Skip to main content

A 269-269 map. Generated by Dave Liep's Electoral Atlas (yes, the colors are reversed)
Despite the resounding victory for Rick Santorum in Louisiana last night, let's be clear: the odds of anyone other than Mitt Romney being the nominee of the Republican Party has dropped essentially to zero. All that remains are far-flung calculations of brokered conventions, which are based on the rather bizarre notion that even if Romney somehow came up short of 1144 delegates by the end of the process, the GOP would somehow circle the wagons around someone other than the guy that won somewhere between 43 and 49 percent of their delegates.

One way you know that the GOP nomination battle is effectively over is by examining the amount of press attention devoted to the last two contests on the calendar. The Illinois primary on Tuesday did not draw the same breathless attention on the media networks, nor did it generate nearly the same buzz via outlets like Twitter. And Louisiana was essentially ignored last night. While trying to follow the outcome in Louisiana on Twitter from the road last night, I was learning way more about the Syracuse-Ohio State outcome than the Santorum-Romney one.

Check out this synopsis of last week's midweek media focus, as told by Howard Kurtz at the Daily Beast:

When Mitt Romney was winning the Illinois primary on Tuesday night, Bill O’Reilly moved from a short discussion of the contest to segments on whether Barack Obama is pushing the country toward socialism and whether he’s been tough enough on Iran. Sean Hannity led off his show with another debate on whether Bill Maher is a bad guy.

t wasn’t just Fox. On MSNBC, Ed Schultz devoted half his program to the killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.

The next morning, the campaign wasn’t among the top three stories billboarded by the Today show, which included: “What is it about this two-year-old that has more than three million people logging on to YouTube to watch her?”

Nor did the 2012 election make the top three at Good Morning America, which trumpeted this story: “Bikini model busted. The international swimsuit star back behind bars right now.”

Let's just say it out loud—Mitt's the nominee.

In that spirit, what follows is the first of what I hope will be a series of reviews of the state of play in an Obama-Romney general election, by looking at the polling in each of the 51 contests that will determine who will be the president of the United States. It is a much more beneficial exercise to look at state polling, rather than looking at national polling of the race. Even if national polling hadn't been all over the map (and, dear lord, it has been), everyone who reads this site already knows that we elect our presidents through the electoral college.

Here are the parameters for this state-by-state study of the presidential polling:

1. In states where more than five polls have been conducted, the five most recent polls were utilized, and averaged together.

2. When fewer than five polls were available, the existing polls were averaged together. When no polls were available, the 2008 result was utilized. This only occurred, however, in about a dozen states, all of which leans precipitously to one side or another.

3. Polls for campaigns (or otherwise sponsored by PACs, etc) were left out. One exception—a poll conducted for Democratic Senate candidate Joe Donnelly in Indiana was included, because (a) it was the only poll out of Indiana to date, and (b) it was more favorable to the GOP than the alternative, which was to use the 2008 results. Partisan firms were not unilaterally excluded, by the way, which means that both PPP and Rasmussen's polls were employed.

4. Polls were collected primarily via the Daily Kos Weekend Digest, and other outlets where available.

Now that we've dispensed with the "rules of the game", head beyond the jump for the current state of play. Here's a teaser—by one metric (which would, admittedly, require a substantial swing in Mitt Romney's direction), there is a scenario for a 269-269 tie.

Let's take the mystery out of it right at the outset—if the election were held today, Barack Obama would, in all probability, be re-elected rather easily over Mitt Romney. The polling average in each state, with no adjustments, would give Barack Obama 347 electoral votes, versus 191 electoral votes for Mitt Romney.

With current polling, Barack Obama's 2008 coalition remains dramatically intact. He would lose Indiana, where the sole poll in the race (the aforementioned Donnelly poll) had Mitt Romney up by four points. I'm also ceding the sole Nebraska electoral vote to Romney, though that's far from a lock. The average of the two polls there (one by PPP in October, and a more recent one by the House of Ras) is a Romney lead of 15 points. But John McCain won here in 14.9%, and Obama narrowly claimed the 2nd district.

Aside from that, Barack Obama holds every other state he claimed in 2008. Some of the margins are pretty tight, however, suggesting that Mitt Romney could conceivably chip away at the Obama majority. Indeed, there are a half dozen states where the polling average yields the president a lead of less than five points:

Narrowest Obama leads over Romney, on basis of five-poll average

1. North Carolina: Obama +0.8
2. Florida: Obama +1.4
3. Nevada: Obama +2.0
4. Iowa: Obama +2.2
5. Ohio: Obama +3.2
6. New Hampshire: Obama +3.8

For those who have an intimate knowledge of the electoral college, and a decent grasp of arithmetic, you already see the "holy crap" conclusion here. Those six states tally a total of ... wait for it ... 78 electoral votes. If you add 78 to 191, you get 269. As in a deadlocked electoral college.

Obama fans will note that, for Romney to forge a tie, he is going to need to swing the electorate about four percent in his direction. A four-point swing in the other direction, incidentally, would give Barack Obama a total of 32 electoral votes (Arizona, Missouri, and Indiana).

This polling average analysis underscores a key Democratic advantage that often goes underreported: the enormous disparity in the size of each party's "base" in the electoral college.

If you look solely at states where the "average lead" is 10 points or more, Barack Obama tallies a total of 201 electoral votes. In other words, seven months prior to Election Day, Barack Obama has essentially locked down 74 percent of the electoral votes he needs to secure re-election.

Mitt Romney? 71 electoral votes.

Part of that huge gulf is owed to the fact that some larger traditionally GOP states fall outside of that double-digit parameter, even as we are reasonably confident that Romney will still win them. Incidentally, (and perhaps unsurprisingly, given the primaries) all of those states are Southern: Texas (currently Romney +8), Georgia (Romney +7.8), and South Carolina (Romney +6.8). The largest state that Romney presently has on lockdown is Alabama (9 electoral votes).

President Obama, to say the least, is in a pretty enviable position right now. If you would have bet that, based on polling averages at any point in the campaign, Obama would have a bigger lead in Virginia than Mitt Romney has in freaking Tennessee, you would've had some takers.

All that said, of course, the standard caveats apply. It is only the first quarter, so to speak, and the polling average does make clear that it will not take a dramatic shift for Mitt Romney to claw his way back to parity. What this analysis does tell us right now, however, is that in spite of all the wildly swinging national polls, we can be reasonably confident that Barack Obama is out in front, and probably by a margin in the neighborhood of five percent overall.

I will keep cataloguing polls, and updating this average. Chances are, you'll be reading an update of this polling average study here on Sunday Kos several weeks down the line.

(For the election junkies in the house, what follows is the actual current averages, placed in six categories: Obama +10, Obama 5-10, Obama 0-5, Romney 0-5, Romney 5-10, Romney 10+)

Obama lead of 10+ points (201 electoral votes): Washington DC (+86); Rhode Island (+27.8); Hawaii (+27); Maryland (+25.4); Delaware (+25); Vermont (+25); New York (+21.8); Massachusetts (+19.8); California (+19.2); New Mexico (+14.3); Illinois (+14); New Jersey (+12.4); Oregon (+11.3); Connecticut (+11); Minnesota (+11); Maine (+10.8); Washington (+10.8)

Obama lead of 5-10 points (68 electoral votes): Wisconsin (+9.2); Michigan (+9); Virginia (+7.6); Pennsylvania (+6.6); Colorado (+5)

Obama lead of less than 5 points (78 electoral votes): New Hampshire (+3.8); Ohio (+3.2); Iowa (+2.2); Nevada (+2.0); Florida (+1.4); North Carolina (+0.8)

Romney lead of less than 5 points (32 electoral votes): Arizona (+2.6); Missouri (+3.6); Indiana (+4.0)

Romney lead of 5-10 points (88 electoral votes): Tennessee (+5.2); South Carolina (+6.8); Georgia (+7.8); Kentucky (+8.0); Texas (+8.0); Montana (+8.3); North Dakota (+8.7)

Romney lead of 10+ points (71 electoral votes): South Dakota (+11.0); Mississippi (+12.0); Arkansas (+13.2); West Virginia (+13.3); Nebraska (+15.0); Louisiana (+16.0); Kansas (+17.0); Alaska (+21.5); Alabama (+22.0); Idaho (+25.3); Oklahoma (+31.3); Utah (+32.0); Wyoming (+32.3)

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I have this weird thought that Obama will swap (56+ / 0-)

    MO for Indiana and other than that the map will be the same as 2008. I just have this weird hunch (yes it's nothing more than that so feel free to call it poo!)

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

    by dopper0189 on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:06:09 PM PDT

    •  romney has to win (27+ / 0-)

      every state that has less than a five point margin. not. going. to. happen.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:10:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not so weird -- MO has long been closer (18+ / 0-)

      to tipping blue than IN was.  It was razor thin in 2008 -- 49.4% McCain to 49.3% Obama.  Anti-Mormon sentiment could easily flip that.

      •  I switched MO and IND.... (0+ / 0-) my 2008 prediction in the Kos electoral college contest.

