampshire appears to be only remotely within reach of "Team Romney", again as expected by many before the summer started.

That leaves just Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida as genuine "battlegrounds" amomg the aforementioned "swing" States, Of these, North Carolina leans towards Romney while Nevada leans towards Obama; Florida remains a complete toss-up, as it has for most of the summer.

What's different among these "battlegrounds" is that most now lean towards Obama, in many cases by unexpected margins. "Team Obama" has been unexpectedly strong in both Ohio and Virginia - although it has never been strong enough to put either State away. Romney currently leads in Iowa, but the Hawkeye State has fluctuated back and forth all summer, and Romney's lead here is tenuous at best. In Colorado, considered before the election as the hardest swing State to call (save perhaps for Florida, and even that rates as a "perhaps"), Obama enjoys a slim and fairly recent lead, even if a is tenuous one.

And all of this is pretty much where we stood at the start of summer.

The only big differences are the unexpected addition of Wisconsin and Missouri to the list of "battlegrounds", and there are widespread doubts as to how long that status will endure. Wisconsin has shown hints of being in play ever since Republicans turned back the Walker recall effort, and Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate seems to have strengthened their chances; yet many people still expect what is seen as a fundamentally liberal State to return to the Democratic fold before the race is run.

Likewise, Missouri was a State that Democrats thought would maybe be competitive, but quickly slipped out of reach and stayed there through most of the summer. Now, suddenly, it's in play (and it should be added that current polling does not reflect "Hurricane Todd", so we have no idea how that political firestorm will play itself out). Yet, like Missouri, most observers expect the State to rejoing Republican ranks before the race is through.

For the last several weeks the "theme" of this race has been a simple one: With a deeply polarized electorate locked in to two starkly opposed political camps, and few if any independents or genuine swing voters available for either side to pull, the race has been almost completely stagnant. Since the current stagnation works to the advantage of the President, it has been up to "Team Romney" to break the deadlock; and while the Ryan pick may have shaken things up a bit, the ice still remains unbroken.

So now we'll have to see if the new campaign themes the Romney campaign has rolled out in the last few weeks - essentially, the whole white resentment thing - can dramatically alter the state of the race, especially when amplified through the bullhorn of the Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay.

[Alien Space Bats]

ASB, how do you think these:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2 ... ndard.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... 28840.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... 28256.html
will affect the race?

Toying with the idea of reinstating the gold standard is an attempt by Republicans to rope in the Ronulans, who they expect to lose in November. I doubt it will succeed.

An outright attack on the Voting Rights Act has been coming for a while. I can't see the effort helping the GOP politically, but if they succeed then that would definitely help them lock in control of the country for years to come. Since there's no real constituency out there that favors repealing the Act, I have to wonder about the timing, since it certainly helps the Democrats mobilize African-American voters, arguably their single most important constituency.

I don't see Posner's shift on deregulation having much of any impact at all. Posner is right, of course: Deregulating key sectors of the economy whose potential failure might result in significant network effects is something that should only be done with the utmost care, and care doesn't seem to be a factor these days when it comes to deregulation.

[ALMF]

My current prediction.
The gray are states that could go either way.

I think its better for obama than that.http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=tGE

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 26th, 2012)



Obama 297, Romney 212 (29 Undecided)

---

Two new polls were added today:

• In Pennsylvania (20 EV's), a new poll by Global Strategy dated August 23rd shows Obama up by 9%; this exactly matches the Muehlenberg College poll from August 22nd. The Keystone State remains "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In Missouri (10 EV's), a new Mason Dixon poll dated August 23rd shows Romney leading by 7%; averaging this with the other two polls from the same time frame gives Romney a net 5% lead. The "Show Me" State slides from "Barely Republican" to "Likely Republican".

A 9% lead for Obama in Pennsylvania is bad news for Republicans. As I explained in earlier polls, the best the GOP can hope for from Pennsylvania's new Voter ID law is a 6-8% boost, and in all likelihood it will probably be more along the lines of 4-6%. If Obama has a solid 9% lead in the Keystone State, then his team can probably still squeak out a win there, especially if they can manage a really good turnout.

As for Missouri, we're still going to want to keep an eye out for softness in the GOP position there, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Right now "Team Obama" isn't planning on committing major resources to the "Show Me" State, which is something of a sign that they don't think they have great chances there - and don;t think they really need the State to close the deal anyway.

[Wikkiwallana]

Another poll for you ASB:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80015.html?hp=f2
Hardly a surprise.

This, on the other hand:
http://veracitystew.com/2012/08/21/idaho-republican-wonders-if-women-even-know-what-rape-is/
Having been brought to light in the wake of the Todd Akin scandal, do you see this making it any bigger?

[Alien Space Bats]

This, on the other hand:
http://veracitystew.com/2012/08/21/idaho-republican-wonders-if-women-even-know-what-rape-is/
Having been brought to light in the wake of the Todd Akin scandal, do you see this making it any bigger?

