Current polling, Obama vs. Romney

[hopper]

Romney aint gonna win based on the sheer demographic mountain he has to climb. We are entering an era of Democratic presidential dominance based solely on the growing number of minority voters. Why do you think Democrats have dominated in most presidential elections since 1992? States that used to be easy GOP pickups are becoming increasingly out of reach because of rising minority populations.

Romney can try to make inroads with these voters, but he's certainly not going to win hispanics, for instance, after his party based their entire election strategy in 2010 on bashing and scapegoating them. And don't try to tell me that there is a difference between legal and illegal hispanics. Even most of the legal hispanics found the attacks on illegal immigration disgusting.

Things will change of course. After these minorities become more assimilated they will begin to split more between the parties, but it's not happening for a while. I wish Romney luck trying to win Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and even Arizona. But I think he's going to hit a wall with these voters that he can't break through.

You forgot to mention 2000 and 2004 when Bush won most of the Hispanic vote. 

Besides, the Hispanic voters are over-estimated since many can't vote since they are not citizens.

No, Bush W. won 40% of the Hispanic Vote in 2000 and 44% of that vote in 2004.

[AmericanNation]

Romney aint gonna win based on the sheer demographic mountain he has to climb. We are entering an era of Democratic presidential dominance based solely on the growing number of minority voters. Why do you think Democrats have dominated in most presidential elections since 1992? States that used to be easy GOP pickups are becoming increasingly out of reach because of rising minority populations.

Romney can try to make inroads with these voters, but he's certainly not going to win hispanics, for instance, after his party based their entire election strategy in 2010 on bashing and scapegoating them. And don't try to tell me that there is a difference between legal and illegal hispanics. Even most of the legal hispanics found the attacks on illegal immigration disgusting.

Things will change of course. After these minorities become more assimilated they will begin to split more between the parties, but it's not happening for a while. I wish Romney luck trying to win Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and even Arizona. But I think he's going to hit a wall with these voters that he can't break through.

You forgot to mention 2000 and 2004 when Bush won most of the Hispanic vote.  

Besides, the Hispanic voters are over-estimated since many can't vote since they are not citizens.

I haven't done an in depth study, but the nation wide Hispanic party-voting percentages may often be skewed by the large numbers of that population living in California and New York and voting somewhat accordingly.  Also Urban districts play a role etc.  

I have a hard time believing that Catholic, intact families, with a work ethic will become a massive monolithic voting block that democrats can take for granted.  Given the Obama administration's hostility to the Catholic church, traditional families, and jobs; I don't think they are the panacea you suggest.  

Also working class Catholic whites are finally fleeing the democrat party that abandoned them over 35 years ago.  I wouldn't ignore that.  Trading OH, PA, MI, WI, and MN for CO, NV, and maybe AZ is a net loss of 48 to 59 EV.            

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Romney aint gonna win based on the sheer demographic mountain he has to climb. We are entering an era of Democratic presidential dominance based solely on the growing number of minority voters. Why do you think Democrats have dominated in most presidential elections since 1992? States that used to be easy GOP pickups are becoming increasingly out of reach because of rising minority populations.

Romney can try to make inroads with these voters, but he's certainly not going to win hispanics, for instance, after his party based their entire election strategy in 2010 on bashing and scapegoating them. And don't try to tell me that there is a difference between legal and illegal hispanics. Even most of the legal hispanics found the attacks on illegal immigration disgusting.

Things will change of course. After these minorities become more assimilated they will begin to split more between the parties, but it's not happening for a while. I wish Romney luck trying to win Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and even Arizona. But I think he's going to hit a wall with these voters that he can't break through.

You forgot to mention 2000 and 2004 when Bush won most of the Hispanic vote.  

Besides, the Hispanic voters are over-estimated since many can't vote since they are not citizens.

No, Bush W. won 40% of the Hispanic Vote in 2000 and 44% of that vote in 2004.

No - 35% in 2000 and probably around 38%-39% in '04, though 44% was the official (likely wrong) number from initial exits.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

No - 35% in 2000 and probably around 38%-39% in '04, though 44% was the official (likely wrong) number from initial exits.

Where are you getting that 38-39% figure, and what makes your numbers more reliable than the actual exit poll (which I'm sure interviewed far more people than you were able)?

Articles like this.