        I came in 25th and recall that I was off by one (forgot to go with 1 for Obama in Nebraska). Don't see how that matches the differing numbers for MO and NE though, but have no idea how to find the original contest results!

      •  There have been two polls (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marie, Sylv

        in Missouri since the start of the year:

        One in January had it 45-45.  The other this month had Obama trailing 41-50.  In both he is well below 50.

        He is not going to win it unless the recovery continues, though he has a better shot there than in Indiana.

        The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

        by fladem on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 06:38:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In 2008, IN (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marie, LouisMartin

        After the polls closed in IN in 2008, a Chicago radio reporter asked one of the Obama staff about the chances in IN.

        "We never expected to win that state," the guy said. "We just campaigned in Indiana to make McCain spend money there."

        Well, McCain didn't, and he lost. The Romney camp won't make that mistake.

        Even so, the Raz "swing states" list includes three states that haven't ever gone Republican in the last 5 elections, and not IN. (PA, WI snd MN) That's a damned biased definition of "swing."

        Cuddling other people's babies for fifty years.

        by Frank Palmer on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 10:36:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I can see the swap being Indiana for Arizona. (7+ / 0-)

      Interestingly, both now at 11 electoral votes.

    •  I think they'll come or go as a pair (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, camlbacker, vcmvo2

      in other words... I doubt Obama wins either but if he wins one he likely wins the other too as he moves forward into a sweeping victory over Rmoney.

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:41:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think you might be right! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I hope so!

      In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

      by vcmvo2 on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:50:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  AZ for Indiana more likely (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kat68, stevenaxelrod

      MO seems like a stretch, AZ could be in reach with demographic changes.  NV seems like the most solid of the six shaky states.

      The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

      by Mimikatz on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 09:09:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are all looking at numbers as things stand (7+ / 0-)

      now, BUT...

      What happens if the Supremes defeat the Health Care Law?

      What happens if fuel prices keep rising? and...

      this causes food prices to rise? and...

      the economy to stall?

      What happens if Israel attacks Iran?

      I think it's "fun" to play the "what if" game, but when reality checks in, all bets are off.

      Of course, should fuel prices decline and the jobs numbers keep improving (from my keyboard to G.d's ears) then, lets keep counting the votes!

      PS: Romney is not that bad a debater while Obama sometimes has a tendency to er and ah a bit too much. He gives a great speech, but when speaking extemporaneously, he loses the smoothness of his speech pattern.

      Progressives will win when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

      by auapplemac on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 12:05:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Believe it or not, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mamamedusa, IM, Sylv

        I think most people, including the diarist, are aware that this is all just idle speculation at this point.

        •  The diarist perhaps (0+ / 0-)

          Many others see a foregone conclusion. Caution is needed

          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

          by slothlax on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 05:21:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree, with one caveat (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Romney needs to survive as a credible candidate until the debates.  To do this, he needs to somehow survive the shelling he's going to get from the Obama machine in August and September over flip-flopping and Etch-a-Sketch.  The single most important thing in presidential elections is TRUST.  And, that is where Romney is most vulnerable to attacks.  Now, that hasn't seemed to make a difference so far, but Obama will pull no punches.

            If Romney is still within 5 points going into the debates, then he can really score against Obama.  He has proven through an untold number of debates to be a good debater.  Unlike McCain or GWB, he is quick witted and has a plan in debates.  Obama has charisma, but it's as an orator, not as a conversationalist.  Reagan and Clinton, they had a great conversational style, and great senses of timing and humor.  Obama comes across as a little stiff in his non-scripted communications, and he seems to me to take himself a little too seriously.  His sense of humor is also awkward and sometimes seems forced.

            That said, Romney can't seem to tell a joke without offending somebody ("garbage bag ponchos", "$10,000 bets", "two Cadillacs", etc.) so it ought to be a hell of a debate.

      •  What happens if an asteroid hits the Earth? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        senex, scotths

        I don't really see the value in getting bent out of shape about dramatic long-odds game-changers like the ones you mentioned. Stuff like that can always happen. You can't really meaningfully account for it in this kind of analysis.

        I just fundamentally can't see a path to victory for Romney that doesn't require some kind of apocalyptically unlikely crisis that reflects badly on Obama. He has most of McCain's negatives and none of his positives--he doesn't have the "war hero" nonsense going for him, nor does he have the (long-undeserved) reputation for being a moderate who bucks his party by standing on principle--Romney's reputation is of someone who has no principles. His base hates him even more than they hated McCain. He oozes insincerity, conspicuous wealth and unearned privilege in a way that even non-political people pick up on with brief exposure. He can't even win over the kind of personality-driven low-info voters who went for Bush because they could relate to his folksy persona. His campaign operation is incompetent, lacks a coherent ground game and is almost entirely dependent on throwing gobs of money at TV advertising. In order to have a prayer of getting movement conservatives to come out for him, he has to nominate someone with impeccable conservative credentials as veep, and that will hurt him in the general. Women, minorities and independents are fleeing the GOP in droves. I would bet any amount of money that he will underperform McCain, and badly--when he needs to do exactly the opposite.

        He is possibly the single worst serious candidate for the presidency that I've ever seen, and this is so in ways that aren't immediately obvious from the numbers. I'm not saying we shouldn't work and fight as if the election was razor-close. I'm saying we shouldn't fret about it.

        Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.

        by Catsy on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 09:37:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with most of your comments, except: (0+ / 0-)

          McGovern, Dole, Dukakis, McCain, Mondale.  All MUCH worse candidates than Romney.

          Romney will not underperform McCain for the following simple reasons:

          1.  The GOP-led economy is not tumbling toward depression.
          2.  Unlike McCain, Romney's speeches are not cringe-inducing.
          3.  Romney is not running against the 2008 version of Obama.  Obama may be re-elected, but he's been badly damaged by the last three years.  His shine is off.  Most of those right-leaning independents and moderates that crossed over in 2008 will not be fooled again.
          4.  The youth and black vote will not turnout in the same numbers as 2008.  That was a record year, when themes of hope and change electrified the air.  Now, a black president is been there, done that,...and the kids won't be so worked up.  

          •  You will forgive me if I don't take you seriously. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            1. This makes no sense. The economy is improving, and this is somehow bad for Obama or good for Romney? With his proven propensity for appallingly tone-deaf comments about joblessness?
            2. Jaw, floor. Romney's speeches aren't cringe-inducing? Good grief, what campaign are you watching? Romney is a gaffe machine who radiates insincerity every time he speaks in public.
            3. And this is where your mask comes off: "right-leaning independents and moderates ... will not be fooled [into voting for Obama] again?" The fact that you characterize their 2008 votes for Obama as being "fooled" tells me all I need to know about your slant on things.
            4. Perhaps, perhaps not. I think you underestimate how increasingly toxic the GOP has become to women and minorities.

            I do note that you didn't even begin to address a single one of Romney's weaknesses that I called out.

            I encourage anyone tempted to give rmp690's analysis on this subject any credibility to browse through his comment history. Anyone who thinks independents and moderates who voted for Obama in 2008 were "fooled" and who at this point actually thinks that "it's probably better that the GOP wins once in a while" is not to be taken seriously.

            Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.

            by Catsy on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 02:52:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The diarist added the "what if" caveat already. (0+ / 0-)
  •  269-269! (8+ / 0-)

    My oh my. This is great information actually. Thank you.

    My forthcoming book Obama's America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity will be published in Summer 2012 by Potomac Books.

    by Ian Reifowitz on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:07:21 PM PDT

    •  That wouldn't bode well for Obama. n/t (5+ / 0-)
      •  A tie is a loss. n/t (5+ / 0-)

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:26:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Right, GOP wins hands down in the House (6+ / 0-)

        b/c under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, if no candidate wins an electoral college majority, the election is decided in the House with each state's delegation getting one vote.  The GOP has the majority of representatives in over 30 state delegations now and did even when the Dems were in the majority in '08-'09, so even if the Dems gained a significant number of seats in the '12 elections, the GOP would still win a presidential vote in the House.

        In the event of a 269-269 tie, the only realistic chance that Obama would have of prevailing is trying to flip one or more of Romney's electors at the time the Electoral College vote is taken.  Not likely, but far more likely than winning a vote in the House.

        The vice-presidential tiebreaker in the event of an Electoral College tie is a vote in the Senate in which each senator gets one vote, meaning that if the Dems retain control of the Senate, a 269-269 Electoral College tie would probably lead to Romney as president with Biden as vice president.

        Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

        by MJB on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:44:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  269-269 would be impossible with National Pop Vote (0+ / 0-)

      The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

      Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored.

      When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

      The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

      In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

      The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

      Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

  •  What's with the color swap? (24+ / 0-)

    The Republican party should always be red, because of the association with Confederate flag.

  •  I love the horse race. (8+ / 0-)

    I love Etch-a-Sketch also.

    Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

    by HappyinNM on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:12:31 PM PDT

  •  The Rominee™ (14+ / 0-)

    #occupywallstreet: Although I know the rhythm you'd prefer me dancing to, I'll turn my revolt into style.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:13:24 PM PDT

  •  I'm calling it right now: O 332 R 204 (6+ / 0-)

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:14:20 PM PDT

  •  Without FL and OH, rMoney can't win. (15+ / 0-)

    And even if he gets them, he can still lose.  That creates problems when his campaign has to decide how to allocate resources.

