Now that any doubt about NM is out of the way, do you think we can say that Obama has 247 in the bag, and Romney has 181 in the bag?
I don't think I've ever seen an election like this. The polls in the red states are showing substanial leads for Obama (don't give me the NH and PA bs, Romney's not winning there). The polls in the blue states are showing substanial leads for Romney. The polls in nearly every one of the grey states is basically showing a dead heat (note that I don't buy MO, but polls there HAVE shown a close race, and the Akin thing is at the VERY least a little bit of a wild card).
Very strange.
I wouldn't say it is 'BS' to assume that New Hampshire is a tossup, Obama has only been leading by around 3-5 points there. Nevada, too, shouldn't really be classed as leaning Obama. It's also very difficult to class Missouri as a tossup, the President isn't winning anything McCain won. Period.
NH has been going the way of the rest of New England for years, or should I say, the GOP has been moving away from NH politics. Gore probably wins there in 2000 without Nader. Kerry picks it up in a national loss. Obama cruises in 2008. Last 8 polls, O+6, O+4, O+3, tie, O+8, O+5, O+13, O+9. Should I have called it BS? Maybe not, but only because it sounds harsh and hackish. How is Romney going to buck the trend AND overcome an inherent disadvantage by the simple fact that, now, NH is a Democratic state nationally.
Nevada is clearly leaning toward Obama and Democrats underpoll there EVERY SINGLE TIME. C'mon now.
read by post again... I said I don't buy Missouri being that close. However, recent polls have showed it tight and the recent thing with Akin
could be a bit of a wild card in terms of motivating liberal-leaning women to vote. So, I reluctantly keep it grey for right now.