[old timey villain]

Romney aint gonna win based on the sheer demographic mountain he has to climb. We are entering an era of Democratic presidential dominance based solely on the growing number of minority voters. Why do you think Democrats have dominated in most presidential elections since 1992? States that used to be easy GOP pickups are becoming increasingly out of reach because of rising minority populations.

Romney can try to make inroads with these voters, but he's certainly not going to win hispanics, for instance, after his party based their entire election strategy in 2010 on bashing and scapegoating them. And don't try to tell me that there is a difference between legal and illegal hispanics. Even most of the legal hispanics found the attacks on illegal immigration disgusting.

Things will change of course. After these minorities become more assimilated they will begin to split more between the parties, but it's not happening for a while. I wish Romney luck trying to win Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and even Arizona. But I think he's going to hit a wall with these voters that he can't break through.

Haha.. So the Democrats win the most recent election, and now you're ready to say GOP won't win again until minorities "assimilate?" That's a pretty big leap, and you seem simply to be relying on minority growth trends to predict the outcome of elections. Did you predict that the Republicans would win the most House seats since 1948 in 2010? You shouldn't have, because those same "minority growth trends" you speak of were in place then. Elections don't take place in vacuums. Yes, minorities (some more than others), lean Democrat. But like Hopper indicated, lots of external factors can effect their vote. Your argument that "we're entering an era of Democratic Presidential dominance seems more like wishful thinking than actual fact when you look at minority turn out and vote in elections as recent as 2010 and 2004.

Yeah, and Republicans would have control or at least a tie in the senate if they hadn't lost the races in Nevada, Colorado, California and even Washington. Hispanics kept the democratic incumbents in power in those states. You had a chance to win them over but you decided to use the anti immigration rhetoric and it blew up in your face, especially in Nevada.

I also said that Dems now have an advantage in PRESIDENTIAL elections. Midterm voters still sway older and whiter.

Facts: Dems have won the popular vote in 4 out of the past 5 presidential elections. From 1992 onwards, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico have gone from safe R to tossup or lean dem largely because of hispanic voters. California has gone from safe R to safe D largely because of hispanic voters. Even Arizona cannot be taken for granted by the Republicans now because of hispanic voters.

[AmericanNation]

Facts: Dems have won the popular vote in 4 out of the past 5 presidential elections. From 1992 onwards, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico have gone from safe R to tossup or lean dem largely because of hispanic voters. California has gone from safe R to safe D largely because of hispanic voters. Even Arizona cannot be taken for granted by the Republicans now because of hispanic voters.

1) Bush beat Gore in 2000, so your "popular vote" caveat is misleading
2) Clinton lost a majority of votes in 1992, also misleading
So, your pet number turns into 2 of 5.
3) Republicans won the 3 previous elections from your starting point of 92
So, your pet number turns into 2 of 8.     

[old timey villain]

Facts: Dems have won the popular vote in 4 out of the past 5 presidential elections. From 1992 onwards, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico have gone from safe R to tossup or lean dem largely because of hispanic voters. California has gone from safe R to safe D largely because of hispanic voters. Even Arizona cannot be taken for granted by the Republicans now because of hispanic voters.

1) Bush beat Gore in 2000, so your "popular vote" caveat is misleading
2) Clinton lost a majority of votes in 1992, also misleading
So, your pet number turns into 2 of 5.
3) Republicans won the 3 previous elections from your starting point of 92
So, your pet number turns into 2 of 8.    

1) The election was basically decided by an activist Supreme Court and a political infrastructure in Florida that was in the bag for Bush, so I could care less than Bush technically won that year. Gore still received more votes.
2) Clinton got 43%, but Bush only got 37%. Don't pretend that the Perot effect didn't exist. It pulled down the vote share for both parties, but Clinton still came out on top in both elections.
3) 1992 was a realignment that shifted the country away from the Reagan/Bush years. I consider it a new political era, as do many political experts, so that's why I'm going from there. My whole spiel was about political "eras". Get it?

If this still isn't enough for you, then we can look at electoral vote averages since 1992.

Democratic candidate: 326 electoral votes
Republican Candidate: 211 electoral votes

This contrasts sharply from 1968 to 1988, which is why I consider 1992 the start of a new era.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Folks, could y'all take your arguing over what the results will be in November elsewhere?  I actually enjoyed having a thread that only covered the current polling.

