Put out by Karl Rove & Co., the map shown here is an update on an earlier prediction map. The changes are that Iowa is projected as definite for Obama and Colorado is now leaning for Obama. And Arizona is a toss-up. Leaning is at least four percentage points in polling, a fairly significant lead.
What’s most revealing is that the numbers claim that even if Romney wins every single electoral vote in every toss-up state, he still doesn’t win the election. He would be 22 electoral votes short. That’s why I’ve been predicting a narrow race leading to an Obama win. For Romney to pick up all six toss-up states plus two is a seriously difficult uphill battle. This map shows exactly the size of the turnaround needed.
Again, this is Karl Rove’s website, from his business as a political consultant.
Especially since it can’t be just any two. At least one of them has to be Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Michigan, and realistically, with as much as Romney’s been hating on Michigan, I can’t see any realistic way he can make up ground there. And it’s even harder if Obama takes any of those yellow states at all, all of which have decent numbers of EVs.
I’m guessing that Romney’s strategy has to be to focus in on Ohio and Pennsylvania as hard as he can, while hoping that simultaneously something happens to shift the national mood rightward as a whole.
I can’t quibble with Rove’s assessment of the map as it stands now. If anything, I think he’s underestimating Romney’s base. I don’t see any of the “lean Romney” states as being close to flipping to blue. Seriously, Montana and South Dakota? Get outta here. SC a tossup? Ha.
I think Romney’s path to 270 is much narrower than Obama’s. I see four key states: MI, OH, PA, and FL. Romney needs 3 of these 4. If he only gets 2 then he needs a perfect storm of the smaller swing states.
Rove has MO as a toss up and I’d like to believe that. But the state’s been trending Republican lately (both locally and nationally). So much so that we’ve had multiple visits from both sides but no actual campaign events. It’s all been private fundraisers. The candidates want to pick up their checks and pack up because both sides see no point in fighting over a MO that’s probably going red this time around.
Not in presidential politics. You’re always better off being seen as the leader. The aura rubs off on poll numbers. It gets you more money - people always want to back the winner and be seen doing so. Indecisive voters like to go with a winner. Volunteers and staffers work much harder for frontrunners and get much more support in return. You can talk all you want about getting your side more fired up because you’re being underestimated, but Romney would give half his money if he had numbers like these.
Karl Rove is calling Arizona a toss-up. The is a calculated pose, not intellectual honesty. There’s some truth to wanting to be seen as a leader, but there’s also truth to motivating your side. I am convinced Rove is ignoring reality and building a narrative.
Next month, regardless of the polls he claims to be using, he’ll have a few more delegates for Romney, and a few more ‘tossup’ that had been ‘lean Obama.’
I get emails all the time about how Obama needs my help and it’s urgent, and the wolves are at the door.
Well, in the text he does say that SC is based on old polls and that we should expect it to go more solidly red once the campaign gets going. Montana going blue isn’t as implausible as everyone makes out, though. I mean, he’s right to label it as leaning Republican, but it’s a small lean.
Agreed. Also, if this is from Rove’s professional political-consulting site, does he want to post anything that might come back to undermine his reputation for astuteness?
This is just a map that assigns a color based on the polling average for that state. Nothing more, nothing less. What’s there to argue?
Obama looks better on this map because he is ahead three or four points in the national polling. When that narrows over the summer, the map will change.
Most likely, Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia will be the true battlegrounds, assuming the race gets a bit tighter.
No, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania will be the battleground states, assuming the race gets tighter. And if the race gets really tight then the battleground states will be Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
The map purports to reflect polling in each individual state. It’s interesting that the national polls happen to balance out, but that’s meaningless in state terms. California and New York are 20% of the population by themselves and are overwhelmingly Democratic. So a large number of smaller states must be Republican to balance that out. However, it is the exact distribution of those Republicans that is the entire issue.
Do you have anything to base this on, or is this more electoral fantasy? VT is the most reliably blue state this year, apart from HI (being Obama’s home state). There’s no way VT is close except in the scenario of a Romney landslide.
[QUOTE= Wikipedia]
In the 2000 presidential election, Bush was the first Republican in American history to win the White House without carrying Vermont or Illinois.[205] Vermont gave Barack Obama his third largest winning margin (37 percentage points) winning there 68–31%.
[/QUOTE]
Your cite shows Vermont trending more and more Democratic over the last 20 years. Polling indicates Vermont isn’t even close. It may have been a Republican bellwether in the past, but that’s clearly no longer the case.
I disagree. The two polls with the latest start dates both show Romney up. The Gallup Tracking poll started before the announcement, so can’t be used. All the other polls ended previous.