    I'd really like to see the DNC/Obama campaign try to put one of either Texas or Georgia into play.  Georgia looks easier.  Of course, if the Republicans ever lost Texas, they'd be hosed from an Electoral College perspective.

    "The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends." -Julian Assange

    by Pierro Sraffa on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:15:56 PM PDT

  •  unless there is a major change, no path for romney (8+ / 0-)

    For a victory, there needs to be multiple paths. If the Romney campaign sees only one path for it and multiple paths for victory for the President's campaign - the race is for all practical purposes OVER!!!

  •   (7+ / 0-)

    Who, in the United States, and involved in any way with politics, would create a map using colors directly opposite of the norm? Looking at it causes and instant case of cognitive dissonance.

  •  I can't believe Dog On Car is STILL in the lead (9+ / 0-)

    I thought for sure that the Dog On Car candidate would quickly fade away like Rudy "Sex On The City" Giuliani did 4 years ago.  I can't believe that after 4 years of hating Obama, GOP voters could end up nominating a Massachusetts flip-flopper who was for Obamacare before he was against it.

    If Etch-A-Sketch really is the nominee, this is a wet dream for the Constitution Party or any other right-wing third party candidate.  Etch-A-Sketch is so unappealing that he'll have the Rethugs asking what's the matter with Kansas.  My prediction: Dog On Car wins Utah and Idaho.  And that's it.

    You might be a Rethug if you join forces with the tobacco lobbyists but condemn abortion, birth control, and gay marriage as crimes against humanity.

    by jhsu on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:21:37 PM PDT

    •  lol... that would mess up (6+ / 0-)

      Some mighty fine election night drinking games, but yeah, that would be awesome.

    •  Rmoney's still in the lead... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wonderful world, Byblis, Dunkerque, Sylv

      because he's all the got. No one I know can tell me anything about Santorum besides his social nuttery, and in an election about the economy, that's a bad sign. Even I don't know what Santorum wants to do economically, and I've actively tried to find out!

      and Gingrich... as much as I'd like a moonbase, he's still Newt.

      That just leaves Ron Paul. He wants the uninsured to accept responsibility for their inability to afford coverage and have the decency to die quietly, and gets applauded for it. He wants to avoid war with Iran and gets booed for it.

      So Romney it is, Big Money's candidate. With all his business experience practicing the very worst kinds of free enterprise and complete inability to comprehend or connect with the average American. The GOP will be hedging bets, lowering expectations, and focusing on congress and local races before October.

      "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." - Henry Ford

      by sixeight120bpm on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:33:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let us not be smug. Pride goeth before the fall. (17+ / 0-)

    March 25th is not Election Day. Polls can be are often wrong.

    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

    by TRPChicago on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:23:04 PM PDT

  •  "Yes, the colors are reversed." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Who in the United States, and involved in any way with politics, would create a map using colors directly opposite of the norm? Looking at it causes and instant case of cognitive dissonance.

  •  This is somewhat superficial, (10+ / 0-)

    but I find it interesting that Obama leads his home state (HI) and his adopted state (IL) by large margins, but Rmoney loses his home state (MI) by 9 points and his adopted state (MA) by a large margin.

    That's unprecedented, isn't it?

    -8.38, -7.74 My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. - Jack Layton

    by Wreck Smurfy on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:29:35 PM PDT

  • (4+ / 0-)

    I prefer this map-making site. It is easy to click on any state to change possible results from 2008 (the default position).

    What I want to see on this map is for Missouri and Montana to go blue, so that it would look like half the country supported the Democrats.

    As it is, our turf includes quite a few very small states -- Rhode Island, D.C., Delaware, and Vermont for heaven's sake. Meanwhile the Repubs have more than their fair share of the big empty states -- Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, the Dakotas, and Alaska. So looking at their turf, the Repubs look like the winners.

    •  I can live with them owning the big empty states-- (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, majcmb1, mamamedusa

      just as they own most of the big empty spaces between cities in most of the blue states (I mean the formerly-red Dem states...)   As long as we have the peeps.

      Certainly I do hope we get MO this year, that's where I live.  It's not especially empty though, on the order of WY, UT or the Dakotas.  

  •  I think a deadlocked convention (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anton Bursch, majcmb1, pademocrat, scotths a distinct possibility.

    A brokered convention, not a realistic possibility anyway, bepends on having something to broker.

    The Tea Party has abandoned politics as the art of the possible. They are all about all or nothing. in the event of Mitt falling short of a majority I think that a sizeable number I'd Sabtorum delegates might refuse to vote for him even if released by Santorum.

    We are the principled ones, remember? We don't get to use the black hats' tricks even when it would benefit us. Political Compass: -6.88, -6.41

    by bmcphail on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:32:37 PM PDT

    •  Under that scenario (0+ / 0-)

      Mitts only hope would be enough uncommitree delagates who haven't abandoned politics.

      We are the principled ones, remember? We don't get to use the black hats' tricks even when it would benefit us. Political Compass: -6.88, -6.41

      by bmcphail on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:33:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly... even if he falls short in delegates (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        majcmb1, vcmvo2, KJG52, bmcphail

        he'll pull off enough of the others to win.

        What I would hope for out of that scenario though is the fall out of what you describe. Mitt goes ahead and wins but the Tea Party absolutists freak out completely and make an unholy mess out of things causing the media narrative to be all about that instead of all about what a great ol' electable guy the Mittster is!

        That I think is a real possibility.

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:35:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry for the dreadful autocomplete errors (0+ / 0-)

      in my post....using a phone.

      We are the principled ones, remember? We don't get to use the black hats' tricks even when it would benefit us. Political Compass: -6.88, -6.41

      by bmcphail on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 12:02:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  this analysis, while thought provoking and well (12+ / 0-)

    done is rather moot, in my opinion.

    If any of you think that what the Walker/Kochs and other groups have done in the recent months in terms of advertising and air time is considered "blanketing the airwaves", then you're in for a rude awakening.

    As soon as Romney's nomination is official, tens of millions of dollars of both corporate and private money will pour in. He will give mass advertising a whole new meaning. Such a heavy media presence is guaranteed so shift the race far away from the polling that we see now. (Not necessarily to his favor mind you, but it will shift one way or another.)

    A shudder runs down my spine as I think how Obama is going to have to defend against 4 months of rising gasoline prices (4.60$ in over here in Chicago), and a withering, channel-to-channel advertising onslaught from Romney.

    Socialist Fuckstick No. 308273

    by culturejammer on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:32:49 PM PDT

    •  O campaign has $87 million cash on hand, right now (12+ / 0-)

      and they'll raise that much again in the next two months.  As soon as Rmoney and his groups start the air war, O will answer pretty much dollar for dollar.  If he even waits for R to start.  

      The question for me, actually, is how much of the vaunted PAC money will actually materialize for Mitt, if he continues to appear such a dubious proposition.  Surely a bunch of it will eventually peel off and head to the congressional races.

      •  Yeah.... (4+ / 0-)

        ... by and large, people don't get rich by backing losers, so I'm inclined to think there's going to be less money behind Romney than we would expect.  But time will tell; it only takes one deranged billionaire to tip the balance considerably.

      •  The big R money want O out. Bottom line! (0+ / 0-)

        They'll spend as much as possible. And support whoever has the R after his name. A few of them can donate 100 million dollars at a time to PAC's they control.

        They can say anything they want to about Obama and as often as they want. The networks are gonna reap a bundle.

        For us GOTV more important than ever as are donations - big and small to Obama or his PACs (well, of course they are not his -tee hee) .

        Progressives will win when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

        by auapplemac on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 12:32:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Uh - you're forgetting that because of Citizens... (0+ / 0-)

        ...United, that at ANY point in the election, literally HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS could be poured into Romney's campaign from corporations and Wall Street.

        Make no mistake - Obama is the underdog in this race when it comes to money - when he wins - which I'm convinced he will, barring all caveat events - I guarantee that Romney's campaign will have outspent the President of the United States.

        •  no one's forgetting Citizens. I think it's safe (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          to assume that Mitt ends up with somewhere between 500 and 800 mill, UNLESS some of those big donors start bailing on him as a lost cause.  But let's say 5 to 8, of which 100 mill will already have been spent on the primary.  

          Obama will certainly top 500 million -- in terms of small donors alone, that's $250 avg total from 2 million donors, and we know he'll get big $$ too.   Some months ago his people were cautioning against the idea that he would have a "billion" to spend, but 500 mill is entirely realistic.

          So if Mitt ends up outspending him at all, it will be a ratio of maybe 1.5:1 -- nothing at all like the 5:1 or 10:1 that Mitt has needed to put away his lame-ass and crazy primary opponents.  

          Of course GOTV is vital, and giving is vital.  But Mitt is not going to win this through some kind of massive air superiority.  That's not even getting into the question of who is more vulnerable to damage from ads at this point...