[President von Cat]

Haha.. So the Democrats win the most recent election, and now you're ready to say GOP won't win again until minorities "assimilate?" That's a pretty big leap, and you seem simply to be relying on minority growth trends to predict the outcome of elections. Did you predict that the Republicans would win the most House seats since 1948 in 2010? You shouldn't have, because those same "minority growth trends" you speak of were in place then. Elections don't take place in vacuums. Yes, minorities (some more than others), lean Democrat. But like Hopper indicated, lots of external factors can effect their vote. Your argument that "we're entering an era of Democratic Presidential dominance seems more like wishful thinking than actual fact when you look at minority turn out and vote in elections as recent as 2010 and 2004.

Seriously? As Mr. Poll Dissector in Chief, I thought you of all people would know that the demographics of midterm elections are whiter and older than general elections, and that given that, those demographic trends "in place" will lose most of their potency in midterms.

Romney aint gonna win based on the sheer demographic mountain he has to climb. We are entering an era of Democratic presidential dominance based solely on the growing number of minority voters. Why do you think Democrats have dominated in most presidential elections since 1992? States that used to be easy GOP pickups are becoming increasingly out of reach because of rising minority populations.

Romney can try to make inroads with these voters, but he's certainly not going to win hispanics, for instance, after his party based their entire election strategy in 2010 on bashing and scapegoating them. And don't try to tell me that there is a difference between legal and illegal hispanics. Even most of the legal hispanics found the attacks on illegal immigration disgusting.

Things will change of course. After these minorities become more assimilated they will begin to split more between the parties, but it's not happening for a while. I wish Romney luck trying to win Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and even Arizona. But I think he's going to hit a wall with these voters that he can't break through.

You forgot to mention 2000 and 2004 when Bush won most of the Hispanic vote.  

Besides, the Hispanic voters are over-estimated since many can't vote since they are not citizens.

I haven't done an in depth study, but the nation wide Hispanic party-voting percentages may often be skewed by the large numbers of that population living in California and New York and voting somewhat accordingly.  Also Urban districts play a role etc.  

I have a hard time believing that Catholic, intact families, with a work ethic will become a massive monolithic voting block that democrats can take for granted.  Given the Obama administration's hostility to the Catholic church, traditional families, and jobs; I don't think they are the panacea you suggest.  

Also working class Catholic whites are finally fleeing the democrat party that abandoned them over 35 years ago.  I wouldn't ignore that.  Trading OH, PA, MI, WI, and MN for CO, NV, and maybe AZ is a net loss of 48 to 59 EV.            

How has Obama been hostile to traditional families? What is a traditional family? Do you define it as a having a wife and kids? He has that, and talks lovingly of them every day. Or does supporting gay marriage make you automatically hostile to "traditional families"?

[pbrower2a]

Romney aint gonna win based on the sheer demographic mountain he has to climb. We are entering an era of Democratic presidential dominance based solely on the growing number of minority voters. Why do you think Democrats have dominated in most presidential elections since 1992? States that used to be easy GOP pickups are becoming increasingly out of reach because of rising minority populations.

Romney can try to make inroads with these voters, but he's certainly not going to win hispanics, for instance, after his party based their entire election strategy in 2010 on bashing and scapegoating them. And don't try to tell me that there is a difference between legal and illegal hispanics. Even most of the legal hispanics found the attacks on illegal immigration disgusting.

Things will change of course. After these minorities become more assimilated they will begin to split more between the parties, but it's not happening for a while. I wish Romney luck trying to win Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and even Arizona. But I think he's going to hit a wall with these voters that he can't break through.

You forgot to mention 2000 and 2004 when Bush won most of the Hispanic vote.  

Besides, the Hispanic voters are over-estimated since many can't vote since they are not citizens.

I haven't done an in depth study, but the nation wide Hispanic party-voting percentages may often be skewed by the large numbers of that population living in California and New York and voting somewhat accordingly.  Also Urban districts play a role etc.  

I have a hard time believing that Catholic, intact families, with a work ethic will become a massive monolithic voting block that democrats can take for granted.  Given the Obama administration's hostility to the Catholic church, traditional families, and jobs; I don't think they are the panacea you suggest.  

