Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Tmutarakhan]

Evidence doesn't matter, truth doesn't matter, my ideology is right. Nothing you can ever say will dissuade me because I KNOW I am right. Welcome to American Politics in 2012, wherein religious extremism could learn a lesson in zealotry.

I hate the crazyfication factor.

The cliche' used to be that the Republicans were the Daddy party, in charge of keeping us safe, and Democrats were the Mommy party, in charge of keeping everybody fed.

But now, Republicans are the Drunk Daddy party: they get a few in them, and starting beating up on women, yelling at the kids not to have any sex, drugs, or rock'n'roll, and launching into their rant about how we should nuke all those little pissant countries. The household finances are in ruins, because no matter how much Drunk Daddy yells at everybody else for spending money, he drops a bundle on each of his binges.

Democrats are the Drunk Mommy party: too afraid to stand up for herself anymore when Drunk Daddy says or does something outrageous, just preferring to stay anaesthesized with a vague smile on her face. She still makes half-hearted efforts to keep the house running, but it isn't working very well anymore.

[Alien Space Bats]

Well, QE3 was announced today...the Fed's now going to engage in effectively unlimited money printing with all the negative consequences it'll entail. Rather bad timing for Obama, especially after the most recent signs of accelerating inflation and weakening job growth; the spike in commodity prices and overall inflation going into the election that will occur will definitely harm his position especially as it won't produce any meaningful economic benefit to offset it.

Rather odd the Fed acted so close to an election.

This post belongs in the megathread: it's not about the electoral nuts and bolts.

No, I think it's fine here.

And guess what causes that speculative bidding which drives inflation? A ton of free money being printed that drives down interest rates, artificially inflates the markets with a ton of cheap liquitiy and shifts investment into higher-risk assets like commodities...the most recent PPI release saw prices increase 1.7% month-over-month.

What the Fed will be doing will be focusing on the purchase of mortgage-backed securities. That's a wrinkle you might not have considered: In essence, the Fed will be helping banks and investment companies shed some of their worst investments, thereby improving their financial position and increasing their ability to return to their proper role as lenders and/or investment intermediaries.

So this isn't just another example of quantitative easing; it's actually a combination of quantitative easing and banking sector repair. That may well make a huge difference in the success it enjoys in helping boost economic growth.

---

That said, this isn't likely to generate any results with enough speed to affect the election, save in one regard: The markets are loving it. With the DJIA up 200 points today alone, this is likely to continue the current stock market rally well into October and possibly beyond, into November.

[Free Soviets]

This post belongs in the megathread: it's not about the electoral nuts and bolts.

No, I think it's fine here.

And guess what causes that speculative bidding which drives inflation? A ton of free money being printed that drives down interest rates, artificially inflates the markets with a ton of cheap liquitiy and shifts investment into higher-risk assets like commodities...the most recent PPI release saw prices increase 1.7% month-over-month.

What the Fed will be doing will be focusing on the purchase of mortgage-backed securities. That's a wrinkle you might not have considered: In essence, the Fed will be helping banks and investment companies shed some of their worst investments, thereby improving their financial position and increasing their ability to return to their proper role as lenders and/or investment intermediaries.

So this isn't just another example of quantitative easing; it's actually a combination of quantitative easing and banking sector repair. That may well make a huge difference in the success it enjoys in helping boost economic growth.

---

That said, this isn't likely to generate any results with enough speed to affect the election, save in one regard: The markets are loving it. With the DJIA up 200 points today alone, this is likely to continue the current stock market rally well into October and possibly beyond, into November.

also of note is that unlike the previous rounds of QE, this one is taking advantage of expectations by explicitly saying they won't pull back if the recovery looks better.

To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens.

open ended commitment; the market has desperately wanted some sort of assurances that the rug wouldn't be pulled out from under them. this is way better than the stuff the fed has been doing before. expect it to work at least somewhat better than previous attempts. which is, of course, good news...for john mccain!