    •  Remember that Romney's big donors are at the limit (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, TofG

      while Obama has plenty of deep pockets still to plumb. Not to mention all the 'little guys' who will give $25 or $50 or $100 more than once. Romney doesn't seem to have many of those, at least not at the moment.

      Whether they will begin to donate to him -- with that 'I'm So Rich, So Very, Very Rich' persona -- is still to be seen.

      A weapon that is also a treasure is certain to be used.

      by wonderful world on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:51:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think the Republican base is going to be (6+ / 0-)

        all that eager to donate their time or money to someone they don't like or trust to actually share their beliefs. Between that, Romney's personal wealth and the out-of-touch One-Percenter attitude he has, the Republican's normally-reliable GOTV machine may be grinding some gears this year.

        Can I have my vision back? I will live outside your city walls. - "Ride With Me" Steppenwolf

        by 135790 on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 09:00:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's what Super PACs are good for (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auapplemac, wonderful world, bryduck

        If you're giving in secret, how can they limit what you give?

        Short answer: you can't.  Romney's key donors will not max out.  We won't even be entirely sure how much they give.

        The bigger question is whether the amount of money the SuperPACs will spend will actually help them.  Remember that in order to win as much as he did, he (I include his PACs -- anybody who believes they are "uncoordinated" is a total fool: nobody spends that kind of money without strings, and you don't get strings if the nominee doesn't know who's he's in debt to.  A hell of sort of bribe otherwise) needed to spend 7x what his opponent spent, since the negative ads weren't that useful after a certain point.

        I don't doubt that Romney and his backers won't outspend Obama 2012.  It just isn't clear if they will be able to outspend Obama 2012 enough to deal with the limitations of negative advertising combined with a really unappealing candidate.

        Mitt Romney is a T-1000 sent back from the Future to warn about the upcoming Robot Apocolypse.

        by mbayrob on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 11:15:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here's how I see it (12+ / 0-)

    Based on election data going back to 1992, Obama has 227 electoral votes locked up tight (CA, WA, OR, HI, NM, ME, MN, IL, WI, MI, VT, RI, CT, MA, NY, NJ, DE, MD and DC), and 35 more should go his way unless there's a landslide (PA, IA, CO).  

    Romney starts out with 113 votes already in the bag (AK, ID, UT, WY, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, LA, AR, MS, AL, SC) and another 24 that should go his way unless the roof completely falls in on him (ND, KY, TN, IN, WV).

    That leaves MO, NH, MT, VA, NC, FL, OH, NV and AZ still unspoken for--and Romney has to win them all to get to 270.  We all know that realistically, that ain't happening.

  •  Romney would have to run a perfect campaign (14+ / 0-)

    and/or the economy's going to have to take a dive for him to win. It could happen, but it's a long shot. The Obama campaign has barely gotten underway and has yet to run targeted ads harvested from the primaries and Romney's decades of political flip-flops and corporate raiding. These will turn off a lot of swing and GOP voters. The Dem base will be motivated. The recent tragedy in Florida isn't going to help Romney. Wisconsin and Ohio are likely to go Dem given huge dissatisfaction with their GOP governors and legislatures.

    Romney simply doesn't have what it takes to beat Obama, in terms of political skills and charisma. He's run a terrible primary campaign and I don't expect the general election campaign to be much better. Sure, there will be tons of anti-Obama smear ads by SuperPACs, but I'm not convinced that they'll be decisive, and there will also be blowback. They will, of course, be disgusting. But in the end I don't see how Obama loses. Not to this third rate Reagan wannabe.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:34:15 PM PDT

  •  Yup I tagged the potential tie map (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    awhile back as well as the current likelihood of a 347-191 outcome. But I suspect things will change between now and election day. Personally I think they will change in Obama's favor and that we'll win a state or two not expected (North Dakota? Montana? Arizona?) but won't be at all surprised if Republicans rally around the dollar... uh... I mean... flag... and Rmoney makes it closer then he deserves. Perhaps he closes in Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa or Ohio.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:40:04 PM PDT

  •  Ohio will go blue, Virginia maybe red (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, majcmb1, Dunkerque, PorridgeGun

    Ohio's been unhappy with the results of the last election and Kasich has completely pissed off the "swing" unions of public safety workers that tend to play a subtle role in switching Ohio back and forth. I don't think Ohio's going to be that close, voter suppression or not.

    Virginia, on the other hand, has not completed its trending demographic shift and Romney is their kind of Republican.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:40:40 PM PDT

  •  Real Clear Politics... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, majcmb1, Byblis, pademocrat, PorridgeGun, Sylv

    ...with thier average of polls has Obama up by 3.8 in Ohio, up by 3 in North Carolina, and up by .4 in Florida (the most recent polls in Florida have Obama up by an average of 4)

    Not sure of Kurtz's Math, but by his own numbers I get 347 for Obama.

  •  Can you please use conventions for red and blue? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, Americantrueandblue

    This swapping of the colors is confusing. There's been a convention established about who is red and who is blue, let us stick with it for clarity.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:41:56 PM PDT

  •  So there are 78 electoral votes in (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, pademocrat

    states where Obama has a lead of under 5 points, as of March.

    In October how many states will be so tenuous, with how many votes?

    (The answer is almost certainly: a LOT more.)

    •  Not so certain (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scarce, TofG

      I only see a couple states in his 5+ group that might lower and I can see more states in the 0-5 range that could solidify.

      Long time between now and then and you never know what sort of late surprises might shift the map but right now only Virginia, Pennsylvania and Colorado strike me as possible state to under 5 points but I only expect it of Virginia. While I can easily see all but North Carolina moving north of 5 points in Obama's favor.

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:01:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama will win NoVa handily (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Andrew C White, vcmvo2, pademocrat, kat68, TofG

        The only question is whether the Gooberland parts of the state will outweigh it.

        If it's
        Not your body,
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        And it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:24:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Other parts too. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, kat68, TofG, virginislandsguy

          The other big cities will go for Obama as well...  Roanoke, Charlottesville, Richmond, Fredericksburg, Danville, Newport News  (besides VA Beach most likely), and also the rural eastern areas, which have a large black population.  I'm also wondering how well Romney will do in the southwest panhandle.  Some of those counties went democratic as recently as 2004.  Conservadems there, but anti-Mormon as well.  Should be very interesting.

        •  He will win (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kat68, TofG

          Fairfax, Prince William, Richmond, and Charlottesville. (some counties and cities).

          Progressive Indian-American Law Student From NJ-6 (Home). DE-AL (school)

          by lawstudent1 on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 10:09:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not thinking of state-specific dynamics (0+ / 0-)

        I'm thinking of national dynamics that will tend to affect all the states.

        By October the internal fighting among the Republicans is over, with party and factional leaders all lined up behind Romney, who is focused on contrasting himself and his policies with Obama.  Gas prices, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Europe - plenty of opportunity for bad news.

        That rising tide will left, or depress, all states.

  •  Romney can't win Ohio (7+ / 0-)

    Unless something happens that makes the entire map shift, Romney is not winning Ohio.

    The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. --George Orwell

    by jgkojak on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:47:45 PM PDT

  •  Texas (17+ / 0-)

    I submit that Texas is a very idiosyncratic state this cycle, that has the potential to be a bombshell. TX is a pure demographics play, and as such it's outcome will depend not on swinging the independent middle, but solely on who gets more people out to vote.

    Currently white, non-hispanic is ~47% of TX population; this demographics voted for McCain/Palin in '08 by 73%-27%
    African Americans are 12.6% of population, and they voted for Obama 98-2%
    Asians are 3.7%; I don't have data for how they voted in 08' in TX, but nation-wide they voted 68% for Obama.
    Hispanics/Latino are 37.6% of Texas population (2010 census). They voted Obama 64-26 in '08.

    How did McCain/Palin win Texas by 11%? Easy answer: Latinos didn't come out to vote. 2008 demographics of the vote was White:63%, Latino:20% African-American:12%

    Let's contemplate the '12 election, and consider the following factoids:

    1. GOP's bashing of Hispanics has pushed them towards 80-20% Obama in recent polls.
    2. The white base in Texas is traditional Southern/evangelical.
    3. Mitt Romney is extremely unpopular with the base there: a Mormon, too liberal, too mean to Rick Perry, etc... In some of the earlier primary polls he was dead last.
    4. In contrast, Sarah Palin absolutely galvanized the Texas base in '08.

    Given the above, any opinion poll coming from Texas is meaningless as a predictor of the election. The opinions are set in stone, all that matters is the voter turnout model a pollster uses. Assume the '08 voter demographics and Obama will never stand a chance. But is that a correct assumption?

    Given the complete lack of enthusiasm for Romney, potentially leading to weak GOTV effort on their part, given the relative rise in numbers for Latino and African American since 2008, given the radicalization of the Hispanic voter away from GOP, is it at all inconceivable that Texas is in play?

    Now, an important question: does this at all matter, there is no plausible scenario where the election hinges on Texas? If Obama is competitive in Texas, then the election is all but determined, right?

    I'd say that this is not necessarily the case. Romney's best chance this year is if the economy worsens in the coming months and/or gas prices go through the roof. This would swing the economically sensitive independent voter away from the incumbent.