Also working class Catholic whites are finally fleeing the democrat party that abandoned them over 35 years ago.  I wouldn't ignore that.  Trading OH, PA, MI, WI, and MN for CO, NV, and maybe AZ is a net loss of 48 to 59 EV.            

The only working-class whites who seem to have abandoned the Democratic party since 1996 are southern white (largely Fundamentalist) voters and perhaps the largely-Catholic Cajuns in Louisiana (watch 2012 to be sure).

President Obama has about as traditional a family as is possible allowing for only one variation: it is upscale. Does Sarah Palin show a traditional family? But let us remember that the Republican Party has recently abandoned the educated part of the middle class -- the old bloc of Rockefeller Republicans whom the Tea Party and the Religious Right have largely pushed aside. That might not be as big a bloc of voters as southern white Protestants, but it is strategically located. Reagan won those reliably in the 1980s and Ford got them in 1976; Barack Obama seems to have them now.

Any Presidential election before 1992 says nothing about any beginning in 1992. We have probably seen Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia drift away from the Democrats to the extent that President Obama is more likely to win Texas than any of them.  No, I don't think that President Obama has a good chance of winning Texas; it is just that he is such a poor match for those states that went twice for Clinton in contrast to Texas. 

[pbrower2a]

I did little if any posting in the last two days; I have been involved in the nasty business of moving my mother from a nursing home to an assisted-living place. So I have a surprising number of polls to account for:

Arizona, PPP, Romney up 7%  

Maryland, PPP, Obama up 23%

Ohio, Marist, Obama up 6%

Virginia, Marist, Obama up 4%

California, Obama up 11% among "likely voters" -- suspect as such, but changes nothing.

Florida -- three polls, average less than 1% difference -- tie

North Carolina -- Civitas 2% advantage to Romney.

Wisconsin -- I'm not showing Wisconsin polls until after the recall election  

 

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen shows a 7% lead (likely voters) for Romney in Indiana... in a state that Republicans usually take for granted. This time President Obama won't be campaigning from the neighboring state and taking advantage of the difficulty of the Republican nominee for President  campaigning from far away.

Indiana looks like a "Soft R" state, especially in view of a contested Senate race.  Indiana probably offers the 370th to 380th electoral votes for President Obama.

[hopper]

Romney aint gonna win based on the sheer demographic mountain he has to climb. We are entering an era of Democratic presidential dominance based solely on the growing number of minority voters. Why do you think Democrats have dominated in most presidential elections since 1992? States that used to be easy GOP pickups are becoming increasingly out of reach because of rising minority populations.

Romney can try to make inroads with these voters, but he's certainly not going to win hispanics, for instance, after his party based their entire election strategy in 2010 on bashing and scapegoating them. And don't try to tell me that there is a difference between legal and illegal hispanics. Even most of the legal hispanics found the attacks on illegal immigration disgusting.

Things will change of course. After these minorities become more assimilated they will begin to split more between the parties, but it's not happening for a while. I wish Romney luck trying to win Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and even Arizona. But I think he's going to hit a wall with these voters that he can't break through.

You forgot to mention 2000 and 2004 when Bush won most of the Hispanic vote.  

Besides, the Hispanic voters are over-estimated since many can't vote since they are not citizens.

I haven't done an in depth study, but the nation wide Hispanic party-voting percentages may often be skewed by the large numbers of that population living in California and New York and voting somewhat accordingly.  Also Urban districts play a role etc.  

I have a hard time believing that Catholic, intact families, with a work ethic will become a massive monolithic voting block that democrats can take for granted.  Given the Obama administration's hostility to the Catholic church, traditional families, and jobs; I don't think they are the panacea you suggest.  

Also working class Catholic whites are finally fleeing the democrat party that abandoned them over 35 years ago.  I wouldn't ignore that.  Trading OH, PA, MI, WI, and MN for CO, NV, and maybe AZ is a net loss of 48 to 59 EV.            

The only working-class whites who seem to have abandoned the Democratic party since 1996 are southern white (largely Fundamentalist) voters and perhaps the largely-Catholic Cajuns in Louisiana (watch 2012 to be sure).