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of September 14th, 2012)



Obama 332, Romney 206

---

PLEASE NOTE: NEW POLLS SHOWN STILL MAY NOT REFLECT THE EFFECTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION IN CHARLOTTE, NOR MAY THEY REFLECT PUBLIC OPINION IN THE AFTERMATH OF RECENT EVENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

---

Twelve new polls are out today; all but two were taken in the wake of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, while five ended on the first news day after the attack on our embassy in Benghazi:

• In Ohio (18 EV's), three new polls (one by Marist College dated September 11th, one by ARG dated September 12th, and one by Rasmussen, also dated September 12th) show Obama leading Romney by an average of 3%; combining this with PPP's poll from September 9th (which had Obama up by 5%), we end up with a net lead of 4% for the President; the Buckeye State shifts from "Likely Democratic" to "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Florida (29 EV's), two new polls (one by Marist College dated September 11th and one by Rasmussen dated September 12th) show Obama leading Romney by an average of 3%; combining this with the SurveyUSA Poll from September 9th (which had Obama up by 4%), we end up with a net average lead of 3% for the President. The Sunshine State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Virginia (13 EV's), a new poll by Marist College dated September 11th shows Obama up by 5%. Old Dominion slides from "Barely Democratic" to "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In Colorado (9 EV's), a new poll by ARG dated September 12th shows Obama up by 2%; the Centennial State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In New Hampshire (4 EV's), a new poll by the University of New Hampshire dated September 10th shows Obama up by 5%. The Granite State remains "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In Missouri (10 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated September 11th shows Romney up by 3%; this represents a slight narrowing of the race from before the Democratic National Convention, when Romney led by 6%. The Show-Me State moves from "Likely Republican" to "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Minnesota (10 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated September 11th shows Obama leading by 7%; averaging this with SurveyUSA's poll of September 8th gives the President a net lead of 9%. The North Star State slides from "Strongly Democratic" to "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In New York (29 EV's), a new poll by Quinnipiac University dated September 9th shows Obama leading by 28%. The Empire State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In California (55 EVs), a new poll by Pepperdine University dated September 12th shows Obama leading by 22%; this is the exact same lead found by SurveyUSA in their September 11th poll. The Golden State remains "Strongly Democratic".

All in all, these results simply confirm those shown by other polls in recent days; the Democrats got a modest "bounce" from their convention in Charlotte, while Republicans got none from theirs in Tampa Bay. As a result, the President currently leads in almost all current "battleground" States (and if the latest SurveyUSA poll from North Carolina is an outlier, he might be leading there as well). Worse, if Missouri really is slipping into competition, then that just makes things so much worse for Governor Romney; he can't afford the give President Obama yet another path to victory.

---

I was planning on using the example of the Romney campaign's response to events in Libya as an example of how a poorly disciplined campaign gets itself in trouble, but today has grown unexpectedly busy. I'm still planning on making that post, but it might be some time in coming.

[Neutraligon]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of September 14th, 2012)

(Image)

Obama 332, Romney 206

---

PLEASE NOTE: NEW POLLS SHOWN STILL MAY NOT REFLECT THE EFFECTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION IN CHARLOTTE, NOR MAY THEY REFLECT PUBLIC OPINION IN THE AFTERMATH OF RECENT EVENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

---

Twelve new polls are out today; all but two were taken in the wake of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, while five ended on the first news day after the attack on our embassy in Benghazi:

