Indiana

[Kalimantan]

Hasn't been a poll there since March, by some no-name pollster. Does no-one care about this state anymore, does everyone assume it will have no role in this election at all?

[Tender Branson]

Yeah, I wondered about that too. Probably has to do with the robo-poll ban too.

But I noticed that pollsters seem to poll non-swing-states far less often this year than they did in 2004 or 2008. For example no poll from SC and GA in about 5 months. The last KY poll is about 1 year old ...

[MilesC56]

Its probably Lean R at the Presidential level, since Obama doesn't seem to be contesting it nearly as much as he did in 2008. The real action there will be in the Senate race.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I have a hard time seeing Romney winning it, because of 1) the "right-to-work" garbage; and 2) Romney closing a factory in Marion.

McCain won the county with Marion in 2008, but I can actually see Obama winning that county in 2012 because Romney's greed affected it so much.

[ConservativeIllini]

I'd be shocked if the state ends within 7-8 points this year.  It will almost certainly swing back to the R column, which is likely why no one is polling it.

[True Federalist]

Yeah, I wondered about that too. Probably has to do with the robo-poll ban too.

But I noticed that pollsters seem to poll non-swing-states far less often this year than they did in 2004 or 2008. For example no poll from SC and GA in about 5 months. The last KY poll is about 1 year old ...

Neither Georgia nor South Carolina have any statewide races this year, so unless it unexpectedly starts looking like Obama will do better this year than in 2008, there's no reason to do a statewide poll in either state.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

I doubt Obama will start spending money in IN unless he's already won, so even if the polls are relatively close I don't think it will be too contested.

[Kalimantan]

I'd be shocked if the state ends within 7-8 points this year.  It will almost certainly swing back to the R column, which is likely why no one is polling it.

Its strange though that a state can swing 20 points between elections, and then swing back by almost the same amount the next. I'm sure some of the swing was because of the hopey-changey stuff, but equally there are surely some underlying demographic changes meaning Indiana will stay close regardless

[sg0508]

52-47% is my guess for Romney.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

It could be as bad as what Mourdock did to Lugar.

[pbrower2a]

I'd be shocked if the state ends within 7-8 points this year.  It will almost certainly swing back to the R column, which is likely why no one is polling it.

Its strange though that a state can swing 20 points between elections, and then swing back by almost the same amount the next. I'm sure some of the swing was because of the hopey-changey stuff, but equally there are surely some underlying demographic changes meaning Indiana will stay close regardless

Indiana has long been the Republican anomaly in Presidential elections. It is more rural than neighbors and near-neighbors Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. It has generally low voter turnout (the state shuts down its voting booths at 6 PM)... but it can vote for Democrats for the Senate and the Governorship. In the 111th Congress it had a 5-4 split in favor of  Democrats in the House delegation.

The state is difficult to campaign in from afar; such usually favors the Republican nominee for President. By campaigning from Chicago, President Obama turned that upside-down. The bad economy hurt Republicans due to the RV industry sensitive to the general economy, gas prices, and financing. Two states bordering Indiana (Michigan and Ohio) were swing states throughout most of 2008. To reach some parts of Michigan and Ohio the Obama campaign had to buy ads in South Bend and Fort Wayne. As Michigan became a sure thing the ads stayed on in South Bend... and voters in eastern Indiana were still getting ads from Cincinnati, Dayton, and Fort Wayne. As Michigan became a sure thing the Obama campaign could shift advertising to Indianapolis from Grand Rapids, Lansing, Flint, and Detroit.   

[Nagas]

It could be as bad as what Mourdock did to Lugar.

I doubt it will revert to Bush levels, but a 10-point loss isn't out of the question. Kerry's (and Ellsworth's) performances seem to be the floor and I imagine Obama will not hit it as he's an incumbent with an extensive ground operation.

[WalterMitty]

I have a hard time seeing Romney winning it, because of 1) the "right-to-work" garbage; and 2) Romney closing a factory in Marion.

McCain won the county with Marion in 2008, but I can actually see Obama winning that county in 2012 because Romney's greed affected it so much.

comedy goldmine.

right to work is the only way to go.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we're free at last!

[Bandit3 the Worker]

right to work is the only way to go.

"Right-to-work" is unconstitutional.

[True Federalist]

right to work is the only way to go.

"Right-to-work" is unconstitutional.

Federal "right-to-work" legislation is based upon the same commerce powers that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its progeny are based upon, that the government has the right to compel people to engage in commerce with all comers and prevent them from doing so with a selected subset.  If "right-to-work" laws be unconstitutional, then so are all the laws concerning equal employment, equal housing, equal accommodations, etc.