President Obama has about as traditional a family as is possible allowing for only one variation: it is upscale. Does Sarah Palin show a traditional family? But let us remember that the Republican Party has recently abandoned the educated part of the middle class -- the old bloc of Rockefeller Republicans whom the Tea Party and the Religious Right have largely pushed aside. That might not be as big a bloc of voters as southern white Protestants, but it is strategically located. Reagan won those reliably in the 1980s and Ford got them in 1976; Barack Obama seems to have them now.
Any Presidential election before 1992 says nothing about any beginning in 1992. We have probably seen Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia drift away from the Democrats to the extent that President Obama is more likely to win Texas than any of them.  No, I don't think that President Obama has a good chance of winning Texas; it is just that he is such a poor match for those states that went twice for Clinton in contrast to Texas. 

Those are mainly voters in New Jersey, New York State, Delaware, Michigan, Connecticut and Maine maybe. States that are slightly left of center but not left-left. Vermont used to be a state like that but it went left-left. Maybe include the state of Maryland on that list too. The Republicans did win Maryland in both 1984 and 1988.

[pbrower2a]

Romney aint gonna win based on the sheer demographic mountain he has to climb. We are entering an era of Democratic presidential dominance based solely on the growing number of minority voters. Why do you think Democrats have dominated in most presidential elections since 1992? States that used to be easy GOP pickups are becoming increasingly out of reach because of rising minority populations.

Romney can try to make inroads with these voters, but he's certainly not going to win hispanics, for instance, after his party based their entire election strategy in 2010 on bashing and scapegoating them. And don't try to tell me that there is a difference between legal and illegal hispanics. Even most of the legal hispanics found the attacks on illegal immigration disgusting.

Things will change of course. After these minorities become more assimilated they will begin to split more between the parties, but it's not happening for a while. I wish Romney luck trying to win Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and even Arizona. But I think he's going to hit a wall with these voters that he can't break through.

I think Romney is still going to win Arizona and has a 50/50 shot to take Florida. I agree he will lose CO, NV, and NM.

In 2010 the Republicans still won 38% of the Hispanic Vote. The mistake that was made by Romney was he ran to the far right on the issue of immigration alienating Latino's.

From 1992-2004 the Republicans mainly lost Electoral Votes in the Northeast and Illinois and CA. In 2008 they did lose states that they previously won(easy pick-ups) as you said(NC, IN, VA, and NV.)

Paradoxically the Republican Party has been losing the Hispanic vote as Hispanics have outpaced every other identifiable ethnic group except Asians in joining the middle class. Could it be that the nativist tendencies within the current GOP have suggested that Hispanics aren't welcome in the American middle class? Could it be that the attacks on learning and education have been attacks on the one tool that Hispanics have in avoiding consignment to a permanent underclass?

[AmericanNation]

Romney aint gonna win based on the sheer demographic mountain he has to climb. We are entering an era of Democratic presidential dominance based solely on the growing number of minority voters. Why do you think Democrats have dominated in most presidential elections since 1992? States that used to be easy GOP pickups are becoming increasingly out of reach because of rising minority populations.

Romney can try to make inroads with these voters, but he's certainly not going to win hispanics, for instance, after his party based their entire election strategy in 2010 on bashing and scapegoating them. And don't try to tell me that there is a difference between legal and illegal hispanics. Even most of the legal hispanics found the attacks on illegal immigration disgusting.

Things will change of course. After these minorities become more assimilated they will begin to split more between the parties, but it's not happening for a while. I wish Romney luck trying to win Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and even Arizona. But I think he's going to hit a wall with these voters that he can't break through.

I think Romney is still going to win Arizona and has a 50/50 shot to take Florida. I agree he will lose CO, NV, and NM.

In 2010 the Republicans still won 38% of the Hispanic Vote. The mistake that was made by Romney was he ran to the far right on the issue of immigration alienating Latino's.

From 1992-2004 the Republicans mainly lost Electoral Votes in the Northeast and Illinois and CA. In 2008 they did lose states that they previously won(easy pick-ups) as you said(NC, IN, VA, and NV.)

Paradoxically the Republican Party has been losing the Hispanic vote as Hispanics have outpaced every other identifiable ethnic group except Asians in joining the middle class. Could it be that the nativist tendencies within the current GOP have suggested that Hispanics aren't welcome in the American middle class? Could it be that the attacks on learning and education have been attacks on the one tool that Hispanics have in avoiding consignment to a permanent underclass?