• In Ohio (18 EV's), three new polls (one by Marist College dated September 11th, one by ARG dated September 12th, and one by Rasmussen, also dated September 12th) show Obama leading Romney by an average of 3%; combining this with PPP's poll from September 9th (which had Obama up by 5%), we end up with a net lead of 4% for the President; the Buckeye State shifts from "Likely Democratic" to "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Florida (29 EV's), two new polls (one by Marist College dated September 11th and one by Rasmussen dated September 12th) show Obama leading Romney by an average of 3%; combining this with the SurveyUSA Poll from September 9th (which had Obama up by 4%), we end up with a net average lead of 3% for the President. The Sunshine State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Virginia (13 EV's), a new poll by Marist College dated September 11th shows Obama up by 5%. Old Dominion slides from "Barely Democratic" to "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In Colorado (9 EV's), a new poll by ARG dated September 12th shows Obama up by 2%; the Centennial State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In New Hampshire (4 EV's), a new poll by the University of New Hampshire dated September 10th shows Obama up by 5%. The Granite State remains "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In Missouri (10 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated September 11th shows Romney up by 3%; this represents a slight narrowing of the race from before the Democratic National Convention, when Romney led by 6%. The Show-Me State moves from "Likely Republican" to "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Minnesota (10 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated September 11th shows Obama leading by 7%; averaging this with SurveyUSA's poll of September 8th gives the President a net lead of 9%. The North Star State slides from "Strongly Democratic" to "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In New York (29 EV's), a new poll by Quinnipiac University dated September 9th shows Obama leading by 28%. The Empire State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In California (55 EVs), a new poll by Pepperdine University dated September 12th shows Obama leading by 22%; this is the exact same lead found by SurveyUSA in their September 11th poll. The Golden State remains "Strongly Democratic".

All in all, these results simply confirm those shown by other polls in recent days; the Democrats got a modest "bounce" from their convention in Charlotte, while Republicans got none from theirs in Tampa Bay. As a result, the President currently leads in almost all current "battleground" States (and if the latest SurveyUSA poll from North Carolina is an outlier, he might be leading there as well). Worse, if Missouri really is slipping into competition, then that just makes things so much worse for Governor Romney; he can't afford the give President Obama yet another path to victory.

---

I was planning on using the example of the Romney campaign's response to events in Libya as an example of how a poorly disciplined campaign gets itself in trouble, but today has grown unexpectedly busy. I'm still planning on making that post, but it might be some time in coming.

Truth be told, with how things are going in the Middle East, I think polls that don't include opinions on the uprising are much less useful.

[Alien Space Bats]

When it rains, it pours.

According to the Associated Press, at least three Republican electors in Iowa are actually Ron Paul supporters who intend to cast their votes for Ron Paul should they be elected to cast Iowa's 6 Electoral Votes in the General Election on November 6th.

The article goes on to indicate that four of the six electors on Nevada's Republican slate are also Ron Paul supporters; for their part, the Nevada Paul supporters claim that they have had no discussion amongst themselves regarding how they intend to vote. In addition, there are other Republican electors who have identified themselves as Paul supporters, although none have come out and said they'll vote for Paul instead of Romney.

The most likely defection scenario, of course, would be if Romney fails to win 270 Electoral Votes. Then defections wouldn't matter, and the Ronulans could use their votes as a pro-Paul "statement".

Yet in the event of a narrow Romney win (such as this 273-265 win I created at 270-To-Win), the possibility of defectors breaking for Paul might also manifest itself. In the scenario I've constructed, as few as four electors could throw the race into the House of Representatives; granted, Romney would almost certainly be elected by the House under such circumstances, but the effects of such an event on public opinion would be shocking.

Of course, it may not be just Romney who faces this problem: I would not be surprised to find that the people who came up with the infamous "Ron Paul delegate strategy" have been trying to inflitrate the ranks of the Democratic Party's electors as well.

[Neutraligon]

When it rains, it pours.

According to the Associated Press, at least three Republican electors in Iowa are actually Ron Paul supporters who intend to cast their votes for Ron Paul should they be elected to cast Iowa's 6 Electoral Votes in the General Election on November 6th.

The article goes on to indicate that four of the six electors on Nevada's Republican slate are also Ron Paul supporters; for their part, the Nevada Paul supporters claim that they have had no discussion amongst themselves regarding how they intend to vote. In addition, there are other Republican electors who have identified themselves as Paul supporters, although none have come out and said they'll vote for Paul instead of Romney.

The most likely defection scenario, of course, would be if Romney fails to win 270 Electoral Votes. Then defections wouldn't matter, and the Ronulans could use their votes as a pro-Paul "statement".

