Skip to main content

So now that Mitt Romney has apparently shown us really is the un-American candidate in the race twice this week by disowning at least half of the country in a truly disgusting manner at his fundraiser and then doubling down on it during a pathetic attempt at a press conference (that's #1) and intentionally darkening his face when appearing on Univision (because that's so much more important to the Latino population than a good decent attitude on immigration reform):  What does this mean for the election?

Beyond the fact that Mitt Romney has very probably blown it, how good could this be for our side?

Could this be as good as 2008?  Better?

Here's where I think the election definitely is right now:

We have not had enough time for the Romney stupid-show from earlier this week to show up in the tracking polls yet.  But, it has clearly shown up in a few snap polls, and it clearly has had a negative impact according to polling focused on the 47% moment itself.

President Obama wins, and handily in state polls:  He should now do it by taking all of the swing states that are usually gold, yellow, silver, etc. on all the news analysis maps:  FL, OH, NH, WI, IA, NC, VA, CO, NV.  In fact, while the national trackers showed the Obama bounce subsiding, if anything, the state polls show the President widening his lead.

That's great!  That will probably hold us the Senate and even help us take the House.

But that's not a landslide.

Assuming Romney continues to implode, and looking at the vote patterns in 2008, you can see another level of states fall into the blue category if President Obama reaches into the 57-59% popular vote range.  They are:  SC, GA, WV, MO, IN, AZ

Even better.  At that stage, all things being as they usually are, a Senate hold is very likely, as is a takeover of the House.

However, that is still not a landslide.  That is at the next level - where only the very core of Republican states hold to red.  Think about how Barry Goldwater lost to President Johnson in 1964, or how President Reagan beat Walter Mondale in 1984.  That's landslide territory.  I'm not even sure we can get to those levels, but here are the states that would tip in that case:  WV, KY, LA, AL, MS, TN, TX, ND, SD, MT, WY, ID, AR, AK.  That would have President Obama winning upwards of 60% of the popular vote.

I do believe, no matter what, UT, OK, KS, NE will be red states on election day.

So what to watch for as indicators:  Where do any new GOP ad schedules show up (either Romney - if he's got any money left - or the Superpacs)?  Are there any pollsters phoning in previously low-activity states (like the Kossack here who got a poll from a non-media polling firm in West Virginia)?

And remember, a landslide isn't necessarily defined by the margin of victory.  It's about how many states you win - and a lot of those red states are really small.

So, hold onto that very positive thought. I'm not saying that this ultimate, "landslide" level is likely - but I am saying that it is possible now.  And it wasn't a week ago.  Now let's go make it happen!  GOTV!

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

  •  Landslide, Mudslide, takem as they come (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    You make good points.

    I'd love a landslide. But even more than I want to send them hunkering back to whatever rock they live under and start to mope about how the hell they're going to fix what they've broken, i.e. the Republican Party.

    I'm not an admirer of the party in the long term., but they've produced a couple of better than average presidents, Lincoln and TR, a couple that had qualities, Ike and someone else I'm sure.

    But these people are at a level that I can't believe or accept. Screw them.

    I heard the pundits talking about their bench strength. Rubio? Schmuck. Martinez? Not presidential. The rest of the discards who stank up the place? And while I'd love for Lindsay Graham to slide off the earth, the Club for Growth, that misnamed Fascist group is going after him next time.

    It gets loopier and loopier and each rate the nuttiness bar goes up. No sane person could pass their barrage of litmus tests.

  •  I don't see SC going Blue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ardyess, Jeffersonian Democrat

    I know it has pockets of Blue. But I called my VERY Republican retired military father after this video AND the Republicans blocked the Veterans Bill.

    It still didn't resonate BECAUSE in his words "Barack Obama (actually he used the derogatory term) wants to be a dictator" To that I replied ..But Dad...if that were the case we wouldn't be having a election in a few weeks....We even discussed the privatizing of the Medicare (that he also enjoys) and that his children are starting to look forward to the years when we can enjoy it too. This did not shake nor weaken his stance at all. THAT is how entrenched the bigotry is.  

    My father is not a stupid man....he is very very typical of damn near every Senior Citizen White male I ever met in that state.

    Based on this observation I do not anticipate SC going Blue at all.

  •  Uh, no. Love your enthusiasm, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Barack Obama is not going to carry Georgia, West Virginia, South Carolina, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska, Kentucky, Mississippi, or any of the other irreversibly red states you propose he might carry in this diary. There is exactly zero chance that could happen, even under the best possible scenarios for the outcome of this election. None of those states is in contention: period.

    Maybe, if wildly successful, he could take Indiana again. But I'd be floored if that actually happened.

    This diary doesn't seem to be very rooted in understanding of the political landscape or the voting histories of the states in question.

    Have a flagon and discuss the news of the day at the sign of the Green Dragon, or hear me roar on Twitter @MarkGreenFuture

    by Dracowyrm on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 11:39:58 PM PDT

  •  As excited as I am (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Methinks you a bit over enthusiastic,
     just a tad.  Texas and Idaho?  Sorry,  Romney could have a heart attack or be struck down by the very hand of God, and these states would not vote for Obama.  beating '08's Electoral Votes?  It certainly could happen.  Breaking up the South?  It has started and GA and SC are within the realm of dreams.  ID and TX and MS?  Not on this planet.

