Swing States: Bitterly Clinging to Their 1-2% Spread

My current electoral map projection has President Obama leading with 277 electoral votes, while Governor Romney will get 261. The swing states of Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Colorado I have going to Romney, while Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nevada I have going for Obama.

I also believe there is a very real chance that Romney will win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College. Not because he is an amazing campaigner or anything, but because McCain seriously underperformed in many states. Not just in swing states, but in traditionally Republican states as well. It also helps that Hurricane Sandy is predicted to lower voter turnout by 340,000 from mostly Democratic, northeastern voters.

To delve a bit more into my projection:

Florida: Florida is a swing state because of the urban areas it has. Outside of there, it is a very Republican state. The incumbent Governor, Rick Scott, is arguably the most conservative governor in the country. Their junior Senator, Marco Rubio, also rode a Tea Party wave to the United States Senate. It is a much more Republican state than people give it credit for, and Romney should have a solid showing in the state. In fact, a Florida Times poll shows Romney up by 5.

North Carolina: North Carolina is one of those traditionally Republican states, like Indiana, that is likely to "come home" and vote for the Republican candidate this time around. Unlike Indiana, there are some demographic changes that might make North Carolina more of a competitive state in Presidential years, but that'll happen slowly.

Virginia: Virginia is also experiencing demographic changes, but unlike North Carolina, they're happening at a much more rapid pace. Due to Republican enthusiasm, I think Romney will win Virginia. But Republican Presidential candidates can no longer take Virginia for granted and count on it. They'll have to campaign here and campaign hard to win it, even by a few points.

New Hampshire: A lot of these swing states haven't voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate in over two decades. But that's a different case with New Hampshire. It voted for George W. Bush in 2000, and that was after he lost the Republican primary contest in the state to Senator John McCain. The polls in New Hampshire have fluctuated between Obama and Romney for a while now, and I think this is Romney's best small swing state pickup. I also think he has an outside shot at getting a Congressional district from Maine.

Colorado: This is an extremely close call, because many polls are showing this race with a decimal point separating the candidates rather than whole percentages. This is honestly a tossup, but my coin flip goes to Romney.

For the Obama swing states:

Nevada: Nevada experienced a very close re-election race two years ago, with Senator Harry Reid barely beating out Republican challenger Sharron Angle. Reid isn't well-liked, but because of this state, the Obama campaign knows every single Democrat in the state. The Obama organization machine can turn them out, and that's why I'm putting Nevada in the President's column.

Wisconsin/Iowa: Despite having elected several Republicans in the recent 2010 elections, President Obama has stubbornly led in the polls in both of these states. Wisconsin's Republican Party has a great groundgame due to the Scott Walker re-call election, and they might be getting extra attention because Republican National Committee Chairmen Reince Preibus is from Wisconsin. But neither have voted for a Republican Presidential candidate  (non-incumbent) since 1980. So the edge goes to President Obama.

On another note, over the weekend I did say Iowa would go for Romney. But with the Des Moines Register pegging Obama's lead at 5, I think it is safe to say Iowa will break for Obama.

Ohio: The President has stubbornly led in the polls most of the time. It'll be close, and it won't be safe, but I think he is poised to win it right now.

Wannabes: Pennsylvania and Michigan have been punted around as swing states during this election cycle, and while they've elected plenty of Republicans to state-wide and local offices, they're reliable Democratic states for Presidential elections.

The one thing I don't think will happen is the concept of a "firewall". That being that the candidate that loses Ohio will pick up enough of the swing states to still win. I think Mitt Romney has had to expand too many resources in North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia and he can't reliably count on a combination of Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nevada breaking for him to make up for that loss. Similarly, I think President Obama can easily count on Iowa and Wisconsin, but can't be certain about Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire. The candidate who wins Ohio will win the election.

Paul-Romney Alliance: You Guys Thought I Was Crazy

Back in January, I speculated that Congressman Ron Paul and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had some sort of deal cut. An unspoken one, of course, but one nonetheless. Both have been exceedingly kind to each other in the debates, with Romney deferring questions to Paul and Paul rarely directly attacking Romney. And when he does, it isn't in the same way he's taken on former Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Senator Rick Santorum, or Texas Governor Rick Perry. And Paul's attack ads are typically focused on the Not-Romney candidates and usually only mention Romney in passing. The Washington Post also has sources speculating what the Romney camp could offer Paul and his supporters in terms of the Republican Party platform, such as an audit of the Federal Reserve.

And you all thought I was crazy.

Since then, the New York Times has documented the personal bromance between the two candidates. And the morning after CNN's latest Presidential debate, what was on everyone's tongue was the unspoken Paul-Romney alliance. Santorum and his chief strategist both commented on it, with the strategist wandering out loud if Romney offered Paul a Vice Presidential nomination. Governor Perry commented that the alliance between Paul and Romney is "interesting". Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and talk radio host Rush Limbaugh have also recently noted how friendly the two candidates are to eachother. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough even called the deal "bizarre". Scarborough goes on to note that if the deal is real, it isn't likely to sit well with many Paul supporters.

And just think of the first two contests, and how much differently they would've played out if Ron Paul wasn't there.

Paul essentially acted as a firewall in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Finishing below Ron Paul was the kiss-of-death for Perry, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Even if their vote totals didn't increase, their placing would've, and that could've changed the dynamics in South Carolina, Florida, and so on.

I won't claim to understand why this alliance was formed, or how Paul will benefit from it.

But it sure is interesting to watch.

Warming Up To Gary Johnson's Libertarian Presidential Bid

I've been critical of Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, during his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination. He was competing for the same group that Congressman Ron Paul goes for, the libertarian leaning group. Even though Johnson offered up several policies that differentiated him from Paul, there wasn't room in that party's primary for two libertarians. Johnson's lack of stage presence and slightly awkward public speaking ability probably didn't help either. He was shut out of debates, finished low in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and eventually started exploring the nomination for the Libertarian Party.

But last night, he appeared on Alan Colmes' nightly radio show in a live interview. And Governor Johnson really represents this new wave of small L libertarian belief that can effectively work in today's modern society. Instead of the standard libertarian response of "Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all!", Governor Johnson has fully embraced marriage equality. Johnson also spoke out against drug testing welfare beneficiaries, claiming that would be discriminatory actions against poor Americans, and said he would be against building a border fence. I think, as a former border state Governor, he'd know a thing or two about that topic.

This isn't to say that Johnson is going to appeal to absolutely everyone. He wants to cut the federal budget drastically and return a lot of that money, including much of what goes into Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, to the states to manage on their own. He's also endorsed the Fair Tax, a national sales tax that would replace federal income tax rates and FICA payroll taxes. But even on these issues, he stressed that he wouldn't get in the way of reducing the size of government if it meant compromising to get 90% of what he wanted.

Politics is the art of the possible. And Governor Johnson understands that. I don't agree with him on all counts. But considering that the Libertarian (national) Party has nominated some real looney tunes over the last handful of Presidential cycles, he would make an excellent standard bearer for the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul's "Collect Delegates" Strategy for Dummies

MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow recently had Doug Wead on to explain what exactly is Ron Paul's path to "victory", at least victory as defined by Ron Paul's campaign. Basically, it's to become a delegate at the precinct level, which then goes to the county, which then goes to the state, where the actual delegates are assigned for the national convention. And even though precincts might've voted a certain way, these delegates will pledge their support to Ron Paul.

It's very creative. There aren't enough caucus states for Paul to win a nomination. But if say, there were three other candidates in the race until the convention, it could lead to the first brokered convention in decades.

If the above video is taken down, it's also hosted on MSNBC's site.