Yet in the event of a narrow Romney win (such as this 273-265 win I created at 270-To-Win), the possibility of defectors breaking for Paul might also manifest itself. In the scenario I've constructed, as few as four electors could throw the race into the House of Representatives; granted, Romney would almost certainly be elected by the House under such circumstances, but the effects of such an event on public opinion would be shocking.

Of course, it may not be just Romney who faces this problem: I would not be surprised to find that the people who came up with the infamous "Ron Paul delegate strategy" have been trying to inflitrate the ranks of the Democratic Party's electors as well.

This is why electors are chosen who are loyal to the candidate.

[Alien Space Bats]

This is why electors are chosen who are loyal to the candidate.

The problem here is that the State GOP gets to name the electors for each State, and Ron Paul supporters won control of the State Party in several States, including Nevada and Iowa. That means that the State Party can put whomever it wants forward as an elector.

I would be surprised if the Ronulans managed to get their people into any of the Democratic Party's elector slots (save perhaps in places like Tennesee, where the State Party is in total shambles), but having grabbed control of about half a dozen to a dozen State GOP organizations around the country, it's just one more headache for Romney.

[Wamitoria]

I can't see Ronulans getting into the Democratic delegates, if only because the Democrats have experience combatting insurgencies like this.

[Wikkiwallana]

This is why electors are chosen who are loyal to the candidate.

The problem here is that the State GOP gets to name the electors for each State, and Ron Paul supporters won control of the State Party in several States, including Nevada and Iowa. That means that the State Party can put whomever it wants forward as an elector.

I would be surprised if the Ronulans managed to get their people into any of the Democratic Party's elector slots (save perhaps in places like Tennesee, where the State Party is in total shambles), but having grabbed control of about half a dozen to a dozen State GOP organizations around the country, it's just one more headache for Romney.

Yeah, but this state isn't going Democrat unless Romney fucks up even worse than the Libya thing.

[Wamitoria]

The problem here is that the State GOP gets to name the electors for each State, and Ron Paul supporters won control of the State Party in several States, including Nevada and Iowa. That means that the State Party can put whomever it wants forward as an elector.

I would be surprised if the Ronulans managed to get their people into any of the Democratic Party's elector slots (save perhaps in places like Tennesee, where the State Party is in total shambles), but having grabbed control of about half a dozen to a dozen State GOP organizations around the country, it's just one more headache for Romney.

Yeah, but this state isn't going Democrat unless Romney fucks up even worse than the Libya thing.

Tennessee seems like a state that would stay red even if Democrats win in a landslide.

The states to watch for in order to determine if there is going to be a landslide are Indiana, Missouri, Georgia, Arizona, and Montana (and maybe South Dakota).

[Telesha]

This is why electors are chosen who are loyal to the candidate.

The problem here is that the State GOP gets to name the electors for each State, and Ron Paul supporters won control of the State Party in several States, including Nevada and Iowa. That means that the State Party can put whomever it wants forward as an elector.

I would be surprised if the Ronulans managed to get their people into any of the Democratic Party's elector slots (save perhaps in places like Tennesee, where the State Party is in total shambles), but having grabbed control of about half a dozen to a dozen State GOP organizations around the country, it's just one more headache for Romney.

I dunno. After all the ruckus about Ron Paul's delegate strategy and it's failure to manifest at the RNC I'm pretty skeptical about exactly how much influence this group actually has. I think Romney's inability to go a day without making an idiot statement of one kind or another (like, say, defining "middle class" as $200K - $250K a year) is going to hurt him more than these Paulites.

Of course, if the media picks this up and runs with it (and if it had been any other newsweek, they might have) then Romney is definitely in for that major headache.

[Ardchoille]

... Ronulans ...

... Ronulans ...

Uh-uh. No cookie.

Paulites.

Uh-huh. Cookie.

[Zaras]

The states to watch for in order to determine if there is going to be a landslide are Indiana, Missouri, Georgia, Arizona, and Montana (and maybe South Dakota).

Arizona hasn't voted Democrat since 1996...

[Bodegraven]

The states to watch for in order to determine if there is going to be a landslide are Indiana, Missouri, Georgia, Arizona, and Montana (and maybe South Dakota).

