My guess is that they have tons of volunteers there, and you don’t want to tell them to take a hike.
They can make phone calls to anywhere. Near state borders, they can be bussed across state lines to help knock on doors (Obama Illinois offices ship volunteers to Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan, for instance. Maybe Romney Illinois offices do the same. IDK).
The IOC is an NGO. The USOC is a quasi-governmental organization chartered by the federal government under Title 32 of the United States Code.
The Olympics are not public; individual Olympiads are.
Good point.
As far as the battleground states go, the closest races (as of 11pm last night, according to 538 now-cast, RCP, HuffPost, and TPM) seem to be Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire and Virginia, with Romney having an edge in those states (but within some margin of error).
In Colorado, Florida and New Hampshire, Obama has more than a 2-1 advantage in offices for GOTV. Let’s assume Florida goes to Romney regardless. So for Colorado and New Hampshire, Obama will have an *enormous *edge in GOTV because of a tight organization there, which I see as a huge advantage for Obama and gives him those two states. Let’s also assume (huge assumption, I know) that the other Battleground states (IA, MI, NV, NM, NC, OH, PA, WI) stay relatively close to where they are now polling-wise, and combine that with the *enormous *lead Obama will have in GOTV boots there. Again, advantage Obama. The only Battleground Obama would lose today (based on current polling) is North Carolina. I’ll even give Ohio to Romney just for shits and giggles.
That leaves Virginia, which is polling very close-- I’d say Romney’s up by less than 1% there. Also given the fact that, proportionally speaking, Romney has a lot more offices compared to the other Battleground states. So let’s say Romney’s organization there pays off and he wins Virginia.
That means the Battleground looks like this:
CO: Obama (9ev)
FL: Romney (29ev)
IA: Obama (9ev)
MI: Obama (16ev)
NH: Obama (4ev)
NV: Obama (6ev)
NM: Obama (5ev)
NC: Romney (15ev)
OH: Romney (18ev)
PA: Obama (20ev)
VA: Romney (13ev)
WI: Obama (10ev)
That would give Obama 272 ev and re-election. Of those that I gave to Obama, Iowa is polling the closest, followed by Wisconsin and Nevada. I’d say those three are where Obama needs to be the most aggressive in the final two weeks.
Of those three, Obama’s ground game looks to be the most vulnerable in NV, polling is tightest in Iowa, and Republicans have a pretty tight GOTV effort in WI due to the Walker recall (plus the whole Paul connection). Obama loses any one of those states, he loses the election.
Every losing campaign talks about how their awesome ground game is going to save them on election day.
I’m confused … is saving jobs a good thing or not?
This is besides the point, but as a matter of fact the US is the first country to not hold an Olympics because we screwed it up. Denver was awarded the 1976 Winter Games but they couldn’t get their act together so at the last minute it went to Innsbruck Austria, which had held them in 1964.
This might be true because every campaign in the modern era talks about how their awesome ground game is going to save them, and one side must always be the loser.
But it is equally true that one of the two sides touting its ground game will win–sometimes by margins exceeding what the polls said, as Obama did in 2008.
Winning campaigns say that too.
Where did I claim otherwise? I actually said in CO, FL, NH and VA Romney has a polling edge, albeit slight.
That makes me shit and others giggle. The map still favors Obama. But-elections can be and have been stolen (2000, 2004).
2000 I can see, but 2004?
Actually, scratch what I said, I should’ve put Colorado in the Big Three Obama needs to get aggressive in for the final two weeks. Take out Wisconsin; he’s solid enough there, with good organization from within and surrounding states.
Colorado, Iowa and Nevada are the three Obama needs to go balls-out aggressive and where he’s currently the weakest, IMO.
This title of this thread was humorous when it was originally posted. Now, it’s hilarious. Something tells me that people like BobLibDem are in for a wonderful surprise.
Yeah, well, considering that people as early as, I dunno, post #2 were saying the answer to the title was “no,” I’m not exactly sure what’s so funny.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood:
What did you mean by that sentence?
Do you think the 2004 election was “stolen”?
Yes I do. See Ohio. I don’t want to hijack the thread, but there are many excellent articles such as this one explaining how the dirty deed was done.
I’m not exactly sure why you’re confused: (emphasis added)
Sorry, your article is way too long and started way too poorly for me to keep reading. I’m just going to file this in my “crazy people” bin and move on. Good luck and I look forward to your “2012 election was stolen!” thread.
Here’s what I meant: Obama’s consistently down in four major polls in NC, by a minimum of 2.2 percentage points and upwards of 5.6 percentage points. The only place where I see Obama down in Colorado is the poll you cited, RCP. The other three there show Obama up by upwards of 1.3 points. I already linked to where I’m getting my numbers, but I’ll do it again.
I’ll even give you the results here, in case you don’t want to click the link:
CO:
538 “Now-cast:” Obama +0.1
RCP: Romney +0.2
HuffPost Pollster: Obama +1.3
TPM: Obama +0.4
So that’s what I meant by the “only Battleground Obama would lose today (based on current polling) is North Carolina.” That’s the only state that shows an across-the-board lead for Romney. Colorado only has the one poll. Clear?
But don’t get me wrong, as I stated above, CO is definitely a state Obama needs to get aggressive in and hold if he wants to win. it’s effectively tied. Momentum matters. But so does GOTV.
I think I was confused by your invocation of a particular poster who, according to his page one post, also answered “no” for the thread title, even with his belief that Obama was way ahead (which at the time, he kind of was - to what extent is another subject). That made me think you were talking about some kind of larger attitude.