Every prominent Republican is typically a huge force for strengthening/ improving education.  Unfortunately, the teachers Union stands in the way of change+reform at every step of the way, maybe that's what you call "attacks" ? ?? I don't think outmaneuvering a destructive organisation is an "attack."     

This is cliche, but illustrative:
Democrats don't want Hispanics to work, but want (illegals) to vote.
Republicans want Hispanics to work, but don't want (illegals) to vote (illegally).

Which one leads to being a permanent underclass?  obviously the dems preference.   

[BaldEagle1991]

Romney aint gonna win based on the sheer demographic mountain he has to climb. We are entering an era of Democratic presidential dominance based solely on the growing number of minority voters. Why do you think Democrats have dominated in most presidential elections since 1992? States that used to be easy GOP pickups are becoming increasingly out of reach because of rising minority populations.

Romney can try to make inroads with these voters, but he's certainly not going to win hispanics, for instance, after his party based their entire election strategy in 2010 on bashing and scapegoating them. And don't try to tell me that there is a difference between legal and illegal hispanics. Even most of the legal hispanics found the attacks on illegal immigration disgusting.

Things will change of course. After these minorities become more assimilated they will begin to split more between the parties, but it's not happening for a while. I wish Romney luck trying to win Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and even Arizona. But I think he's going to hit a wall with these voters that he can't break through.

I think Romney is still going to win Arizona and has a 50/50 shot to take Florida. I agree he will lose CO, NV, and NM.

In 2010 the Republicans still won 38% of the Hispanic Vote. The mistake that was made by Romney was he ran to the far right on the issue of immigration alienating Latino's.

From 1992-2004 the Republicans mainly lost Electoral Votes in the Northeast and Illinois and CA. In 2008 they did lose states that they previously won(easy pick-ups) as you said(NC, IN, VA, and NV.)

Paradoxically the Republican Party has been losing the Hispanic vote as Hispanics have outpaced every other identifiable ethnic group except Asians in joining the middle class. Could it be that the nativist tendencies within the current GOP have suggested that Hispanics aren't welcome in the American middle class? Could it be that the attacks on learning and education have been attacks on the one tool that Hispanics have in avoiding consignment to a permanent underclass?

 

Both questions are correct, it's pretty hard to vote for a part that is bent on nativism and is against your kind, and against letting you move up the social mobility ladder.

[milhouse24]

I think Obama's "choom gang" widespread marijuana use in hawaii may hurt him in the polls. 

At the very least, it will help Romney solidify his support amongst christian families and even catholic families.  In many ways, Romney is more mainstream/main street than Obama.  Soccer moms would be hesitant to vote for bigtime pot heads and cocaine user. 

On the other hand, legalization advocates, like college students, will get a boost knowing that Obama personally favors legalization, even though he may not be able to politically enforce legalization. 

[hopper]

Romney aint gonna win based on the sheer demographic mountain he has to climb. We are entering an era of Democratic presidential dominance based solely on the growing number of minority voters. Why do you think Democrats have dominated in most presidential elections since 1992? States that used to be easy GOP pickups are becoming increasingly out of reach because of rising minority populations.

Romney can try to make inroads with these voters, but he's certainly not going to win hispanics, for instance, after his party based their entire election strategy in 2010 on bashing and scapegoating them. And don't try to tell me that there is a difference between legal and illegal hispanics. Even most of the legal hispanics found the attacks on illegal immigration disgusting.

Things will change of course. After these minorities become more assimilated they will begin to split more between the parties, but it's not happening for a while. I wish Romney luck trying to win Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and even Arizona. But I think he's going to hit a wall with these voters that he can't break through.

I think Romney is still going to win Arizona and has a 50/50 shot to take Florida. I agree he will lose CO, NV, and NM.

In 2010 the Republicans still won 38% of the Hispanic Vote. The mistake that was made by Romney was he ran to the far right on the issue of immigration alienating Latino's.

From 1992-2004 the Republicans mainly lost Electoral Votes in the Northeast and Illinois and CA. In 2008 they did lose states that they previously won(easy pick-ups) as you said(NC, IN, VA, and NV.)

