Current polling, Obama vs. Romney

[AmericanNation]

Wisconsin surprises me. Yesterday PPP had Obama ahead by just 1% and today a university poll has the race tied. Sure Wisconsin wasn't a given for Obama, but I didn't expect it to be this close at this point.

I have heard that the GOP is running a fear campaign... and that people may fear that pollsters are often fakes spying on the political preferences of Wisconsin voters to determine which ones can have even more to fear after employers find out who opposes Scott Walker. Even if private employers have no statutory right to fire people for their political expressions off the job, they can make life miserable.

Sure, it is mostly word-of-mouth, but for many people who know what is expected of them the 'safe' response to any pollster is "I stand for Scott Walker!" What they do in the voting booth may be vastly different.

At this point I am tempted to disqualify any Wisconsin poll due to the weird political climate. 

That is so wrong.  Some Employers might for the first time ever begin to mention the effects of tax/regulation policies on the business.  The vast majority remain apolitical in the workplace.  Whereas the fear mongering (false info) and intimidation tactics employed by the unions have been jaw dropping (and counter productive).  So, maybe you are projecting the Union behavior onto employers??   

[AmericanNation]

It looks like Romney can actually win this thing. 

nail down 1) NC, 2)FL, 3)VA, 4)OH... it's like clockwork. 

[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.            

[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.     

[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.   

[AmericanNation]

Fixed it.