If Obama wins, how can/could/will it happen?

[2ManyTacos]

Like I've been saying, the thing that's going to be the deciding factor in November - even more than the economy - will be voter suppression and the degree to which that's successful. The fact that Romney has raised more than Obama over the past couple of months is just background noise, really, considering that the president has been generally able to outraise Romney up until recently and that, at the end of the day, even if Obama is outspent overall it'll only amount to an incredibly marginal (if it does anything at all) difference in the election. Romney and Obama are both going to be throwing an ungodly amount of money into this campaign, so whoever spends more on advertising will be irrelevent considering that the opposite side will spend virtually identical amounts in the eyes of the electorate.

[jebert]

Perhaps Romney just got a big bump from the anti-ACA crowd in June. However, if Romney continues to raise significantly more than Obama in the coming months, he could just as easily start to spend more than Obama in swing states and turn the polls to his favor.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Romney is near the Dukakis end of the charisma spectrum

I'd just like to say ouch on behalf of Romney.

[E-Sabbath]

I'd like to add something. Romney is running, like Kerry, on being not-the-incumbent. Now, there are people who don't like Obama for reasons beyond his position. Like the color of his skin, or the religion someone told them he has. That's an advantage Kerry didn't have against Bush. But those people didn't vote for Obama the last time, it's not a really sizable advantage.

In order to unseat an opponent, you really have to do more than be not-the-guy. You have to be something on your own. Romney... he can't do that. He can change his mind to match the whim of the electorate, he can be for or against anything that the electorate desires, but he's never shown the ability to lead, to take a stand.

I'm not saying he can't win. It's possible. But that, right there, is why he probably won't. He won't inspire people.

[John Mace]

Which one would you rather have a beer with?

Forget that. It's a loaded question.

[ultrafilter]

It's also worth noting that the Obama campaign made a big push a few months back to hire statisticians and other data-oriented types (see this thread for limited discussion and some links). Given the amount of data out there and the importance of the questions it could answer, I think this is going to be a pretty big advantage for them.

[Tom Scud]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Which one would you rather have a beer with?

Forget that. It's a loaded question.

How about a cup of coffee?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Tom Scud

How about a cup of coffee?

You're not helping.

Hey, one thing I'll say about my former religion, Catholicism-- they know how to drink!

[Lightnin']

Originally Posted by Enderw24

I'm neither a political scientist or a Constitutional scholar, but I imagine it'll happen because Obama receives a greater number of electoral votes than Romney.

That plan's so crazy it just... might... work!

[dvd418]

Dave Wiegel in Slate wrote a few days ago that the libertarian Gary Johnson could have a real impact here. The less people watch TV and turn to other sources for campaign coverage the less power the two main parties will have.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by John Mace

You're not helping.

Hey, one thing I'll say about my former religion, Catholicism-- they know how to drink!

So who would you rather have a glass of savior blood with?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by dvd418

Dave Wiegel in Slate wrote a few days ago that the libertarian Gary Johnson could have a real impact here. The less people watch TV and turn to other sources for campaign coverage the less power the two main parties will have.

No Libertarian Party candidate has won more than 0.5% of the popular vote since 1980.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

So who would you rather have a glass of savior blood with?

True Blood only for me, thanks. I quit the Sanguinistas and am now mainstreaming.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by dvd418

Dave Wiegel in Slate wrote a few days ago that the libertarian Gary Johnson could have a real impact here. The less people watch TV and turn to other sources for campaign coverage the less power the two main parties will have.

Coverage on blogs, newspapers, radio, etc seem pretty saturated with news regarding the GOP and Dems. Its hardly just a TV thing.

And I'd be surprised if one person in twenty know who Gary Johnson is, nevermind intend to vote for him.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by dvd418

Dave Wiegel in Slate wrote a few days ago that the libertarian Gary Johnson could have a real impact here.

Where? Do you live in some small, western state?

Would the impact be in favor of Obama or against?

[Seydell]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Which one would you rather have a beer with?

Forget that. It's a loaded question.