No, it's old news.

The real question is how the GOP will look after next week's Convention.

They need to fire up the base. The problem comes if in doing that, they accidentally kick a hornet's nest: If this Convention turns into a repeat of 1992s "Culture Wars" debacle, because then it might actually end up motivating Democrats as much as it motivates Republicans.

Worse, if "Team Romney" tries to "fix" things by distancing themselves from incendiary remarks by the right, they could end up alienating conservatives, creating a "worst of all possible worlds" outcome: Energized Democrats and angry, disaffected Republicans. That suggests that the right thing to do would be to play down or even laugh at any outrage Democrats voice in response to nasty and defamatory attacks and/or dubious remarks by Republican speakers.

But can "Team Romney" do that? One of Mitt Romney's problems is that he never seems to want to leave any vote on the table; this, indeed, is one of the reasons why he's got a reputation as a flip-flopper: He always wants to be on everybody's side of every issue. In the course of this campaign, Romney has gotten a little better at not lurching side to side in an effort to appeal to every voter; yet the campaign still hasn't recognized that sometimes it just needs to shut up and not try to shill so hard for votes.

Thus, if Republican speakers at this Convention create controversy and Democrats scream about it, the Romney campaign may feel obliged to distance themselves from the source of the controversy. That would be a huge mistake - yet I can see "Team Romney" making it anyway.

In a way, this will be a test of the Romney campaign's wisdom and discipline. To date, they've been deficient in both categories. But with the Convention, they officially enter the fall campaign, and from here on out they need to have their game heads on, or they're going to lose the last possible chances this campaign might offer them for a possible victory.

[Zaras]

or they're going to lose the last possible chances this campaign might offer them for a possible victory.

Best outcome.

[Cannot think of a name]

This, on the other hand:
http://veracitystew.com/2012/08/21/idaho-republican-wonders-if-women-even-know-what-rape-is/
Having been brought to light in the wake of the Todd Akin scandal, do you see this making it any bigger?

No, it's old news.

The real question is how the GOP will look after next week's Convention.

They need to fire up the base. The problem comes if in doing that, they accidentally kick a hornet's nest: If this Convention turns into a repeat of 1992s "Culture Wars" debacle, because then it might actually end up motivating Democrats as much as it motivates Republicans.

Worse, if "Team Romney" tries to "fix" things by distancing themselves from incendiary remarks by the right, they could end up alienating conservatives, creating a "worst of all possible worlds" outcome: Energized Democrats and angry, disaffected Republicans. That suggests that the right thing to do would be to play down or even laugh at any outrage Democrats voice in response to nasty and defamatory attacks and/or dubious remarks by Republican speakers.

But can "Team Romney" do that? One of Mitt Romney's problems is that he never seems to want to leave any vote on the table; this, indeed, is one of the reasons why he's got a reputation as a flip-flopper: He always wants to be on everybody's side of every issue. In the course of this campaign, Romney has gotten a little better at not lurching side to side in an effort to appeal to every voter; yet the campaign still hasn't recognized that sometimes it just needs to shut up and not try to shill so hard for votes.

Thus, if Republican speakers at this Convention create controversy and Democrats scream about it, the Romney campaign may feel obliged to distance themselves from the source of the controversy. That would be a huge mistake - yet I can see "Team Romney" making it anyway.

In a way, this will be a test of the Romney campaign's wisdom and discipline. To date, they've been deficient in both categories. But with the Convention, they officially enter the fall campaign, and from here on out they need to have their game heads on, or they're going to lose the last possible chances this campaign might offer them for a possible victory.

This would mean that the meat of campaign will lie in the debates. Because apparently you can keep making excuses for all the free-range nutters in the party, and apparently even play three-card monty with the party platform and the candidate, and in press releases and quick answers he can try to play Schrodinger's Republican for a while, but when it comes debate time he's going to be asked about this shit directly and going to have to come up with a response.

And as we know with Romney, his first choice is not always the best one. So it will be a case of determining if he's in or not with whatever thing they've stirred up at the convention.

[Serrland]

This, on the other hand:
http://veracitystew.com/2012/08/21/idaho-republican-wonders-if-women-even-know-what-rape-is/
Having been brought to light in the wake of the Todd Akin scandal, do you see this making it any bigger?

No, it's old news.

The real question is how the GOP will look after next week's Convention.

They need to fire up the base. The problem comes if in doing that, they accidentally kick a hornet's nest: If this Convention turns into a repeat of 1992s "Culture Wars" debacle, because then it might actually end up motivating Democrats as much as it motivates Republicans.