Arizona hasn't voted Democrat since 1996...

yes, but don't forget about the enormous Latin population. If we can get all of them to vote...

[PapaJacky]

The problem here is that the State GOP gets to name the electors for each State, and Ron Paul supporters won control of the State Party in several States, including Nevada and Iowa. That means that the State Party can put whomever it wants forward as an elector.

I would be surprised if the Ronulans managed to get their people into any of the Democratic Party's elector slots (save perhaps in places like Tennesee, where the State Party is in total shambles), but having grabbed control of about half a dozen to a dozen State GOP organizations around the country, it's just one more headache for Romney.

I dunno. After all the ruckus about Ron Paul's delegate strategy and it's failure to manifest at the RNC I'm pretty skeptical about exactly how much influence this group actually has. I think Romney's inability to go a day without making an idiot statement of one kind or another (like, say, defining "middle class" as $200K - $250K a year) is going to hurt him more than these Paulites.

Of course, if the media picks this up and runs with it (and if it had been any other newsweek, they might have) then Romney is definitely in for that major headache.

Quick fact check, Romney actually defined middle class as those families who make less than $250,000 a year, which is still a stupid statement to make anyways.

[Alien Space Bats]

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



Obama 332, Romney 206

---

PLEASE NOTE: NEW POLLS SHOWN STILL MAY NOT REFLECT THE EFFECTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION IN CHARLOTTE, NOR MAY THEY REFLECT PUBLIC OPINION IN THE AFTERMATH OF RECENT EVENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

---

Six new polls are out today; all but one were taken in the wake of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, and each of these five polls also overlap the first day or two following the attack on our embassy in Benghazi; the last overlaps the convention and ends before the events in Libya transpired:

• In North Carolina (15 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated September 13th shows Romney leading by 6%; averaging this with the PPP poll from September 9th, Romney ends up with a net lead of 3%. The Tarheel State shifts from "Likely Republican" to "Barely Republican" (but see below).
  
  
• In Virginia (13 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated September 13th shows Obama leading by 1%; averaging this with the Marist College poll from September 11th gives the President a net lead of 3%. Old Dominion slides back to "Barely Democratic" from "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In Colorado (9 EV's), a new SurveyUSA poll dated September 12th shows Obama up by 1%; averaging this with the ARG poll from September 12th gives Obama a net lead of 1% as well. The Centennial State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In New Jersey (14 EV's), a new poll Farleigh Dickenson University dated September 12th shows Obama leading by 14%. The Garden State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Washington (12 EV's), a new Elway Poll dated September 12th shows Obama leading by 17%; averaging this with the two earlier polls (by PPP and SurveyUSA) from the same time period gives the President a net lead of 14%. The Evergreen State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Illinois (20 EV's), a new poll by Southern Illinois University dated September 10th shows Obama leading by 13%. The Land of Lincoln remains "Strongly Democratic" (oh, the irony).

It appears that Andrew Tanenbaum has dropped the SurveyUSA poll taken in North Carolina (dated September 6th) from his map; it could be because that poll falls outside the one week window (the latest poll was dated September 13th), but usually that windows is inclusive. A more likely explanation is that the poll was simply not believable, given that it shows Romney winning 30% of the African-American vote in the Tarheel State, something no Republican Presidential candidate has done anywhere since the late 1950's and (very) early 1960's.

[New Chalcedon]

ASB, have you seen anything about either campaign going west?

Given the fact that there are two close-race States out there (NV and CO), I can't imagine the Romney campaign (desperate as the numbers must mean they're becoming) ignoring two pieces of low-hanging fruit like that, yet I'm hearing nothing.

What gives?

[Telesha]

New development in the battlegrounds of Wisconsin:

Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Law Struck Down by County Judge

Quick and dirty summary: Gov. Walker's centerpiece anti-union law has been struck down by a County Judge on First Amendment grounds. It will, of course, be appealed (as Walker has sworn to do) and in the end decided by the state Supreme Court. But that's a discussion for another thread.