I'll repeat the answer I heard on one of the recent Sunday talk shows:

Joe Biden.

[greenslime1951]

One game-ender would be if Romney chooses someone on the level of McCain's Moose Shooter Lady as his running mate.

IMHO all that would need to happen for an Obama victory is...nothing unusual. Barring some kind of political/economic earthquake, Obama will enjoy the usual advantage the incumbent enjoys, plus the benefit of running against an opponent who has all the charisma and appeal of a rotting whale carcass.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Seydell

I'll repeat the answer I heard on one of the recent Sunday talk shows:

Joe Biden.

He isn't anymore of a drinker then Romney is.

[Saint Cad]

I have a theory that in elections with an incumbant, no one cares about the opponant. They vote for or against the incumbant.

Despite what the Obama apologists say, there are still plenty of Americans frustrated with the economy. Yes I know that they can throw up numbers showing that we are in a recovery and that it is still all Bush's fault and the economy was worse than Obama thought when he took over. If Romney were to start an attack campaign that simply compared the promises Obama made about job creation and unemployment (IIRC under 8% the first year and 6% by the end of his first term) that first year and simply compared that to the current state of affairs then he would sway a lot of independent voters.

For example on this set of promises, Obama talked about the stimulus creating 3-4 million jobs. I would have to check the jobs numbers (as revised downward a month or two after they are released) but I don't think that is accurate, especially that 90% of the jobs were to be in the private sector. He promised more jobs for public workers like police and teachers. I know as a fact the number of teachers in the US has been cut for budget purposes every year since Obama took over and I would be surprised if the same weren't true for police and fire. This probably goes along with Obama's promise to help the states so they wouldnt have to make drastic budget cuts but as we all know, the states are still hurting as much or more than the Feds.

How about this one:

We'll create nearly half a million jobs by investing in clean energy – by committing to double the production of alternative energy in the next three years, and by modernizing more than 75% of federal buildings and improving the energy efficiency of two million American homes. These made-in-America jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, developing fuel-efficient cars and new energy technologies pay well, and they can't be outsourced.

Do I even need to mention the fiasco of Obama's alt-energy plan? True it was a minor issue but Romney can play it up as a broken promise.

Long story short (too late), the problem with Obama supporters is that they cling to this idea that Obama is doing the best he can and rationalize everything. What they don't realize is that none of that matters even if it is true. Obama over-promised and under-delivered and if Romney can drive that point home in an emotional way (and already the Obama supporters are saying that'll never happen) then Obama is done. People understand that 8.2% is bigger than 6% and they don't understand the financial obfuscation of Obama of why 8.2% is absolutely fantastic - especially if you're one of the 8.2%

[Really Not All That Bright]

He said jobs for police and teachers would be saved by the stimulus, not that they would be created. How many teachers' salaries do you think would have been cut without federal aid?

The alternative energy plan is working quite well. I think you mean the Solyndra fiasco.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

He said jobs for police and teachers would be saved by the stimulus, not that they would be created. How many teachers' salaries do you think would have been cut without federal aid?

Originally Posted by Barack Obama

We'll create hundreds of thousands of jobs by improving health care – transitioning to a nationwide system of computerized medical records that won't just save money, but save lives by preventing deadly medical errors. And we'll create hundreds of thousands more jobs in education, equipping tens of thousands of schools with 21st century classrooms, labs and computers to help our kids compete with any worker in the world for any job.

I guaranfuckinty you that there have not been hundreds of thousands of jobs created in education the last 4 years.

[John Mace]

Romney's strategy seems to try and not make too many waves, and hope that people either vote against Obama or stay home. Very risky, and it puts your fate in someone else's hands. The only thing he really has going for him is the sucky economy, but anyone with half a brain fan figure out that his plan, such as it is, isn't going to make a lick of difference.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

I guaranfuckinty you that there have not been hundreds of thousands of jobs created in education the last 4 years.

Okay, but you were referring to teachers. I'm not sure what other jobs in education he might have been talking about, but as to teachers specifically he only referred to saving their jobs.