    The key with Texas, though is that this is not an economically-sensitive state. There is no large independent voter base in Texas, it is in fact a demographically polarized state. You can even make the case that rising gas prices will be good for the Texas economy, given its booming oil industry.

    Obama will be wise to invest in Texas, specifically in getting the vote out, and most specifically getting the latino vote out. This may very well turn out to be a huge November bombshell.

    •  I think Texas is still a few years away (10+ / 0-)

      from being truly competitive. The demographics you cite are very important and a real reason why Texas is in fact trending back our way.

      However, one of the problems is voter registration. It is my understanding that voter registration amongst hispanics in Texas is much lower than actual population. Hence even lower still numbers in the actual vote. So even if you see an increase in voting amongst hispanics it still won't reach the 37% of the population that it ought.

      While I would love to see Obama push the outside of the envelope and go after Texas I would much rather see that money spent in other states that are most likely better targets and that also have competitive US Senate contests. States such as Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, Florida and perhaps even Nebraska.

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:14:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True, but (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Andrew C White, offgrid, Odysseus, TofG

        ... consider the "blessing" of having a Mormon from Massachusetts being the nominee. I see your point of Hispanics being underrepresented relative to the Census numbers, but if voter turnout matched the Census then Obama would win in a landslide: white-nonhispanic is a minority and their GOP bend (~73%) is weaker than other demographics' Obama bend (98% in AA, potentially 80% in Latino).

        Even a slight increase in Latino  vote plus a few %age points of the Palin vote staying home and you have tossup.

        •  Don't overlook the fact that the white population (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is predominately R bible belt conservatives and they would vote for the devil himself in order to get rid of Obama.

          How many hispanics in the state are citizens and are eligible to register?

          Progressives will win when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

          by auapplemac on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 12:48:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  73% of White Texans voted for McCain (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Hardly fertile territory at the moment.

      Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

      by Scarce on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:33:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Correct (5+ / 0-)

        but White Texans are non-majority now (47%) and every other group is pro-Obama by more than 73%.

        Put it differently, if every Texans was to vote (as is required in some countries, like Australia), Obama would win the state easily, and this would be independent of economy or independent voter sentiment.

        The big question is not whether Obama can shift anyone's opinion in TX, but can he get more of his people out to vote, than what the hugely unpopular Romney will do with his own base...

        •  Don't kid yourself (0+ / 0-)

          McCain got almost a million more votes in Texas than Obama. That's still a big hill to climb. Even with much higher turnout rates of registered voters in 2008 than 2004 or 2000 the Democrats are still well behind in Texas.

          Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

          by Scarce on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 05:21:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Texas is majority minority. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2010     45.3%

        -7.75 -4.67

        "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

        There are no Christians in foxholes.

        by Odysseus on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 11:39:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think if Obama needs Texas to win he's toast... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      auapplemac, Sylv

      Texas is still a long shot even if you put everything in his favor.  

      •  Disagree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I think "long shot" is pessimistic when you're looking at a state in which 50% of the population is in subgroups that vote overwhelmingly Democratic (37.6 Hispanic, 11.8% Black).  I think a better term for the state is "challenging", because you have all these voters that would likely support you but haven't traditionally voted.  

        However, If anyone can get Texas Blacks and Latinos out to vote it would be Obama.  It's just a matter of if that's a cost effective strategy to pursue.

    •  If nothing else... (8+ / 0-)

      If nothing else, get Obama to go to Texas a lot, get the Dem SuperPACs to run a lot of ads there.  Get the Republicans to really squirm in their seats while at the same time drumming up our base.  We may not win it, but we can make it closer... We can make it easier for next time... We can really scare the crap out of the other side.

      •  Bingo, use 2012 as a springboard. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kat68, stevenaxelrod, TofG, Sylv

        Use this election to build up the Dem infrastructure in the almost/soon-to-be battleground states like Texas, get people registered to vote, make the Republicans fight on "their" turf. Even if we can't flip states like Texas this year, a solid ground game might make them competitive in the 2014 mid-terms or 2016. The Democratic Party needs to plan for the long game even as they work to win in 2012.

        Can I have my vision back? I will live outside your city walls. - "Ride With Me" Steppenwolf

        by 135790 on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 09:10:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I like your optimism (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevenaxelrod, TofG

      Texas is closer than people give it credit for.  You have to keep in mind that for years there has been little effort put into getting the vote out there because the state is firmly red.  But it seems that sooner rather than later it will become the next Indiana - a state that turns blue out of nowhere because a campaign actually put effort into winning it and rejuvenated a dormant Democratic base.

      I have no doubt that if Obama's campaign put resources into getting out the Latino vote in Texas, he would immediately gain 5 points and make the state very close.

      The problem, of course, is that Texas is huge both in population and area, so getting out all the votes there would be expensive and logistically difficult.  It will be interesting to see if Obama attempts to make a play there, but what I can say is that within the next 3 cycles the demographic trends will be too good for Democrats to ignore in the Lone Star State.

    •  I wouldn't worry about gas prices (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      they are cyclical based on the time of year.  They are rising because it is becoming summer time and people are driving more.  They will continue to rise until about September when they will start falling due to lessening demand and keep falling through October and election day.  

      Russ Feingold supports Obama in '12 and so do I.

      by darboy on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 03:55:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So all the states Obama leads from 5 on up (9+ / 0-)

    equal 269.

    All he needs is one state, any state, from his 0-5 range, and he wins. So add New Hampshire to his 5+ states and he is at 273.

    Rmoney on the other hand must win

    1. all of his 10+ states
    2. all of his 5+ states
    3. all of his 0-5+ states


    4. all of Obama's 0-5 states


    5. one of Obama's 5+ states... say Colorado at Obama+5

    to get to 278.


    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:57:34 PM PDT

  •  Ignoring all polls until the nominations are (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thematt523, KJG52, Sylv

    official.  Never discount the republican circular firing squad.  Last one standing is going to have some formidable backing.

    Rick Perry is George Bush without brains.

    by thestructureguy on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:00:34 PM PDT

  •  Ironic if Obama loss of House in 2010 costs 2012 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The 269 tie looks possible in this election in which case Obama loses because his actions in 2010 cost Democrats the House in the 2010 elections that were decided on anger by Obama voters vs. Obama failure on promises of public option health care, no lobbyist deals, Wall St reform and prosecutions, help for victims of mortgage fraud, restoration of habeas corpus, climate change bill.

    The same 2010 dynamic is still there. Obama has lost a lot of people who voted for him in 2008 (his approval numbers reflect this) and easy to see a 269 tie with the GOP House making Romney president.

    Despite the historically unreliable early polls I don't see Obama winning IN, FL, NC. Tight races in states that have elected GOP in recent elections, OH, PA, WI.

    With Obama's low approval numbers, high unemployment (Fed says 8.2 by November) and the anti-incumbency 2010 dynamic still in play, it's going to be a close election.

    Romney is dangerous because he is safe, non-threatening so if people want to vote send a message of discontent, for...ahem...change, they can do so and feel it is a low risk choice.

    •  yawn. (13+ / 0-)

      Dems lost in 2010 because of astroturfed Tea Partiers and no coherent message from the National Dems.

    •  R U ? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming

      Without heroes we are all losers with nothing to aspire to.

      by qua on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:31:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you think... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, kat68, Odysseus, stevenaxelrod, Delilah

      WI is going red this year, you are high.  

      There is no fucking way WI voted Romney.  No way.  Not happening.  

      Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. John Prine -8.00,-5.79

      by Miss Blue on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:46:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  WI elected GOP gov, legislature, US Senator. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and has majority GOP House representation.  It's recent political history would seem to indicate a GOP shift and a tough win for Obama in 2012.

        •  and now it's about to turf those same GOP pols (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PorridgeGun, TofG, Miss Blue, kefauver

          in a series of unprecedented recall elections, fueled by broad public discontent with how those GOP pols governed after they got their hands on power.

          2010 was a backlash. 2012 looks to be a counter-backlash, if anything. at least in the industrial midwest, at any rate.

        •  Um. Do you realize that EVERY one of the... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...GOP who was elected in 2010 in Wisconsin have NEGATIVE approval ratings right now - and that the Senate is now EVENLY divided, because of the recall elections? And that the state currently has Obama leading there? And that Walker is the second least popular governor in America right now, second only to Rick Scott in FL? With all due respect, your comment seems like it came out of a time machine from 2010.

    •  The 2010 election won't affect a 269 tie (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      When the election gets thrown to the House, each state delegation gets one vote, so California and Wyoming each get one vote (which makes perfect sense). I don't really have the energy to dig through the numbers, but I'd wager that even the recent post-2008 Democratic House didn't control a majority of the congressional delegations, because so many small states trend Republican.

      I think there might also be a faithless elector in the event of a 269-269 tie (which would prevent it from going to the House) -- who wouldn't want to play kingmaker in that scenario?

      •  2009 House would have gone Democratic (0+ / 0-)

        I did go back and look at the numbers. The 2009 House had 31 state slates controlled by Democrats, 17 by Republicans, and 2 split. I was surprised at how many states I expected to be Republican-controlled weren't: MS, NC, ND, SD, TN.