What I wanted to ask about was this: will this (admittedly somewhat minor) victory give state Democrats and Unions something to rally around and drive up support? They've drawn first blood, as it were, could a drive to finish the law off provide the rallying point to pull Wisconsin back firmly into the Democratic camp?

[Wamitoria]

New development in the battlegrounds of Wisconsin:

Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Law Struck Down by County Judge

Quick and dirty summary: Gov. Walker's centerpiece anti-union law has been struck down by a County Judge on First Amendment grounds. It will, of course, be appealed (as Walker has sworn to do) and in the end decided by the state Supreme Court. But that's a discussion for another thread.

What I wanted to ask about was this: will this (admittedly somewhat minor) victory give state Democrats and Unions something to rally around and drive up support? They've drawn first blood, as it were, could a drive to finish the law off provide the rallying point to pull Wisconsin back firmly into the Democratic camp?

I think any prospect of using Unions to rile up either side of the Wisconsin electorate is remote.

That being said, exit polling from the recall election showed that the majority was opposed to Act 10, so who fucking knows.

[Khadgar]

ASB, have you seen anything about either campaign going west?

Given the fact that there are two close-race States out there (NV and CO), I can't imagine the Romney campaign (desperate as the numbers must mean they're becoming) ignoring two pieces of low-hanging fruit like that, yet I'm hearing nothing.

What gives?

I believe Romney has to win both Ohio and Florida to win, there's no reason to deal with western states. They don't offer enough EVs to be worth spending any time there.

[PapaJacky]

ASB, have you seen anything about either campaign going west?

Given the fact that there are two close-race States out there (NV and CO), I can't imagine the Romney campaign (desperate as the numbers must mean they're becoming) ignoring two pieces of low-hanging fruit like that, yet I'm hearing nothing.

What gives?

I believe Romney has to win both Ohio and Florida to win, there's no reason to deal with western states. They don't offer enough EVs to be worth spending any time there.

A guy said in another thread that even if Romney wins Ohio, Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina and Florida, he still loses to Obama by 6 electoral votes, check the math: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_p ... ?mapid=yUq

[New Chalcedon]

ASB, have you seen anything about either campaign going west?

Given the fact that there are two close-race States out there (NV and CO), I can't imagine the Romney campaign (desperate as the numbers must mean they're becoming) ignoring two pieces of low-hanging fruit like that, yet I'm hearing nothing.

What gives?

I believe Romney has to win both Ohio and Florida to win, there's no reason to deal with western states. They don't offer enough EVs to be worth spending any time there.

Ah, but Romney need to win Ohio and Florida and every other State he's leading in now, and still he comes up 17 Electoral College votes short. So let's give him Virginia too (Obama's not far ahead there), and Wisconsin to Obama, and here's the picture:

Obama: 251
Romney: 266

Undecided States: CO, IA, NV.

Romney still needs to win one of these.

Basically, Romney needs to win big both in the East and in the Great Plains/Rockies if he wants to win: Obama needs only one. Which is why I'd have been expecting Team Romney to be carpetbombing the airwaves in the relatively cheap media markets west of Texas and east of California: it would shore up his hold on Arizona and force Team Obama to defend Colorado and Nevada (and, if he's lucky, New Mexico too!).

Basically, it'd be a campaign strategy that plays to Romney's chief strength - metric tons of money and a willingness to use it in negative ad campaigns - and I wonder why he's not doing it, so far as I can tell. It makes me very, very curious as to what's going on in their heads....

[Alien Space Bats]

ASB, have you seen anything about either campaign going west?

Given the fact that there are two close-race States out there (NV and CO), I can't imagine the Romney campaign (desperate as the numbers must mean they're becoming) ignoring two pieces of low-hanging fruit like that, yet I'm hearing nothing.

What gives?

They're not ignoring either State; but going west isn't playing into their strength.

First, there's the Latino vote in Nevada, and the huge Culinary Workers' Union in Las Vegas; worse, the Nevada GOP is in shambles, and what's left of it is in the control of Ron Paul fans, so there's likely to be no help for Romney on the ground. I'm figuring that you can add 4% to whatever lead the polls give Obama, because that's the likely push he'll be getting from the superior Democratic GOTV game in the Silver State.

