MT-PPP: Obama trails all

[Niemeyerite]

I`ll continue with my Romney-only map:

Great.
This is the only map worth updating.

All States results prove that Romney is the only solution for the GOP, even by default.

I disagree, big bad. That map is terrible for a republican. What that map is telling us is that romney is a bad candidate, but he seems to be an electable one because all the other (huntsman not included) are awful.

[pbrower2a]

I`ll continue with my Romney-only map:

Great.
This is the only map worth updating.

All States results prove that Romney is the only solution for the GOP, even by default.

I disagree, big bad. That map is terrible for a republican. What that map is telling us is that romney is a bad candidate, but he seems to be an electable one because all the other (huntsman not included) are awful.

I have some for other candidates -- those that do well in Republican polling. It is possible that Mitt Romney will pull out for some reason, that someone (let us say Huckabee) re-enters the race, or that someone will consolidate the support of "Everyone but Romney". I have withdrawn Huckabee when he formally withdrew and Gingrich when his situation became untenable.  I was about to add Rick Perry if he had a strong showing in Texas but resorted to Bachmann when she seemed as viable as Palin, Pawlenty, et al.

Mitt Romney is the most electable of the lot, which is about like saying that he is driving a vintage Volkswagen Beetle against someone driving an Indy Car but everyone else racing horse-drawn buggies in a winner-take-all race.

So far it looks as if Mitt Romney will get his place in American history books from hereon as the person who lost to Barack Obama in the 2012 election . But someone else? Heh, heh, heh.   

[big bad fab]

I`ll continue with my Romney-only map:

Great.
This is the only map worth updating.

All States results prove that Romney is the only solution for the GOP, even by default.

I disagree, big bad. That map is terrible for a republican. What that map is telling us is that romney is a bad candidate, but he seems to be an electable one because all the other (huntsman not included) are awful.

LOL: when I said "great", it was to support Tender against all those lil' bees which continue to post maps with Bachmann, Gingrich, Palin, Cain, Paul, whoever else.
I wanted to say: just keep a map of Romney, as he is the only obvious contender for the moment.

But, yes, it's by default as I've said, as even Romney is doing definitely bad, seeming unable to win back CO and NC, unable to kep GA or threaten OH and PA.

[pbrower2a]

I`ll continue with my Romney-only map:

Adding very pale blue for states that Mitt would win , pale red to those that Obama would win, and white to the one unpolled state (Indiana) that shows some ambiguity...

PPP polled New Hampshire and Pennsylvania this weekend, so those are best described as "subject to change".

Romney              173
Obama               353
Indeterminable    11

[bonncaruso]

It should be noted that this sample voted 50-41 for McCain in 2008.  The state only went 49-47 McCain in 2008 (MT was one of the states to have an unofficial Ron Paul option on the ballot).

Yep, and what has not been advertised is that Romney's margin has gone DOWN considerably since the last PPP poll was released on 11/17/2010. Here is that poll:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MT_1117513.pdf

Romney 50 / Obama 29, Margin = Romney +21
Pawlenty 51 / Obama 41, Margin = Tpaw +10

The only person whose margin has marginally (haha) improved since Nov 2010 is: Palin.

[pbrower2a]

It should be noted that this sample voted 50-41 for McCain in 2008.  The state only went 49-47 McCain in 2008 (MT was one of the states to have an unofficial Ron Paul option on the ballot).

Yep, and what has not been advertised is that Romney's margin has gone DOWN considerably since the last PPP poll was released on 11/17/2010. Here is that poll:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MT_1117513.pdf

Romney 50 / Obama 29, Margin = Romney +21
Pawlenty 51 / Obama 41, Margin = Tpaw +10

The only person whose margin has marginally (haha) improved since Nov 2010 is: Palin.

That is a huge shift over seven months, and if I were to see momentum, then it is on behalf of the President. Senator Tester (D, MT)  will need a strong GOTV effort in an R-leaning state to be re-elected, and you can be sure that his Senate seat will be well worth defending. Remember: Senator Tester defeated an incumbent weakened by allegations of abuse of power -- and just barely.   A GOTV effort that re-elects Senator Tester could also throw three electoral votes to President Obama.

But I am ahead of myself; that depends upon much going right that I cannot reliably foresee even if I can't rule it out.   

[DS0816]

Not a swing state under any circumstances. Doesn't matter. The end.

Incorrect. A state that ended up under 2.50% is competitive. If the Rs win back the White House in 2012, Montana's margin will be closer to 12.38% (than the 2.38% held by 2008 John McCain). If Barack Obama wins re-election as the 44th president of the United States, no reason not to go after this state when considering there's also the U.S. Senate seat held by Jon Tester (which the Ds will want to see retained).

[HAnnA MArin County]

This poll does look fishy, but any poll that shows Palin leading Obama, I think it's safe to say that he shouldn't try contesting that state. Montana must be returning to its red roots, and it's only three electoral votes.

Depending upon who the nominee is, Obama will very likely be on defense this time so he will (or should) focus more of his resources into maintaining the Big Three (Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania) and then his second-tier states will probably be Virginia and North Carolina. I don't expect Indiana to be close this time; it was, as is general consensus on here, a fluke in 2008.

I think his best chance at flipping a McCain state, other than Missouri, would be Georgia. Polling seems to be unusually surprising for Democrats there. What's going on in the Peach State?

[Badger]

Its been noted elsewhere on the forum that MT tends to have a strong anti-incumbent bias in presidential voting--at least towards GOP incumbents. Hence we saw Obama, Dukakis and Carter all do relatively well there for Democrats, and Clinton even took it in 92. The historical evidence isn't rock solid (Kerry did only a bit better PVI-wise than Gore), but it indicates its PVI will likely shift notably Republican next year.