The report confirms that our plan will likely save or create three to four million jobs. 90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private sector – the remaining 10 percent are mainly public sector jobs we save, like the teachers, police officers, firefighters and others who provide vital services in our communities.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Okay, but you were referring to teachers. I'm not sure what other jobs in education he might have been talking about, but as to teachers specifically he only referred to saving their jobs.

I can tell you that there are no new jobs in education and havent been for 4 years. Do you realize that there was a half-time math position open at a school near me and I went up against over 100 applicants. The market this summer (after my district had to CUT 60 positions) is the bleakest I've seen in years. I will admit that Obama has spent money to try to get more teacher positions but it's simply not enough. That is why I said he over-promised. Has he tried? OK yes he has but the numbers he gave us were far beyond what he could deliver. I would have respected him more if he just admits we're fucked and his job is to make sure it doesn't hurt so much.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

I can tell you that there are no new jobs in education and havent been for 4 years.

Do you think there would have been more teaching jobs or less teaching jobs today without the stimulus?

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Do you think there would have been more teaching jobs or less teaching jobs today without the stimulus?

There are, maybe, five more nationwide. Six, if you count ten-hour-a-week teacher assistant jobs.

I have had a similar experience as another poster--it's impossible to get hired for any teaching position. Go to any school district HR office and they'll tell you that their workforce has shrunk by 20% or more and their response to any vacancy created by sickness, retirement, or death is not to fill that vacancy, but to consolidate the position into other existing ones. The average class size in my hometown district is now 37--up from 25 in 2008.

A tiny bit of money (on a relative basis) was dribbled in the direction of schools by the stimulus, but its effect was negiligible. Tens of thousands of teachers now sit unemployed, and students aren't receiving the education they're entitled to because the teachers that remain are horribly overburdened. Also, many districts are cutting down on school days and hours.

So did Obama fulfill this promise? Absolutely not. Could he have? No. The money wasn't there. I think everybody except the most starry-eyed faithful knew that he was just blowing smoke when he said that the stimulus would be the magic Band-Aid for the country. I don't even blame him for doing so--presidents are relatively powerless to influence the outcomes of events, even if we and they think otherwise. The job of the president is to set the tone, and in this case, the proper tone was misplaced optimism.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

I have a theory that in elections with an incumbant, no one cares about the opponant. They vote for or against the incumbant.

I think you have an critical nuance wrong in this statement. People do not generally vote blindly for or against the incumbent. (People here meaning those who are not voting along party lines no matter what. Potential swing voters.) They vote for or against the incumbent if the opponent is perceived to be equal to or better than the incumbent. Even if they dislike the incumbent and his policies, they will not turn out in droves to elect someone they think is worse.

A weak incumbent can survive if his opponent is considered to be weaker. And charisma is one major factor in determining that. I think it's no coincidence at all that, post-war, charismatic opponents (Reagan, Clinton) have beaten incumbents while non-charismatic ones haven't (Dewey, Stevenson, Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale, Dole, Kerry). (Carter beating Ford was a special case: Nixon's successor had no chance of winning. Besides, in 1976 you could make a good case that of the two Carter was the charismatic one.) By your own theory people aren't going to be paying attention to Romney's economic program so that's all they will have to go on.

That's why generic polls at all levels always return different results than specific polls. When asked if a Republican should become president more people always say yes than when asked if a specific Republican should win over Obama. People always puff up the imaginary opponent to contain all the virtues they want. Real-life people never live up to those dreams. And a crucial few percent fall away.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Do you think there would have been more teaching jobs or less teaching jobs today without the stimulus?

I call strawman.
I admitted that there is more spending in education and that probably a small percentage of teaching jobs have been saved, but those are due mostly to priorities of the superintendents than education funds. My argument was specific that Obama promised "hundreds of thousands" of NEW jobs in education and that has not happened.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, apparently if there had been you would have credited those to superintendents' priorities too.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Well, apparently if there had been you would have credited those to superintendents' priorities too.