        •  Pretty amazing (0+ / 0-)

          It's slow at work so I checked to see how the 112th Congress would vote -- it's a bloodbath, D: 15, R: 33, and 2 split.

          Of course, it would actually be the incoming 113th Congress voting for president.  There are currently 7 state delegations whose party affiliation would turn D if we picked up one seat (AK, CO, MO, ND, SD, UT, WV, WY).  Add in the two split delegations -- NJ is only split because of the vacant safe-D seat -- and it becomes a 50/50 split!

          None of this takes the redistricting/reapportionment into account, and there's no way Obama only manages a 269-269 tie against Romney while the Democrats pick up seats all over the place, but it's pretty fascinating to think about what would happen in this scenario (some of those at-large congressmen would suddenly become very popular).

    •  I do not know about that (0+ / 0-)

      I think people were very optimistic in 2009, suffered from some remorse, and were re-energized by both the president's campaign, and the emergence of the party of the 1500's.

      That being said, the rule of "Congress if awful", but "My congressman/women is excellent" still goes strong.

      I will say this though, should we win the house races in NV, ND, MT and others, then the vote might swing in our favor.

      On the other hand that mandate in case of a tie is ridiculous. It should be that each member votes, or the popular vote winner takes the presidency.

      I would not like to have the white house come down to WY.

      Progressive Indian-American Law Student From NJ-6 (Home). DE-AL (school)

      by lawstudent1 on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 10:14:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Deciding where to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    allocate campaign funds for the best strategic value in this election year seems like a moot point.  Won't the MillionairePacs and CorportatePacs just pick up any slack? They'll be so flush they might even bombarded Idaho with Republican campaign advertising.

  •  another 269-269 scenario (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Andrew C White, mconvente, Odysseus

    Start with 2004 map/result. Switch Ohio & New Mexico to Blue.  Tie.

    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

    by TX Dem 50 on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:09:25 PM PDT

  •  Shorter OP (0+ / 0-)

    Fantasy scenarios regarding the convention are boring; let's have one about the election instead.

    GOP: The Party of Acid rain, Abortion of the American Dream, and Amnesty for Wall Street.

    by Attorney at Arms on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:15:13 PM PDT

    •  I understand the Very Serious media (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      has been obsessed with the Republican race long past its sell by date (and we should be happy with that), but I've never understood why we have to continue to talk about it so much here. I find the Romney/Santorum contest equal parts repulsive and boring (and it's not just because of the candidates).

      I'm far more interested in November.

      So shorter me: finally.

      Ok, so I read the polls.

      by andgarden on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:32:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One huge caveat to all this.... (7+ / 0-)

    this is based on POLLING. Polling asks people who are reached by traditional polling techniques who they would vote for.

    Republicans have been busily at work, extensively documented on this site, passing legislation to make sure that many of the wrong kind of people -- who nevertheless are answering the pollsters -- will not be registered, will not have the required type of ID, will find it more inconvenient than in the past to vote absentee, will find more restricted early voting, or none at all. Then, on election day we will discover all the other stuff not included in legislation -- long lines in urban polling places, mis-behaving voting machines, too few voting stations in Democratic areas, lost or 'accidentally' removed registrations, etc. etc.

    All of this will add up to more of a suppressed vote than ever before (well, since the passage of the VRA, anyhow). Discount the polls in the R direction by 2%, at least, to estimate this.

    The Obama wave made the last election not close enough to steal. We really need to do that again to win.

    Mark E. Miller // Kalamazoo Township Trustee // MI 6th District Democratic Chair

    by memiller on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:33:09 PM PDT

  •  May The Odds Be Ever In Your Favor (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, kat68

    And let the hunger games of 2012 begin!

    Time is an enormous, long river, and I’m standing in it, just as you’re standing in it. My elders are the tributaries, and everything they thought and every struggle they went through & everything they gave their lives to flows down to me-Utah Phillips

    by TerryDarc on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:35:38 PM PDT

  •  Looking at the polling, and adding in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    my personal take:

    Your solid Obama states are solid. The only one I could see being a question mark is New Mexico... not only are there a shitload of Mormons in the Southwest, there's even more who, although not Saints themselves, have a positive personal opinion and blood or close personal ties to practicing mormon families.

    I don't think there's any reason to doubt that, even considering the already historically-high Mormon voting numbers, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, Mormon turnout will be higher than it has been since Utah was admitted to the Union.

    Add in the moderate to center-right non-Mormons in the desert and mountain West who would thnk it cool to have a Mormon President, and there's enough warm bodies to swing a state like New Mexico.

    Now for the bad news.

    There's some soft Obama states that I don't think he wins this year. i"m pretty sure he's not going to win Virginia, and his winning Colorado would surprise me.

    In fact, i doubt he wins a single Southern state, and I think he'll lose at least one desert or mountain West state he won in '08.

    For the "soft"racists, those who would never say outright that they consider white people superior, but who will say that they "don't like black people" (you might consider that a distinction without a difference... I assure you from personal knowledge that it is not... although both view points are equally morally offensive, one is clearly more dangerous than the other),it's a hell of a lot easier to vote against the black dude bcause he's the black dude after he's already been "the first black President" once... because then you can say to yourself, "See... I voted for a black dude. I can't be a racist. But he didn't work out, so this time I'm voting for the other guy." (Who's white.)

    There's a few important states where that kind of shift in the white middle class (and especially the high-wage-labor middle class... I've been working for IBEW union electrical shops in San Diego county for the last 3 years. President Obama is NOT popular with these guys.) There aren't enough of these folks to shift California... but I wouldn't be surprised if he loses San Diego County this year. In closer states, this shift, if it's as strong elsewhere as it is here,  might be the difference between 2008 and 2012.

    I think this one's gonna be close... And a Romney win wouldn't surprise me at all.


    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

    by Leftie Gunner on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:54:54 PM PDT

    •  The quiet racists (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mamamedusa, flhiii88

      would never have voted for him in the first place.  They would have said they were Clinton supporters, or that they didn't like the health care plan.  Once they voted for him, they have a stake in him and I can't see people switching on the race issue.
      There were a lot of people who abandoned McCain after he picked Palin for VP.  I can see that being a bigger factor.  The middle-roaders may be willing to go back  to the republicans and Romney if he doesn't do something really stupid.  But then, I think he will continue to do really stupid things.  And Obama won't.

      Not all those who wander are lost.

      by Leftleaner on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 11:08:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  new mexico is 3% mormon (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mamamedusa, TofG, flhiii88

      and most of them were already voting GOP, most likely. that's not going to help romney much.

    •  Huh? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, flhiii88
      Add in the moderate to center-right non-Mormons in the desert and mountain West who would thnk it cool to have a Mormon President, and there's enough warm bodies to swing a state like New Mexico.
      Who are these people?  I don't see Romney's religion as being anything but a negative.  Anyone who really thinks it's an advantage would vote Rep in the first place, but a lot of people who don't like it also vote Rep.  

      I don't see many at all who would think it's "cool" to have a mormon President.  I wouldn't even expect that in the Democratic party, although for other reasons, and we're talking about the GOP.  

    •  N. M. is no longer competitive. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, flhiii88

      Last poll had Obama up by +19.

  •  One big problem for Romney (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, Sylv

    is the etch-a-sketch strategy. The Repug base will not let Romney go off-message - their message. They will make him restate, whenever he visits Iowa or North Carolina or Virginia or the Florida Panhandle,  every view that might conceivably alienate the few million centrist independent voters who will determine this election. He'll have to reassure them again & again that he really is a "conservative."

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

    by DJ Rix on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 09:14:28 PM PDT

  •  Based on results from four years ago... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, TofG

    Obama has 253 electoral voes from states he won by at least 10%, including such nominally "battleground" states as NM, WI, NV, PA, and MN.  The Republican nominee will start with 125 EV from states McCain won by at least 10%.  The rest, in order, were...

    NH - 4 EV - Obama by 9.61%
    IA - 6 EV - Obama by 9.53%

    CO - 9 EV - Obama by 8.95%

    VA - 13 EV - Obama by 6.30%
    OH - 18 EV - Obama by 4.58%
    FL - 29 EV - Obama by 2.81%
    IN - 11 EV - Obama by 1.03%
    NC - 15 EV - Obama by 0.33%

    MO - 10 EV - McCain by 0.13%
    MT - 3 EV - McCain by 2.38%
    GA - 16 EV - McCain by 5.20%

    SD - 3 EV - McCain by 8.41%
    AZ - 11 EV - McCain by 8.48%
    ND - 3 EV - McCain by 8.65%
    SC - 9 EV - McCain by 8.98%

    No reason four or five of McCain's states shouldn't be on the competitive list. Missouri is an obvious place to start, even though I'm sick of coming close in the Show Me State only to lose it at the end.  Montana will be close, as will Georgia (which should be 50-50 in 2016 if not sooner) and Arizona (which would have been competitive in 2008 if not for McCain's presence on the ballot).