  •  If I was on the Obama campaign I would suggest. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ardyess, WineRev

    Million dollar ad buys in MO, IN and AZ just as a trial balloon to see if they make a dent in those polls (if they do I would go full bore), and to throw wrench in Romney's attempted come back.

    If Obama does this it will be seen as something drastic. He would essentially be expanding the playing filed with a very public and relatively large ad buy in MO, IN, and AZ. That would make the media immediately suspect that  the Obama campaign must be seeing a Romney weakness in their internal polling.

    This creates a few days of positive news about Obama picking up support in states that "lean red" and immediately puts Romney back on the defensive. If there is no actual internal polling to support such a move by the Obama campaign it's REALLY going to throw Romney off their game. They're gonna think they're missing something, and they're going to panic. They will throw good money at MO, IN and AZ in an attempt to stem the bleeding.

    Obama probably would actually improve his standing in these states by airing some ads. Romney may call Obama's bluff and refuse to engage in this expanded battle ground, but I think that would leave Obama uncontested in those areas and allow his support to grow even more.

    Basically Romney would be forced to defend what should be safe states. And even if Obama's standing doesn't improve in these states, Romney will likely still waste precious campaign resources shoring up support that is already in his corner. He has been very easy to bait so far. I see no reason he and his Super Pacs wouldn't fall for this.

    The only bad case scenario would be if Obama's poll numbers don't budge in these states, and Romney totally ignores Obama's ad campaign. Then Obama will have thrown away a few million bucks. But the positive news cycle that would be created by appearing so confident about winning that they're going after Red States, could very well be worth the money by itself.

    Nothing rallies the troops like taking the fight to the other side.

    We lose if we choose to forget; the lives of men, and money spent.

    by DeanDemocrat on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:37:06 AM PDT

    •  Good idea (0+ / 0-)

      I agree with your states, although I'm a little dodgy about MO. (Still with the Akin implosion and maybe some reverse coattails from McKaskill.....)
      I would simply add to the same plan two other places: say about a $300,000 ad buy in Montana, and maybe $500,000 in out-state Georgia.
           There is a streak of prairie populism in MT that I think is worth taking some soundings on. Also, the media cost is tiny, and $300K would blanket the state with multiple ads (and radio, which is cheaper that TV, might be even more effective.)
           And Georgia? I say outstate, because Obama will do fine in Atlanta, Savannah proper, and places like Athens, and the demographic tide is rising enough to put the state on the "what if/dreaming" list. My idea would be to try to cut into the out-state vote, not with a hope of winning it, but with the plan of cutting the margins.
          This is how Clinton won Ohio in 1992. The Democratic vote then was strong in the north (Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Toledo, Youngstown) and decent in the center around Columbus. Cincinnati was typically more Republican, along with the farm & small town vote.
           The Clinton-Gore campaign bus right after the convention came to Wilmington, OH (where I was living at the time) for a rally (well attended!) on the courthouse square. In 1988 (and years before that) the town had voted something like 85% for Bush-Quayle, so there was no hope of overcoming that.
            But the Bill/Hillary/Al/Tipper visit fired up the few Democrats and gave them hope. There were radio ads occasionally and some ad buys on Dayton & Cincinnati TV stations, along with an effort at a ground game.
            Election night, 1992 was another crushing win in Wilmington for the Bush-Quayle gang....but there were high fives and beer toasts among the Democrats. They had ONLY lost 70-30...IOW, doubled their previous numbers.
            This slicing away at the margins was true all across southern and northwestern Ohio, and while it was close, Clinton won the state.
            I'm just thinking a similar approach could make the difference in some of these states that are a "stretch" this year but may be coming into range.



      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:08:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would suggest Montana (0+ / 0-)

    as a state worthwhile here.  

    First, there are so few people, and ad time must be cheap, cheap, cheap.......

    Next, the senate race with Tester quite possibly holding on and doing in Rehberg.  Tester will bring in a lot of the D votes....

    And after that.... Montana has a lot of true paulist libertarians..... who will not vote for rmoney unless Ron Paul gives the okay with an endorsement of rmoney.  If that doesn't happen, they won't vote for Obama, but rmoney will  certainly feel their bite....

    So Montana anyone?

    And then after that, maybe ND, with Heitkamp leading Berg in the senate race, and enough paulists with not too many people, and cheap, cheap cheap airwaves.

    And then after that MO, with McCaskill over batshit-brained Akin, enough depressed/suppressed wingnut christian voters not going for a mormon, the paulists, and huge turnout in both St Louis and KC.  I could be done here.

    That's my 2cents of the order of states that I would concentrate on here

  •  ROMNEY DEFEATS OBAMA! (0+ / 0-)

    -  Chicago Daily Tribune

  •  GA voting is all about race (0+ / 0-)

    Forget polling, all you need to know to predict Georgia elections is the race of the candidates and the race of the voters.  Black candidate + black voters =win (for the Democrat). White candidate + white voters = win(for the Republican).   If a Korean-American was to face off against a Hispanic in an election in Georgia, I don't know what the voters would make of it.  Probably fiddle with the color control on the TV so they could figure out who they want to vote for.

    About the only way to get GA to fall in the Obama column is to move some white voters out or some black voters in.  As an outsider living here, I find it kind of pathetic.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site