You really don't understand how it works do you? Do you think Obama sends a check out and on the memo line writes "For teacher salaries only"? The Feds send the states money which helps increase the budget of the districts. But it is up to the individual districts to decide how to spend the money. I can give you the results from 3 districts I'm familiar with.

South Colorado Springs: This district had a fuck all teachers attitude. No union and not one job was saved by federal funds. This may be the outlier but the Superintendent was spending his time cutting salaries. No way any Fed $ were going to teachers.

North Denver: The money was used to try to save teacher jobs and yes a few were saved but it just wasn't enough money. Still lost about 60 positions despite the increased spending.

North Boulder County: The superintendent was moving money around since 2009 to save teaching jobs. No doubt that Obama money helped but the superintendent himself save jobs by reprioritizing the budget.

[BlinkingDuck]

Another problem with the no re-elected with >7.4% unemployment is that this time it is different in that a significant number of people blame that number on the party NOT in power. Between Bush being president when the crash started and Wall Street/banking being blamed this reflects more on the Republicans. Combine this with the perception that the Republicans have been sandbagging the economy and masturbating over every bit of bad news...the high unemployment is just not going to stick on Obama as much as you might think.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

You really don't understand how it works do you? Do you think Obama sends a check out and on the memo line writes "For teacher salaries only"?

Of course not. That simply proves my point, though; even if he'd created a million teaching jobs you'd give somebody else the credit. Strangely, you won't also give them the blame.

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by BlinkingDuck

Another problem with the no re-elected with >7.4% unemployment is that this time it is different in that a significant number of people blame that number on the party NOT in power. Between Bush being president when the crash started and Wall Street/banking being blamed this reflects more on the Republicans. Combine this with the perception that the Republicans have been sandbagging the economy and masturbating over every bit of bad news...the high unemployment is just not going to stick on Obama as much as you might think.

I think this is key. It is probably less important where exactly the economy is at than it is how it has changed over the course of the presidents tenure. or to put it another way are you better than you were four years ago. In Obama's case the the unemployment rate is just about where it was when he took office. If we give him a 6 month grace period at the start of his term to reflect the time to actually have any policy take effect, then unemployment is actually down about a point. Not great, but better than the alternative.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Of course not. That simply proves my point, though; even if he'd created a million teaching jobs you'd give somebody else the credit. Strangely, you won't also give them the blame.

You don't even read my posts. I've said that Obama money went to saving some jobs. Oh I and I did blame the superintendent in S. Colorado Springs for not using the money to save jobs.

What I also said and you continually ignore is that Obama promised hundreds of thousands of jobs in education that never materialized. There was one president, Clinton I think, that gave money to the states specifically for increasing teaching jobs. The states were required to demonstrate the that money went to hire more teachers in the classroom.

[Siam Sam]

Voice of America radio was saying this morning that Obama and Romney are in a virtual tie right now. I honestly cannot understand this, and it worries me a lot. Looking from afar like I am, I can't see how such a doofus as Romney can come this close to the president in the polls.

[2ManyTacos]

The majority of the voters who will decide this election aren't even paying attention right now; that's why the Obama camp is rushing to define Romney early as the entitled rich outsourcer that he likely actually is in real life, so that once the rest of the electorate starts tuning in they will already have a negative perception of the GOP's candidate. If Romney continues to refuse to release his taxes, that might further that negative perception. Honestly, it's a tie now because of an overall indifference towards Romney amongst the persuadables that's being coupled with an unrelenting contempt of Obama on the right.

My guess is that it'll be virtually gridlocked until, at the earliest, the debates. Obama has his Democratic base locked in already, and Romney has most of the GOP base on his side; he may very well not get everybody on the right to vote for him, but it isn't like they'll vote for Obama instead. They'll just stay home and not vote for anybody.

[BobLibDem]

The debates aren't that significant, in my opinion. I think most people that watch have already picked their man and are just tuning in to cheer. Most of the low-information voters who aren't going to make up their mind until they enter the voting booth aren't going to watch the debate. Barring a huge gaffe, not a lot of votes will turn on the debates. Both sides will claim victory, cheerleaders for both sides will take the other guy out of context, and in the end not much will get decided.