    Based on the 2008 results, Colorado is the tipping point.  In other words, the Republican would have to win at least six states Obama carries four years ago, including one he carried by at least 9%.  Not impossible, but unlikely.

    I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that. [Tom Lehrer]

    by KTinOhio on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 09:27:28 PM PDT

  •  Obama is Not running against Romney (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mconvente, Dunkerque, mbayrob, Odysseus, TofG

    He is running against Congress.

    This is 1948.

    If I was a D running for the house in:

    Obama lead of less than 5 points (78 electoral votes): New Hampshire (+3.8); Ohio (+3.2); Iowa (+2.2); Nevada (+2.0); Florida (+1.4); North Carolina (+0.8)

    Romney lead of less than 5 points (32 electoral votes): Arizona (+2.6); Missouri (+3.6); Indiana (+4.0)

    I'd be really looking at coattails and how I could play them.

    •  How do you run against the Invisible Man anyway? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming, TofG

      I think 1948 is the right analogy as well, especially when you're running against someone who's taken all sides of all issues.

      Since he won't disavow the GOP majority, act as if he agrees with them.  There's no way the Romney Campaign can do that and have anybody believe them.

      Running the campaign he's run, built on zero integrity and infinite money, is some Real Bad Karma for Willard.

      Mitt Romney is a T-1000 sent back from the Future to warn about the upcoming Robot Apocolypse.

      by mbayrob on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 10:59:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It all depends on the S&P 500 on election day... (0+ / 0-)

    ...if it is 1300 or above, Obama will win.

    Below 1150, Romney will win.

    1150-1300 - it is a toss-up.

    (-7.75,-5.64) Bush to the rich: "I call you my base". Obama to the rich : "When you do well, America does well".

    by Whirlaway on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 09:41:35 PM PDT

    •  Couldn't disagree more... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, virginislandsguy

      The stock market is not at all important.  It could be back at 900 and Obama could easily still win, and a small correction to 1150 (where it would still be overvalued, just not as much) certainly would not change the dynamics in the least.  Obama is still definitely favored in that scenario.  

      Bottom line: 1) The stock market fluctuates.  2) People don't care about the stock market as much as the media would have you believe.  

    •  Consumer confidence index is the best indicator. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sylv, virginislandsguy

      The index measures how everyone feels about the economy.  It's much better, documented by historical research, than the S&P, unemployment rate, etc.

  •  Only a nation-wide shift can help Rmoney (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the oklahoma kid, mconvente

    No doubt much of the general election efforts will be dedicated to advertising and GOTV for both sides in the key swing states, but I have this gut feeling that the only way the GOP can prevail is if some exogenous factor causes a uniform shift in the electorate away from Obama.

    I think a large, uniform negative shift on the electorate's views on the economy is the only thing that can do it; the War on Women is close to (if not already) creating an unbeatable shift in favor of the Democratic Party. It's possible the current recovery, not exceptional to begin with, will peter out over the summer, but I'm more worried about external shocks. #1 is gasoline prices skyrocketing due to tensions/war with Iran, although in the event of a shooting war the electoral impacts are currently unpredictable. #2 is a major crash in Europe, but that seems less likely as the EU continues to muddle through (as we have).

    The third possibility is that the GOP SuperPacs unleash the ad equivalent of global thermonuclear war and bring Obama down that way. Don't know how that will play out.

    Against all that, Rmoney would have to rally the nation to the cause of NotObama, and I don't think he has it in him.

  •  Election fraud, war with Iran (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    auapplemac, PorridgeGun, Sylv

    This can come unraveled in a heartbeat. No premature nothing, just keep GOTV like our national survival depends on it.

    Which it does.

    "What have you done for me, lately?" ~ Lady Liberty

    by ozsea1 on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 09:56:11 PM PDT

    •  Fraud only works on the margins (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Asak, TofG

      If a state is close, then GOP tactics will help them steal those states.  It'll buy a few percent.  But not 5%, and certainly not 10%.

      They're going to have to get much closer than they are in order to do that.  And even to do that: only the Super PACs can save Romney.  Romney ran as negative campaign this year as imaginable -- he wins because he's convinced enough Republican voters that folks like Gingrich and Santorum suck.  And he's done so without creating any kind of positive buzz for himself.  So unless he gets closer, even Super PAC's won't help him, since the kind of business people who are backing these PACs look at it as an investment.  Why bribe someone like Romney and his people if he isn't going to win?  It's not good business.  And without a believeable positive message, he's not going to look like enough of a winner to be a good bet for the cynical bastards who've been backing him thus far.

      Willard and his plutocrat friends can certainly still win, but all in all, I'd rather be starting out where we are, than where they are.

      Mitt Romney is a T-1000 sent back from the Future to warn about the upcoming Robot Apocolypse.

      by mbayrob on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 11:07:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

        I find the overall optimism regarding Obama's eloectoral chances as premature, to say the least.

        But this is spot on:

        Willard and his plutocrat friends can certainly still win, but all in all, I'd rather be starting out where we are, than where they are.

        "What have you done for me, lately?" ~ Lady Liberty

        by ozsea1 on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 10:12:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama will win... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...NC, IA and NV. Romney doesn't stand a chance.

    We reach for the stars with shaking hands in bare-knuckle times.

    by TheOrchid on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 10:19:29 PM PDT

  •  Am I the only one worried about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    this whole Trayvon Martin case dominating the summer and election season, ginning up the infamous "white racial resentment" just enough to cost Obama Florida, maybe Pennsylvania, Ohio...?

    Is it just me? Because I'm gripped with anxiety about this.

    What Obama needs to win is an improving economy and rising optimism.

    What he doesn't need is a year dominated by racial conflict and anger.

    I'm a dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I lie awake at night wondering if there's a dog.

    by rennert on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 10:22:59 PM PDT

  •  Not sure where you got your data (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Real Clear Politics has Nevada as Obama over Romney by 6% (average), including even Rasmussen!  This would make CO the bubble state.

  •  So, we really should be concentrating (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevenaxelrod, Sylv

    on Congressional Races don't you think?

    We have to win the Congress back if we are going to get anything done in the next 4 years.

    --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

    by chipoliwog on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 10:40:20 PM PDT

    •  NO. The concentration should be on the general. (0+ / 0-)

      "Giving up" on concentrating on the general because of CURRENT polling (polling, which doesn't translate into votes, necessarily) would be a TERRIBLE move. Concentrate on both - but the bulk of the work needs to go to the Presidential election - we HAVE to have Obama re-elected - if he's not, this entire country is going back to before the New Deal, or worse. ANYTHING could swing this general election. ANYTHING. And despite what the current polling shows, I still think this is going to be a very close election.

  •  There is NO shoe-in until after Nov 6th. We must (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevenaxelrod, auapplemac, Sylv

    fight every day to make it happen. We cannot be lax and "expect" President Obama to win. We cannot stay home. We cannot work with any less than our best effort every day.

    I take nothing for granted until Nov. 6th when I will celebrate a 2nd term for our President and retake the house.

    Let's get to work.

  •  good analysis of the current situation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Romney basically needs a good crisis, either renewed weakness in the economy or a major foreign policy event, to shake things up. It's not going to happen for him otherwise. Of the recent state polling, the VA numbers are particularly worrying from a GOP standpoint, as if they lose Virginia they need to win almost everywhere else in the "swing" category.

  •  Obama (0+ / 0-)

    Obama should win easially.  The big question is how many Democrats will wind up in the senate and congress.  Obama could do so much better with a little more support.  The fact that republicans have gotten so irrational and sinister is a real problem.  

    There is always the danger of something unexpected happening and possibly loosing to the republicans.  If that happens, I am afraid America as we know it will no longer exist.  

    It will be time for a true revolution.  

    The religous right needs to calm down.  None of them are anywhere near as holy as they want us to believe.  They are actually hiding a lot of pure evil behind their phony religious fervor.

  •  Mitt Romney can beat Obama ? (0+ / 0-)

    Pay attention Barack !

    Mitt Romney can beat you. Work for American, not for other country. But, everybody, in my country, France, like you.

  •  Romney - popular vote (0+ / 0-)

    he win that - right?

    if you measure the popular vote by the polls in support of Obamacare vs repeal of Obamacare then you might
    have idea (after the SCOTUS gets done playing monarchy with the issue) what the popular vote will look like;

    If the Top 25 Hedge Fund Managers Paid Taxes Like You and Me We'd Cut 44 Billion of the National Deficit

    by anyname on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 02:33:04 AM PDT

  •  The "colors" of your map... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "Blue" is the color of the Democrats, not "red."

    Am I right?

    "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

    by zenox on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 02:56:08 AM PDT

  •  Can someon explain (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to me why Romney has clinched the nomination?  I mean other than that the inside-the-beltway pundits have decided they're bored with the primaries and it's time to move on to the general?  Santorum won big in LA and lost by far less than was predicted in IL.  Why has the math changed in the last two weeks?  

  •  Excellent analysis (4+ / 0-)

    One thing that pollsters don't do (as far as I know) is measure the enthusiasm gap per candidate and per state.

