Talk Elections

52-38 Obama

9% would vote for "others" (Gary Johnson most likely) and just 1% is undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_mexico/election_2012_new_mexico_president

Good for the downballot Senate and House races.

Interesting. So PPP and Rasmussen are swtiching sides here.

PPP had the race 49-44% in July.
Last Rasmussen poll of New Mexico showed Obama with a wider 16 point lead, 52-36%. And then an even earlier Rasmussen poll from back in February showed Obama enjoying a 19 point lead, 55-36%.

So basically as big as his '08 margin.

Remember when New Mexico was actually a swing state? Good times.

I think Romney is not wasting his time in that state.

So, if current trends continue, Romney is tied with Obama in a NM Rasmussen poll in November 2013 ?

lol. Well, looks like NM is safe?

Ha :) I'm betting it takes longer than that. Took him 6 months to go from -19 to -14 in the state!

Edited cause I noticed you said November 2013, not 2012. On that, we agree.

Does anyone think of NM as a swing or battleground state anymore. I dont think much is being spent there by either side.

There is really just that one carrot stick PPP dangled back in July showing it a 49-44% race. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NM_071812.pdf. And the Washington Post ad tracker has picked up on very minimal ad spending in NM from either campaign since the primary season. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/track-presidential-campaign-ads-2012/

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.

Something bizarre is up in Minnesota.  Biden was just there and the campaigns spent six-figures advertising there last week.   Plus, Michigan may be closer than you think.  So, no.

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.

You're not winning Michigan.  You're not winning Minnesota.  I'm looking at this election realistically, not in GOP fairytale land. 

Agreed, Romney's path to a win doesn't run through Minnesota or Michigan. They aren't states Democrats can totally ignore, but they aren't going to be toss-ups.

Campaign ad spending and travel itineraries would dictate that one or both of the parties think Minnesota, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania are close enough to spend at least six-figures per week advertising there.  

Follow the money.  Follow the candidates.  That tells you even more than the polling.  Call those states "in the bag" for Obama at your own peril.

I would agree with that map except NH which may be lean Obama but could go either way in the end. It is hard to tell if MO should be added to the battlegrounds yet. I think with the NRSC and Crossroads pulling out of the senate race Romney and the GOP may have to play some defense but it isn't a swing state yet.

There hasn't been any significant ad spending in Missouri in many months, suggesting the campaigns don't think it is a battleground.  It will be interesting to see if that changes in the near future after the Akin debacle.

That is what I was saying, MO was like NM, MN, MI and PA...as in states where there was maybe some flirting with spending and swing but not anymore. However, Akin may have changed it. If the GOP side has really pulled out of spending for the senate race (and likely with the Dems now putting more in), the republicans could have a turnout problem