Worse, if "Team Romney" tries to "fix" things by distancing themselves from incendiary remarks by the right, they could end up alienating conservatives, creating a "worst of all possible worlds" outcome: Energized Democrats and angry, disaffected Republicans. That suggests that the right thing to do would be to play down or even laugh at any outrage Democrats voice in response to nasty and defamatory attacks and/or dubious remarks by Republican speakers.

But can "Team Romney" do that? One of Mitt Romney's problems is that he never seems to want to leave any vote on the table; this, indeed, is one of the reasons why he's got a reputation as a flip-flopper: He always wants to be on everybody's side of every issue. In the course of this campaign, Romney has gotten a little better at not lurching side to side in an effort to appeal to every voter; yet the campaign still hasn't recognized that sometimes it just needs to shut up and not try to shill so hard for votes.

Thus, if Republican speakers at this Convention create controversy and Democrats scream about it, the Romney campaign may feel obliged to distance themselves from the source of the controversy. That would be a huge mistake - yet I can see "Team Romney" making it anyway.

In a way, this will be a test of the Romney campaign's wisdom and discipline. To date, they've been deficient in both categories. But with the Convention, they officially enter the fall campaign, and from here on out they need to have their game heads on, or they're going to lose the last possible chances this campaign might offer them for a possible victory

.

Can't help but think that this convention will be more about Reince Priebus and his goals than the Romney campaign.

[Farnhamia]

No, it's old news.

The real question is how the GOP will look after next week's Convention.

They need to fire up the base. The problem comes if in doing that, they accidentally kick a hornet's nest: If this Convention turns into a repeat of 1992s "Culture Wars" debacle, because then it might actually end up motivating Democrats as much as it motivates Republicans.

Worse, if "Team Romney" tries to "fix" things by distancing themselves from incendiary remarks by the right, they could end up alienating conservatives, creating a "worst of all possible worlds" outcome: Energized Democrats and angry, disaffected Republicans. That suggests that the right thing to do would be to play down or even laugh at any outrage Democrats voice in response to nasty and defamatory attacks and/or dubious remarks by Republican speakers.

But can "Team Romney" do that? One of Mitt Romney's problems is that he never seems to want to leave any vote on the table; this, indeed, is one of the reasons why he's got a reputation as a flip-flopper: He always wants to be on everybody's side of every issue. In the course of this campaign, Romney has gotten a little better at not lurching side to side in an effort to appeal to every voter; yet the campaign still hasn't recognized that sometimes it just needs to shut up and not try to shill so hard for votes.

Thus, if Republican speakers at this Convention create controversy and Democrats scream about it, the Romney campaign may feel obliged to distance themselves from the source of the controversy. That would be a huge mistake - yet I can see "Team Romney" making it anyway.

In a way, this will be a test of the Romney campaign's wisdom and discipline. To date, they've been deficient in both categories. But with the Convention, they officially enter the fall campaign, and from here on out they need to have their game heads on, or they're going to lose the last possible chances this campaign might offer them for a possible victory

.

Can't help but think that this convention will be more about Reince Priebus and his goals than the Romney campaign.

Which are what, furtherance of the League of Oddly-Named Gentlemen?

[Zaras]

Can't help but think that this convention will be more about Reince Priebus and his goals than the Romney campaign.

Which are what, furtherance of the League of Oddly-Named Gentlemen?

You see a name like "Reince Priebus" and you just wonder: how fucking drunk were his parents when they named him? Or, why the hell do his parents hate him that much?

[Serrland]

Can't help but think that this convention will be more about Reince Priebus and his goals than the Romney campaign.

Which are what, furtherance of the League of Oddly-Named Gentlemen?

Strange thing about Priebus is his given first name is Reinhold, a respectable, decent name. Why use his middle name (Reince) instead?

[Nordengrund]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 26th, 2012)

(Image)

Obama 297, Romney 212 (29 Undecided)

---

Two new polls were added today:

• In Pennsylvania (20 EV's), a new poll by Global Strategy dated August 23rd shows Obama up by 9%; this exactly matches the Muehlenberg College poll from August 22nd. The Keystone State remains "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In Missouri (10 EV's), a new Mason Dixon poll dated August 23rd shows Romney leading by 7%; averaging this with the other two polls from the same time frame gives Romney a net 5% lead. The "Show Me" State slides from "Barely Republican" to "Likely Republican".

A 9% lead for Obama in Pennsylvania is bad news for Republicans. As I explained in earlier polls, the best the GOP can hope for from Pennsylvania's new Voter ID law is a 6-8% boost, and in all likelihood it will probably be more along the lines of 4-6%. If Obama has a solid 9% lead in the Keystone State, then his team can probably still squeak out a win there, especially if they can manage a really good turnout.

As for Missouri, we're still going to want to keep an eye out for softness in the GOP position there, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Right now "Team Obama" isn't planning on committing major resources to the "Show Me" State, which is something of a sign that they don't think they have great chances there - and don;t think they really need the State to close the deal anyway.