Paradoxically the Republican Party has been losing the Hispanic vote as Hispanics have outpaced every other identifiable ethnic group except Asians in joining the middle class. Could it be that the nativist tendencies within the current GOP have suggested that Hispanics aren't welcome in the American middle class? Could it be that the attacks on learning and education have been attacks on the one tool that Hispanics have in avoiding consignment to a permanent underclass

How is the GOP preventing(i.e, Hispanics here legally) from entering the middle class? I don't see that as an issue at all.

Your reading way too much into the education issue by saying the GOP doesn't wantlegal immigrants to be educated properly.

The issue is the GOP base in the deep south doesn't want like giving illegal immigrants amnesty. I do think there is some relevance that the GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill do like illegal hispanics doing cheap labor though.

[old timey villain]

I think Obama's "choom gang" widespread marijuana use in hawaii may hurt him in the polls. 

At the very least, it will help Romney solidify his support amongst christian families and even catholic families.  In many ways, Romney is more mainstream/main street than Obama.  Soccer moms would be hesitant to vote for bigtime pot heads and cocaine user. 

On the other hand, legalization advocates, like college students, will get a boost knowing that Obama personally favors legalization, even though he may not be able to politically enforce legalization. 

The dirty little secret is that a lot of those soccer moms were 420 friendly when they were young too. Obama grew up, ditched the pot and so did they. Some people may feign moral outrage with this news, but it's not a game changer at all, in fact it humanizes Obama to the swing voters he's trying to win.

And in all honesty, who is more out there to the average American? A guy who did drugs when he was younger, or a guy who pushed the limits of teenage rebellion by taking a puff of a cigarette, taking a sip of alcohol, and then never touching either again?

[pbrower2a]

Two polls:

New pollster, CO... Obama up 4%, and this was a Democratic insider poll. It is a huge decline from the most recent poll, so it must be accepted.  

CA -- President Obama up 20%
 

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

[Torie]

...

The dirty little secret is that a lot of those soccer moms were 420 friendly when they were young too. Obama grew up, ditched the pot and so did they. Some people may feign moral outrage with this news, but it's not a game changer at all, in fact it humanizes Obama to the swing voters he's trying to win.

And in all honesty, who is more out there to the average American? A guy who did drugs when he was younger, or a guy who pushed the limits of teenage rebellion by taking a puff of a cigarette, taking a sip of alcohol, and then never touching either again?

Hey, this is a very well written post. And I would like to think that I had some influence on how it started off to boot.

[pbrower2a]

PPP, Michigan... Obama up 14%. What will it take for right-wingers to recognize that Michigan is not a swing state barring a complete Obama collapse? There was plenty of wishful thinking on the Titanic immediately after it hit the iceberg.
 

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.

[krazen1211]

Romney has led in Georgia by double digits in at least 2 polls.

[pbrower2a]

Romney has led in Georgia by double digits in at least 2 polls.

One GOP-connected polls that get little respect, and the other is too old for inclusion here. Q doesn't poll Georgia, but maybe Marist, PPP, or Rasmussen will.  The only insider or special-interest polls that I use are those that undercut one more favorable to the nominee. Would you trust a poll sponsored by the UAW or the NAACP? I wouldn't even though I respect both organizations.

At this point I suspect that President Obama is behind by high single digits. The pale green for Georgia looks as pale as it does because 40% saturation is pale for green that I show for anything between 4% and 9.9%. If you want to see what pale green looks like, then look at how I show Alaska with 20% saturation (not that I believe that Alaska will be close) on my next map.

 

[pbrower2a]

PPP, Missouri. Obama up 1. I wouldn't make too much of the apparent swing, as (1) it isn't much, (2) all recent polls of Missouri have been deep within the margin of error, (3) I have said the same about polls involving Florida and North Carolina, and (4) the event is consistent with my bias.

I am showing a 20% saturation in green for Alaska only to show what 20% saturation in green looks like. It's not so much lighter than the 40% saturation that I show in Georgia, North Dakota, or South Carolina.

under 4%  light [20% saturation]
4.00- 9.99% medium [40% saturation]
10% dark [60% saturation]

Blue -- Romney leads in a current poll. Green -- McCain won in 2008 and no subsequent poll
Red -- Obama leads in a current poll.  Gray -- he won in 2008 and no subsequent poll.
White -- tie (there was no exact tie in 2008).
Yellow -- I don't believe anything.

I use 4% as the dividing line because that is the usual margin of error in a credible poll.