Predict final maps

[pbrower2a]

Strange things are about to happen in the polls -- and few to the benefit of the GOP Presidential ticket.

[pbrower2a]

Strange things are about to happen in the polls -- and few to the benefit of the GOP Presidential ticket.

lol what?

The Obama/Biden campaign will convince people that privatization of Medicare and Social Security will not only be rip-offs but also put America at risk of another Great Depression. At least that will be the pitch. The Republicans have only three months in which to convince the American public otherwise, which is far from enough time.

I don't usually predict something yet to happen in a political race that has no clear precedent in recent elections, but this is a cautious prediction in the context of a collapse of credibility of one of the nominees. Whatever credibility Mitt Romney had as a moderate is ruined through his pick of an extremist as a running mate.  

Indiana is conservative but not crazy. The poll that showed Romney up 16 in the state is an interactive poll -- and hence worthless because it is so easily manipulated.  North Carolina has been a virtual tie all year and it gets an added edge as an Obama win of 2008. Missouri was very close in 2008 and nothing indicates that it will slip away. Whatever gains Romney made in Arizona compared to early and reasonable expectations is shot.

South Dakota gave Romney +6 in its last two polls and gets close. Tennessee has been in the high single digits for Romney... see also South Dakota. Georgia and Montana seemed to be in reach for President Obama.

Just watch the polls. Romney and Ryan have just re-established the New Deal coalition for the other side with people who never experienced the New Deal first-hand.
 

[pbrower2a]

Guys, in no world is mondale84 a bigger Democratic hack than pbrower. That's his niche.

I did not make a map like the one that I just did before the Ryan pick. Such says more about what I think of

1. the folly of nominating an active Representative instead of a current or former Senator or a Governor

2. the folly of nominating an extremist, partisan hack

-- and --

3. the impossibility of convincing people in a mere three months that Medicare and Social Security 'need' to be privatized.

Susan Collins, Susanna Martinez, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee would have been infinitely wiser picks. They would have changed much less and perhaps even brought more to the table. 

I thought that Arizona was out of contention and Indiana on the fringe of contention before this map. But just watch the polls in the next few weeks.

[pbrower2a]

Romney 295
Obama 243

So your predication has nothing to do with polls.

It has quite a bit to do with polls.  Obama is in a lot of trouble in Wisconsin and Iowa.  NH and CO is a theory I'm working on.  Romney is probably more likely to win Florida and Virginia than Obama.  Ohio is a hard read at present, but it could go either way. 

Obama has consistently lead in Virginia, Ohio, and WI, and lead in far more polls than Romney in IA and FL.

Yes.  He has also been consistently under 50%.  He has consistently looked beatable in those states (Ohio looks odd admittedly).  He has been consistently outspending Romney in those states by huge margins.  He has been attempting to demagogue his opponent consistently, which may work (temporarily).  Most of that stuff doesn't work forever, it boomerangs on you.       

Dubya was consistently under 50% in the latter part of the 2004 campaign season, yet he won. People may have been getting queasy about a wars that did not transmute into glorious and unqualified triumphs, and the economy had yet to go into the toilet. Liberals saw signs of such... and were undeniably right about such, although it would take more time.

Incumbents can win with approval in the high 40s against an opponent with huge flaws. John Kerry was a weak campaigner, and Mitt Romney has sold out to interests who offend multitudes while failing to offer certainty of what he is.   

[pbrower2a]

Romney 295
Obama 243

So your predication has nothing to do with polls.

It has quite a bit to do with polls.  Obama is in a lot of trouble in Wisconsin and Iowa.  NH and CO is a theory I'm working on.  Romney is probably more likely to win Florida and Virginia than Obama.  Ohio is a hard read at present, but it could go either way.  

Obama has consistently lead in Virginia, Ohio, and WI, and lead in far more polls than Romney in IA and FL.

Yes.  He has also been consistently under 50%.  He has consistently looked beatable in those states (Ohio looks odd admittedly).  He has been consistently outspending Romney in those states by huge margins.  He has been attempting to demagogue his opponent consistently, which may work (temporarily).  Most of that stuff doesn't work forever, it boomerangs on you.      

Dubya was consistently under 50% in the latter part of the 2004 campaign season, yet he won.

Barely. Take 60,000 votes in Ohio from Bush and give them to Kerry, and Kerry wins. I think it's safe to say:

A) Without Kerry's gaffe of "I voted for [it] before I voted against [it]," Bush loses.

B) Without the last minute Bin Laden tape, Bush loses.

C) Without the argument of "do not change horses in midstream" (i.e., do not change president in the middle of the war), Bush loses.

And that's back when unemployment and gas prices were, what, 5% and $2/gallon? You guys are in for a rude awakening if you think Obama is easily going to repeat the 2004 Bush squeaker based upon Obama's personal favorability ratings, which closely mirror Bush's in 2004.

The approval ratings for Dubya were steadily falling. Those for President Obama have been steady for two years. Unemployment is around 8% because of an economic collapse that began when Dubya was President because of economic choices that Dubya and rubberstamp Republicans made. Republicans in Congress are extremely unpopular. I saw signs for $5.49-a-gallon gasoline before the economic meltdown... in 2008. Gasoline prices plummeted as people got scared that they might see a reprise of the economic horrors of 1929-1933.

It is of course possible that President Obama will do things that cause him to be defeated. Time is running out for that. He has done a reasonably-good job of lowering expectations -- much like FDR in the 1930s -- for any quick fix in the economy. The Republicans have their own 'fix', but that involves monumental sacrifices by the common man on behalf of economic elites who might as well say "Trust me!"

Romney/Ryan scares the Hell out of traditional Democratic interests. Nobody wants Third World pay and the complete destruction of the economic safety net in return for vague promises that the things will be better for the common man twenty or thirty years later -- except people who can profiteer from such.

Romney/Ryan is at least as capable of political collapse as is President Obama.