[2ManyTacos]

So, in your mind, what could conceivably happen to definitively sway the polls to favor a specific candidate?

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos

So, in your mind, what could conceivably happen to definitively sway the polls to favor a specific candidate?

I hate to say it, but negative advertising. You've got Obama the socialist Muslim gun grabbing "God damn America" radical vs. Romney the vulture capitalist pension-sucking tax dodging Mormon. Whichever negative image turns off the most people is going to determine the winner.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Siam Sam

Voice of America radio was saying this morning that Obama and Romney are in a virtual tie right now. I honestly cannot understand this, and it worries me a lot. Looking from afar like I am, I can't see how such a doofus as Romney can come this close to the president in the polls.

I find it helpful and comforting to look at sites that analytically consider the electoral votes rather than some nationwide poll. I like to look at several but there's none with more detail than http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

When you look at the number of states Romney would need to turn (that he's currently doing poorly in) in order to win, it makes you realize it's not particularly close at all.

Nate Silver predicts that by Nov 6 Obama will have a 68% chance of winning and based only on information we have today, an 83% chance. That seems about right to me.

[2ManyTacos]

@ BobLibDem I've got to ask you about this, then:

One of the things that I'm honestly surprised the Obama camp hasn't touched on yet - and if they never address it they'll be shooting themselves in the foot - is Mitt Romney's flip-flopping on virtually every issue he has ever addressed. The old saying that "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything" really, definitively rings true for Romney because, as far as I can tell, he stands for absolutely nothing. I can definitely see the appeal behind painting Romney as a selfish corporate elitist; at the very least, it plants the seed in people's minds that Mittens is a less-than-standup guy. IMO, coupling that light of attack with the picture of Romney as a conviction-less politician would resonate far more with voters than what the current results have been yielding.

Do you think that the Obama camp is going to go after the Romney flip-flops? Should they?

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos

@ BobLibDem I've got to ask you about this, then:

One of the things that I'm honestly surprised the Obama camp hasn't touched on yet - and if they never address it they'll be shooting themselves in the foot - is Mitt Romney's flip-flopping on virtually every issue he has ever addressed. The old saying that "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything" really, definitively rings true for Romney because, as far as I can tell, he stands for absolutely nothing. I can definitely see the appeal behind painting Romney as a selfish corporate elitist; at the very least, it plants the seed in people's minds that Mittens is a less-than-standup guy. IMO, coupling that light of attack with the picture of Romney as a conviction-less politician would resonate far more with voters than what the current results have been yielding.

Do you think that the Obama camp is going to go after the Romney flip-flops? Should they?

Yes, I do and yes, they should. It's still early. I think the approach thus far has been correct- attack Romney's "strength" first and foremost. His rationale for running has been his alleged business expertise. Turn that into heartless pension-plundering tax-dodging outsourcing and you've defined him before he defines himself. Post-convention, I'd run a bunch of clips of Romney being pro-choice, pro-planned parenthood, and gay-friendly. Remember he tried to run to Ted Kennedy's left on gay rights. Then I'd see if Tom Hanks would do a voiceover, saying "Voting for Romney is like a box of chocolates- you never know what you're going to get."

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop

When you look at the number of states Romney would need to turn (that he's currently doing poorly in) in order to win, it makes you realize it's not particularly close at all.

I take some comfort in this. Romney would have to flip the coin and win Florida, and then take Ohio and Virginia, currently trending Obama, to have a shot. Even then, Obama would eek it out with the states he is currently trending in, and Romney would have to grab someone like Nevada to put him over the edge. But, still these states don't exist in a vacuum. If, for some reason, Ohio turns toward Romney, it is likely that Virginia would trend in that direction as well.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

I take some comfort in this. Romney would have to flip the coin and win Florida, and then take Ohio and Virginia, currently trending Obama, to have a shot. Even then, Obama would eek it out with the states he is currently trending in, and Romney would have to grab someone like Nevada to put him over the edge. But, still these states don't exist in a vacuum. If, for some reason, Ohio turns toward Romney, it is likely that Virginia would trend in that direction as well.