    I think that this gives Obama better chances in the south against Romney than against Santorum. First, of course, is the notion that the Democratic vote in most southern states is overwhelmingly Black - and GOTV will be good with Obama in the WH - maybe not as good as '08, but good.

    The other side is that, while most southern Republicans will vote for Romney, some will stay home - probably more than would if Santorum or Gingrich were the nominee. And they may well be less enthusiastic.

  •  Another way to look at states (0+ / 0-)

    is to look at past election results. Summing over the last 6 elections (back to 1988), there are 7 states that have gone Democratic every time:
    MN WA HI NY MA RI and DC

    another 10 that have gone Democratic 5 times
    Penn.    Michigan    New Jersey    Oregon    Maine    Delaware    Conn.    California    Illinois    Maryland    Vermont

    4 times:
    New Hamp.    Wisconsin    Iowa

    3 times:
    Nevada    Ohio    WVirginia    New Mex.

    Kentucky    Tennessee    Louisiana    Florida    Arkansas    Colorado    Missouri

    Indiana    Montana    Arizona    Virginia NC

    Utah    Idaho    Wyoming    Nebraska    Alaska    Oklahoma    Kansas    NDakota    Alabama    Miss.    SCarolina    Texas    SDakota    Georgia

  •  Interesting how the battleground has moved (0+ / 0-)

    so far capital-S Southward in a few election cycles.

  •  Florida, Virgininia, Wisconsin...depending on (0+ / 0-)

    Romney's V.P. pick....he can't pick three......

    Georgia and Missouri are in play...!!  I'm telling you....Women will go Democrat...Evangelicals will vote Buddy Roemer or Gary Johnson.....

    You cannot defend the Defense of Marriage Act if your faith is polygamous...!!!!!!!

  •  Air Game vs Ground Game (0+ / 0-)
    An examination of how the two campaigns have spent their money in the last year starkly illustrates the huge advantage Obama will have in mounting a ground operation to identify voters and get them to the polls in November.

    Spared a primary opponent, the president's reelection campaign by the end of February had pumped nearly $79 million into laying the groundwork for the general election, deploying staff to far-flung corners of the country such as Laramie, Wyo., and Lebanon, N.H., as part of an ambitious, tech-savvy field effort.

    Romney, mired for months in a contentious primary, has not yet devoted substantial resources to a national field program. Of the $68 million spent so far by his campaign, $25.4 million went to fundraising and media ads in primary states, elements that — while key to his front-runner standing — may not translate into lasting gains.

    He has spent only $5 million on staff, compared with the $20 million Obama has doled out for his campaign workers. For its reach, Romney's campaign plans to lean on the Republican Party, which has yet to set up shop in states long inhabited by Obama operatives.

    The spending data and interviews with campaign officials suggest that a Romney-Obama race would be a clash between distinct political philosophies, one that would test the power of an aerial bombardment through television ads against an in-person voter mobilization months in the making.

    Both campaigns will employ commercials and ground organizers to make their cases, of course. But media use is the specialty of top Romney campaign officials Matt Rhoades, Eric Fehrnstrom, Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer, who have backgrounds in communications and ad production. And Romney is poised to benefit from intense air cover provided by Restore Our Future, a "super PAC" that has already spent $37 million, largely on TV ads attacking his GOP rivals.

    Romney campaign strategists acknowledge they have a small field operation, by design. Instead of hiring get-out-the-vote organizers around the country, a lean team has leapfrogged in and out of the various primary states. That has kept costs down, but it also means Romney has a smaller national footprint than Obama.

    It's time for GOTV to shine.

    •  hold on (0+ / 0-)
      the president's reelection campaign by the end of February had pumped nearly $79 million into laying the groundwork for the general election, deploying staff to far-flung corners of the country such as Laramie, Wyo.
      OK it's probably not a large chunk of the $79 million, but really why should Obama be spending any money in Wyoming? It's more likely that California will fall into the sea than that Wyoming will vote for him.
  •  Dave Leip's site is great (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    But he flips the whole red state/blue state orientation on its head.

  •  Democratic core. (0+ / 0-)

    In this century, indeed since 1992, the Democratic presidential nominee has carried 18 states and the Distict of Columbia in every election.

    That's not enough, As Gore and Kerry could tell you. It is, though, a massive base from which to start.

    Some of those victories were narrow, but every one of them looks like an Obama state today..

    Cuddling other people's babies for fifty years.

    by Frank Palmer on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 10:28:35 AM PDT

  •  FANTASTICALLY informative diary. Thanks for... (0+ / 0-)

    ...all of your hard work on this. If you can manage to keep this going every month, it really gives a good idea of where we're at.

    That said, the BIGGEST caveat here is, of course, TURNOUT. Polls don't necessarily translate to votes - and then, of course GOP vote tampering and disenfranchisement, which will obviously be widespread (machines breaking down in minority districts, Voter ID laws, etc. - although re: the latter, the Justice Department has been blocking Voter ID laws left and right, which means they know what the implications would be, thank God). Anyway, so yes - good, solid place to build from - and all unforeseen events aside (economy slowing down again, etc.), once again - TURNOUT, TURNOUT, TURNOUT.

    But seriously, thanks for your work on this diary, it's great.

  •  Being here in Florida (Ft Lauderdale), I can... (0+ / 0-)

    ...tell you that there are a LOT of Obama-haters here - and I live in Wilton Manors, which isn't exactly a GOP-haven. FL is going to be very tough for Obama to win. I think it's possible - but it ain't gonna be easy.

  •  Obama is running against the economy - PERIOD. (0+ / 0-)

    If between 175,000 and 200,000 jobs are created between now and November? He wins. If job creation starts dropping again, or if gas prices are at $5 or $6 a gallon on election day? He loses. It's that simple.

    Gallup recently did a study showing that in the last 2 years, the public's approval of Obama is TIED LIKE SUPER GLUE to the trajectory of the economy. It gets better? His polls get better. It gets worse? His polls go down.

    Most people love the guy - but it's come down to, fairly or unfairly, the state of the economy - if jobs start dropping again, or if the unemployment rate goes back UP to 9% by election day (which is EXTREMELY likely, given how many people are still not being counted in the labor force and given that they'll be coming back as things are getting better, which will drive the number up - which, ironically, will be good news, but make for bad headlines), then he's going to lose a lot of states we thought were in the bag - but if things keep steady like they've been the last few months, he's a lock to win.

    It comes down to this - the GOP can't run against Obama - they have to run against the CARICATURE of Obama they've invented of a "traditional liberal" - but the truth is that they can't run against him on taxes, because he's done nothing but CUT taxes. They can't run against him on foreign policy, because he's showed them how that's done like a BOSS. They can't REALLY run against him on the health care bill, because Romney had the same damn bill. They can't run against him on the culture wars crap, because America's progressed to the point where that's simply not a winning strategy for the GOP anymore - people see through it - the women's rights issue, all of it - none of it's working. They can't run against him as a "Socialist", because corporations are at all-time high profits, the stock market's booming, etc. - they'd look like idiots.

    The ONLY thing they have is the economy - that's it. And if it keeps improving, they literally have NOTHING to run against him with that wouldn't be FICTION. If it starts weakening or stalling again? It's going to be a VERY close race, and he could lose.

    So let's just hope things keep getting better. I'm really nervous about every single jobs report each month right now - the next one is in 5 days - and it had better be good - but I have a feeling that the overall number is going to rise to maybe 8.5 or 8.6 - 8.4 at best - more people are coming back into the labor force, and, as a recent study showed conclusively, in order for the overall rate to keep DROPPING and in order for it NOT to rise? we would have to be adding over 350,000 jobs a month to keep up with the participation rate and keep the overall number dropping - which, I think it's safe to say, will NOT be happening. At BEST, we've got monthly reports for the next 7 months with between 125,000 and 230,000 jobs every month - that's the BEST scenario - and the most likely - which means that on election day, the unemployment rate is most likely going to be in the mid-or-low 8's - of course I'll be thrilled if it gets below 8% - but given what would have to happen for that to occur, it's not a likely possibility. The only thing we can hope for is that things don't get WORSE with the economy, and at least stay on an even keel. Just ONE bad jobs report, say in August, could re-define the race.

    •  ALSO - I can't overstate this enough - the... (0+ / 0-)

      whole re-litigation and coming back into the public sphere of the health care bill?

      NOT GOOD for him.

      The majority of Americans still disapprove of the law - that's just a fact. They also HATE the individual mandate.

      And what I'm worried about in terms if SIGNIFICANTLY effecting the election - is that it's going to remind people that Obama worked for more than a year to pass something that the majority of Americans hated - INSTEAD of focusing like a laser-beam on the economy - fair or unfair, that's the impression in the public's mind. So for the whole health care law issue to come up NOW - with a ruling by SCOTUS in May or June, right in the middle of the general election? It CANNOT BE OVERSTATED how much that's going to influence what happens in November. This entire thing with the SCOTUS is a DISTRACTION from the focus on the economy - and it's going to remind people of what they felt at the time - that it was a DISTRACTION from creating JOBS. I want Obama to be re-elected more than I can possibly even say - but this health care ruling - and bringing all the health care contentions back into the media and away from the economy - there's no way it's going to help.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site