[pbrower2a]

"Right-to-work" laws are effectively "duty-to-undercut-other-worker" laws. Right-to-work states are nightmares for working people who have lower pay, employees less likely to have medical coverage, more deaths on the job, lower credit scores, lower educational achievement, and more high-school dropouts. They are poorer. The only compensation is that duty-to-undercut states have lower costs of living... which may reflect the higher real-estate costs in such states as Hawaii, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. There may be more jobs but they are lower-paying, dead-end jobs.

What's the dream of the Hard Rigtht -- that higher profits and executive compensation allow more people to work as domestic servants? 

[HockeyDude]

It's going to revert back to GOP in a pretty big way.  Indiana probably (almost want to say definitely) had the highest % of generally conservative voters taking a flier on the kid from Chicago.  The swing and trends maps from 2008 were absolutely absurd, I still wonder how Obama pulled it off. 

To me, it's a 53-45 Romney victory, and that's in an election where I think Obama wins by 5 nationally. 

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

The maps were absurd because of ACORN.

[True Federalist]

"Right-to-work" laws are effectively "duty-to-undercut-other-worker" laws. Right-to-work states are nightmares for working people who have lower pay, employees less likely to have medical coverage, more deaths on the job, lower credit scores, lower educational achievement, and more high-school dropouts. They are poorer. The only compensation is that duty-to-undercut states have lower costs of living... which may reflect the higher real-estate costs in such states as Hawaii, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. There may be more jobs but they are lower-paying, dead-end jobs.

It's hardly surprising that lower labor costs would be associated with a lower cost of living, but since the difference in the cost of living between the two groups of states is greater than the difference in hourly wages it seems to me the lower wages are because of the lower cost of living rather than the reverse as you are assuming.  Indeed, given the pitiful rates of private union membership in both States that permit the agency shop and those that ban it, I'm skeptical that right-to-work legislation has much of an effect on wages or working conditions.

[Torie]

"Right-to-work" laws are effectively "duty-to-undercut-other-worker" laws. Right-to-work states are nightmares for working people who have lower pay, employees less likely to have medical coverage, more deaths on the job, lower credit scores, lower educational achievement, and more high-school dropouts. They are poorer. The only compensation is that duty-to-undercut states have lower costs of living... which may reflect the higher real-estate costs in such states as Hawaii, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. There may be more jobs but they are lower-paying, dead-end jobs.

It's hardly surprising that lower labor costs would be associated with a lower cost of living, but since the difference in the cost of living between the two groups of states is greater than the difference in hourly wages it seems to me the lower wages are because of the lower cost of living rather than the reverse as you are assuming.  Indeed, given the pitiful rates of private union membership in both States that permit the agency shop and those that ban it, I'm skeptical that right-to-work legislation has much of an effect on wages or working conditions.

Outside oligopolistic industries (at one time the auto companies and big steel companies, and probably still Boeing), monopolistic ones (some transportation, utility and of course government entities), unions have almost no impact on employee compensation. The market where there is competition is a harsh mistress. It will not allow a company to stay in business if one pays workers much above market.

[mondale84]

The maps were absurd because of ACORN.

WTF?

This board has become so insufferable because of such blindly trollish/hackish posts, please stop.

[Vosem]

I have a hard time seeing Romney winning it, because of 1) the "right-to-work" garbage;

Pretty sure polling in Indiana shows the majority of people support right-to-work. It's a great policy and I would love to see it adopted nationwide.

and 2) Romney closing a factory in Marion.

McCain won the county with Marion in 2008, but I can actually see Obama winning that county in 2012 because Romney's greed affected it so much.

I love the way you call making money 'greed'. It epitomizes a lot of what is wrong with the world.

[Kalimantan]

I have a hard time seeing Romney winning it, because of 1) the "right-to-work" garbage;

Pretty sure polling in Indiana shows the majority of people support right-to-work. It's a great policy and I would love to see it adopted nationwide.

and 2) Romney closing a factory in Marion.

McCain won the county with Marion in 2008, but I can actually see Obama winning that county in 2012 because Romney's greed affected it so much.

I love the way you call making money 'greed'. It epitomizes a lot of what is wrong with the world.

Hang on, I agree that making money should not generically be termed 'greed', but he is specifically referring to making money by closing a factory and presumably putting people out of work, and I think doing something like that to 'make money' (as opposed to saving money) definitely falls into the definition of greed.

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

Hasn't been a poll there since March, by some no-name pollster. Does no-one care about this state anymore, does everyone assume it will have no role in this election at all?

It's going to be a red state again. 2008 was a fluke due to promises made by Obama of $15 billion a year which is chunk change anyway. I don't think it will go for Obama anymore than GA or AZ. My prediction for Indiana this time is 55-45 for Romney.