That's what has me nervous. Most of the time, the electoral vote follows the popular vote. With the popular vote looking so close, most anything can happen.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Post-convention, I'd run a bunch of clips of Romney being pro-choice, pro-planned parenthood, and gay-friendly.

Sounds like a good idea, assuming it won't convince left-leaning independents who are on the fence about Obama, and at least like the idea that Romney once supported issues they care about, to vote for him. There's no need to give such voters the hope that the flip-flopper might just flop back to supporting those issues once he's elected.

On another note, as it stands right now, if Obama wins Florida, obviously not a foregone conclusion, does anyone else agree that we can just go to bed for the night?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Barring a huge gaffe, not a lot of votes will turn on the debates.

There is always a huge gaffe; and if there isn't, the media will invent one by taking an insignificant comment and blowing it up into a huge gaffe, and run it over and over in the 24 hour news cycle. That is how the uninvolved voter gets moved by the debates.

[Happy Lendervedder]

As far as unemployment numbers go, of all the states that are polling close, per Nate Silver, the unemployment rate is an average of 1.5% below the national average.

National: 8.2
Florida: 8.4
Colorado: 8.2
Ohio: 7.2
Virginia: 5.7
Iowa: 5.2
NH: 5.1

All of these states have also trended down since June of last year:

Florida: -2.1%
Ohio: -1.7
Iowa: -0.8
Virginia: -0.6
NH: -0.4
Colorado: -0.2

So if you wanna look at electoral college, these states that could be iffy for Obama are all trending his way on unemployment, significantly Ohio.

But as we all know, states don't usually exist in a bubble, and nationally, they're trending his way too, as the unemployment rate is down almost a point from last year.

That being said, I don't think it's going to come down to the national unemployment numbers. The state-by-state trends in the battleground states are more important. Unless things start trending the other way in these states, I think the president will be fine at election time, even if you want to give Florida to the challenger.

And that being said, I think there are so many other negative things Romney could do (or positive things he could continue failing to do), that this could be a blow out. As long as real-world economic numbers continue to trend toward the positive in the important states, there's absolutely nothing Romney can do to win. He's just a bad candidate, and even if he magically turned into a decent candidate overnight, I still don't think he could beat a great incumbent campaigner who has the economic winds at his back.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

On another note, as it stands right now, if Obama wins Florida, obviously not a foregone conclusion, does anyone else agree that we can just go to bed for the night?

I think it is going to be very close in Florida for whoever wins so I would agree if Florida goes to Obama early in the evening it is over.

I would say the same for Ohio and Virginia. If they both go to Obama, even if Florida doesn't, Romney is going to be done. I think this is the more likely outcome, btw.

[Siam Sam]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop

I find it helpful and comforting to look at sites that analytically consider the electoral votes rather than some nationwide poll. I like to look at several but there's none with more detail than http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

When you look at the number of states Romney would need to turn (that he's currently doing poorly in) in order to win, it makes you realize it's not particularly close at all.

Nate Silver predicts that by Nov 6 Obama will have a 68% chance of winning and based only on information we have today, an 83% chance. That seems about right to me.

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

I take some comfort in this. Romney would have to flip the coin and win Florida, and then take Ohio and Virginia, currently trending Obama, to have a shot. Even then, Obama would eek it out with the states he is currently trending in, and Romney would have to grab someone like Nevada to put him over the edge. But, still these states don't exist in a vacuum. If, for some reason, Ohio turns toward Romney, it is likely that Virginia would trend in that direction as well.

Thanks. That's a good website and does make me feel somewhat better. If Obama lost, I'd leave America.

Oh, wait ...

[Siam Sam]

BTW: what would the chances be of Romney squeaking out a win in all three states -- Florida, Ohio and Virginia?