According to the chart, I think Democrats are winning by one state. If Florida goes Republican, we might be tied in terms of the number of states siding with who.

[Ashmoria]

Which are what, furtherance of the League of Oddly-Named Gentlemen?

Strange thing about Priebus is his given first name is Reinhold, a respectable, decent name. Why use his middle name (Reince) instead?

to distinguish him from all the other reinholds in his kindergarten class

[Alien Space Bats]

According to the chart, I think Democrats are winning by one state. If Florida goes Republican, we might be tied in terms of the number of states siding with who.

That's absolutely true.

Of course, it points up a fundamental fact: Currently, 4 of the 6 largest States (i.e., California, Illinois, New York, and Texas) are not competitive - and three of those (i.e., all but Texas) essentially "belong" to the Democrats. That leaves only 2 of the 6 largest States (i.e., Florida and Pennsylvania) up for grabs.

Which is why so many people are looking at the growing alignment of Latino voters with the Democratic Party and seeing disaster for the GOP. Why? Because the Latino vote has the potential to take Texas away from the GOP within the next ten years as well.

Consider a world in which California, Illinois, New York, and Texas are Democratic locks, and both Pennsylvania and Florida lean Democratic. That means the Democrats start with 142 EV's locked up with another 49 EV's leaning their way; the other 44 States get 347 EV's. On paper, that would mean that the GOP would need to win 30-35 of the remaining 44 States to grab the Presidency, vs. 10-15 States for the Democrats to do so. That's almost an impossible position for the GOP to be in, and it goes a long way towards explaining former RNC Chairman Michael Steele's remarks on MSNBC's Up w/Chris Hayes this morning, in which he essentially said that if the GOP didn't change, it would "Go the way of the Whigs".

[Neutraligon]

According to the chart, I think Democrats are winning by one state. If Florida goes Republican, we might be tied in terms of the number of states siding with who.

That's absolutely true.

Of course, it points up a fundamental fact: Currently, 4 of the 6 largest States (i.e., California, Illinois, New York, and Texas) are not competitive - and three of those (i.e., all but Texas) essentially "belong" to the Democrats. That leaves only 2 of the 6 largest States (i.e., Florida and Pennsylvania) up for grabs.

Which is why so many people are looking at the growing alignment of Latino voters with the Democratic Party and seeing disaster for the GOP. Why? Because the Latino vote has the potential to take Texas away from the GOP within the next ten years as well.

Consider a world in which California, Illinois, New York, and Texas are Democratic locks, and both Pennsylvania and Florida lean Democratic. That means the Democrats start with 142 EV's locked up with another 49 EV's leaning their way; the other 44 States get 347 EV's. On paper, that would mean that the GOP would need to win 30-35 of the remaining 44 States to grab the Presidency, vs. 10-15 States for the Democrats to do so. That's almost an impossible position for the GOP to be in, and it goes a long way towards explaining former RNC Chairman Michael Steele's remarks on MSNBC's Up w/Chris Hayes this morning, in which he essentially said that if the GOP didn't change, it would "Go the way of the Whigs".

Can you link that one?

[Wikkiwallana]

The problem comes if in doing that, they accidentally kick a hornet's nest: If this Convention turns into a repeat of 1992s "Culture Wars" debacle, because then it might actually end up motivating Democrats as much as it motivates Republicans.

Mind explaining that for those of us too young to remember?

[Wikkiwallana]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 26th, 2012)

(Image)

Obama 297, Romney 212 (29 Undecided)

---

Two new polls were added today:

• In Pennsylvania (20 EV's), a new poll by Global Strategy dated August 23rd shows Obama up by 9%; this exactly matches the Muehlenberg College poll from August 22nd. The Keystone State remains "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In Missouri (10 EV's), a new Mason Dixon poll dated August 23rd shows Romney leading by 7%; averaging this with the other two polls from the same time frame gives Romney a net 5% lead. The "Show Me" State slides from "Barely Republican" to "Likely Republican".

A 9% lead for Obama in Pennsylvania is bad news for Republicans. As I explained in earlier polls, the best the GOP can hope for from Pennsylvania's new Voter ID law is a 6-8% boost, and in all likelihood it will probably be more along the lines of 4-6%. If Obama has a solid 9% lead in the Keystone State, then his team can probably still squeak out a win there, especially if they can manage a really good turnout.

As for Missouri, we're still going to want to keep an eye out for softness in the GOP position there, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Right now "Team Obama" isn't planning on committing major resources to the "Show Me" State, which is something of a sign that they don't think they have great chances there - and don;t think they really need the State to close the deal anyway.

According to the chart, I think Democrats are winning by one state. If Florida goes Republican, we might be tied in terms of the number of states siding with who.

Since states don't have identical numbers of Electoral votes, that would be pretty meaningless.

Edit: I stand corrected.