Alaska in play?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Any chance Alaska might be in play?

I know McCain won it handily, but that was with an Alaska running mate. Why would Alaska be in the bag for Romney now?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Because Alaska is a Republican state. Its economy is based on oil subsidies and fishing, and the former is more important.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nate Silver gives Romney a 20 point lead and a 98.5% chance of winning it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

...

No.

[NVGonzalez]

Nope.

[Miles]

Maybe if Romney picks Joe Miller as his running mate. Even then....

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Not
a
chance
in
hell...

[pbrower2a]

No way.

Just take a look at North Dakota, now undergoing a boom in energy. In 2008 many people thought that Barack Obama had a chance to win there. The most recent polls show the state completely out of contention.

The energy industry pays well, creating a 1950's-style prosperity that creates a conservative-leaning electorate. This is much in contrast to the 'workers-are-expendable-livestock' ethos characteristic of much of American business.

[Niemeyerite]

There may be 1 or 2 polls showing it close, but I expect Romney to carry the state by, at least, 12 points.

[Supersonic]

Obama is not winning anything McCain won.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Why would Alaska be in the bag for Romney now?

Because it's Alaska.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The only way Alaska would in play is in Johnson or Goode somehow manage to catch fire and become a significant third party option, and if that happens, Romney's got bigger problems than Alaska.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The only way Alaska would in play is in Johnson or Goode somehow manage to catch fire and become a significant third party option, and if that happens, Romney's got bigger problems than Alaska.

^basically this. Third Parties always do well in Alaska. It was Nader's best state in 2000, 2004, and 2008, and one of Perot's best percentage-wise in 1992. However, Romney isn't going to lose Alaska barring a complete catastrophe. Its politics are similar to other sparsely-populated energy-rich states in the Mountain West. It's very much in the bag for Mitt, unless Goode or Johnson gets a financial angel.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

One of the reasons I asked is because I haven't seen any polls from Alaska.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

However, Romney isn't going to lose Alaska barring a complete catastrophe.

The way things are going, that's certainly possible.

[opebo]

Obama is not winning anything McCain won.

That's certainly true, though there are some bright prospects further down the road - such as Arizona or even Georgia - but Alaska isn't even a serious possibility in this generation.

[Middle-aged Europe]

One of the reasons I asked is because I haven't seen any polls from Alaska.

That's because you don't need to poll Alaska in order to know how it's gonna vote.

Why waste the time and ressources?

[pbrower2a]

Obama is not winning anything McCain won.

He could win Missouri, Georgia, or Arizona. But each of those is a long shot. That of course assumes that Mitt doesn't have a Dukakis-style collapse.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Last time around, it was competitive up until the Palin pick.
High single-digits for Romney.

[rbt48]

Here is the history of Alaska's Presidential popular votes:
Alaska Popular Vote History             Supported Winner 8 of 13 times                              
Year           Party   Republican   %   Democrat   %   Third Party   %   Libertarian   %   Various   %
1960   30,953   50.94   29,809   49.06               0   0.00
1964   22,930   34.09   44,329   65.91               0   0.00
1968   37,600   45.28   35,411   42.65   10,024   12.07         0   0.00
1972   55,349   58.13   32,967   34.62   6,903   7.25         0   0.00
1976   71,555   57.90   44,058   35.65         6,785   5.49   1,176   0.95
1980   86,112   54.35   41,842   26.41   11,155   7.04   18,479   11.66   857   0.54
1984   138,377   66.65   62,007   29.87         6,378   3.07   843   0.41
1988   119,251   59.59   72,584   36.27   1,024   0.51   5,484   2.74   1,773   0.89
1992   102,000   39.46   78,294   30.29   73,481   28.43   1,378   0.53   3,353   1.29
Year           Party   Republican   %   Democrat   %   Third Party   %   Green   %   Various   %
1996   122,746   50.80   80,380   33.27   26,333   10.90   7,597   3.14   4,564   1.89
2000   167,398   58.62   79,004   27.67   5,192   1.82   28,747   10.07   5,219   1.83
2004   190,889   61.07   111,025   35.52   5,069   1.62   1,675   0.54   3,940   1.26
2008   193,841   59.42   123,594   37.89   3,783   1.16   1,589   0.49   3,390   1.04
Vote Totals/Percentages   1,339,001   55.32   835,304   34.51   142,964   5.91   78,112   3.43   25,115   1.04
Average percentage/contested elections      53.56      37.31     (Nationwide winner for each election in bold type)               
Number of times Alaska went Republican:  12; Democrat:  1.               Total minor party vote:            246,191   10.17

[Хahar 🤔]

In 1980, Ed Clark won 11.66% (!!!) of the vote in Alaska as a Libertarian.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Lingle has a better chance of winning that HI senate seat than Obama has of winning Alaska.

[Stranger in a strange land]

One of the reasons I asked is because I haven't seen any polls from Alaska.

That's because you don't need to poll Alaska in order to know how it's gonna vote.

Why waste the time and ressources?

To add to all that, Alaska is notoriously hard to poll, and Democrats almost always underperform on election day.

[RodPresident]

In 2008, Alaska GOP was in a very bad situation. Palin in ticket saved Dan Young from being unseated.

[NVGonzalez]

Obama is not winning anything McCain won.

He could win Missouri, Georgia, or Arizona. But each of those is a long shot. That of course assumes that Mitt doesn't have a Dukakis-style collapse.

...which is not out of the question....