That leaves Colorado, and Colorado is a problem. The Obama campaign believes that reproductive rights will be the winning issue for them in the Centennial State. That's why Sandra Fluke has been speaking all over the State. Against that, the GOP doesn't really want to double down on "culture wars" issues, because that would remind everyone of the Ken Buck debacle.

No, Romney's best path lies through Iowa and Wisconsin; Iowa is a toss-up State where turnout is going to decide everything. The bad news here is that the State Party is under the control of Paul supporters here as well (and, like Nevada, it's a wreck - but just not as much of a wreck as in Nevada). If the SuperPACs can carpet bomb the Hawkeye State with ads and thereby mobilize Iowa's large Christian fundamentalist population, then Iowa becomes a coin toss.

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, Scott Walker's union busting legislation really hurt the unions, and consequently the Democrats' ground game here is weaker than in years. The hope is that support for Wisconsin's favorite son and millions more in SuperPAC money can bring Wisconsin home.

If Wisconsin and Iowa go Republican while Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico all go Democratic, then the balance would sit at 252-207 in favor of Obama. At that point, the GOP strategy - assuming that Voter ID doesn't tip Pennsylvania - is to sweep Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. That would give Romney a 282-252 win, with New Hampshire's 4 EV's irrelevant to the outcome. Losing any one of these four big Southern and Midwestern States would give Obama the Presidency, so it has to be a sweep.

Winning Colorado and New Hampshire (both) could become the backup plan if Obama pulls away in Virginia; for now, though, Romney is not about to concede Old Dominion to the Democrats, however the race looks.

[Sane Outcasts]

ASB, have you seen anything about either campaign going west?

Given the fact that there are two close-race States out there (NV and CO), I can't imagine the Romney campaign (desperate as the numbers must mean they're becoming) ignoring two pieces of low-hanging fruit like that, yet I'm hearing nothing.

What gives?

They're not ignoring either State; but going west isn't playing into their strength.

First, there's the Latino vote in Nevada, and the huge Culinary Workers' Union in Las Vegas; worse, the Nevada GOP is in shambles, and what's left of it is in the control of Ron Paul fans, so there's likely to be no help for Romney on the ground. I'm figuring that you can add 4% to whatever lead the polls give Obama, because that's the likely push he'll be getting from the superior Democratic GOTV game in the Silver State.

That leaves Colorado, and Colorado is a problem. The Obama campaign believes that reproductive rights will be the winning issue for them in the Centennial State. That's why Sandra Fluke has been speaking all over the State. Against that, the GOP doesn't really want to double down on "culture wars" issues, because that would remind everyone of the Ken Buck debacle.

No, Romney's best path lies through Iowa and Wisconsin; Iowa is a toss-up State where turnout is going to decide everything. The bad news here is that the State Party is under the control of Paul supporters here as well (and, like Nevada, it's a wreck - but just not as much of a wreck as in Nevada). If the SuperPACs can carpet bomb the Hawkeye State with ads and thereby mobilize Iowa's large Christian fundamentalist population, then Iowa becomes a coin toss.

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, Scott Walker's union busting legislation really hurt the unions, and consequently the Democrats' ground game here is weaker than in years. The hope is that support for Wisconsin's favorite son and millions more in SuperPAC money can bring Wisconsin home.

If Wisconsin and Iowa go Republican while Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico all go Democratic, then the balance would sit at 252-207 in favor of Obama. At that point, the GOP strategy - assuming that Voter ID doesn't tip Pennsylvania - is to sweep Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. That would give Romney a 282-252 win, with New Hampshire's 4 EV's irrelevant to the outcome. Losing any one of these four big Southern and Midwestern States would give Obama the Presidency, so it has to be a sweep.

Winning Colorado and New Hampshire (both) could become the backup plan if Obama pulls away in Virginia; for now, though, Romney is not about to concede Old Dominion to the Democrats, however the race looks.

Do you think the success of the lawsuit against Walker's anti-union legislation will have any effect on the Wisconsin race?