Romney May Need Both VA and PA to Win

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2012
Posted on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 01:10:47 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Nate Silver explains Mitt Romney's last-minute push for Pennsylvania. Maybe it's also why President Obama brought Bill Clinton to Virginia yesterday (where 25,000 turned out to cheer them.)

Mr. Romney’s campaign may be thinking about a map like this one, in which he wins Pennsylvania in order to claim 273 electoral votes. If Mr. Romney did so, he could win the presidency despite losing Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Nevada.

Mr. Romney could not afford to lose Virginia, where he is narrowly behind in the polling average, or Florida, where he is narrowly ahead. He could also not afford to lose Colorado, unless he won New Hampshire.

President Obama and Bill Clinton were in New Hampshire this morning where 14,000 turned out. CBS says only 10% of NH voters use early voting. [More}

The remainder of today's appearances:

After addressing voters in New Hampshire, Mr. Obama today heads to campaign events in Florida, Ohio and Colorado. Romney, meanwhile is hitting up Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia today.

As of now, Silver has Obama winning with 306.9 electoral votes.

< Sunday Electoral Maps | Obama: It's All Up to You, Who Do You Trust More? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Romney May Need Both VA and PA to Win | 33 comments (33 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Dems also seem to think Pennsylvania (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Peter G on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 01:31:16 PM EST

is in play again, as we've just been notified that Bill Clinton will be speaking nearby on Monday. We are in the suburbs of Philly, which have gone from reliably R to narrowly D over the last 20 yrs. If PA is in swing status, then our area is a significant part of what can determine the direction of that swing. FWIW, in the last week, we've seen two homes in the immediate neighborhood post R-R signs, and a dozen or more putting up Obama signs.

Not taking something for granted... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by magster on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 02:08:51 PM EST

... is not the same as being worried. The O campaign has 4 effective "celebrities": Barack, Michelle, Joe and Bill. There's plenty of talent to go around to keep the Penn Democrats feeling enthused.


It'll be somewhat close, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 02:16:47 PM EST

... were I a betting man, it's better than even odds the president will take Pennsylvania by a margin that's a little larger than the nationwide popular vote, which I predicted yesterday that he'd take, 51-48%.


Although Sandy slowed things ... (none / 0) (#6)
by Robot Porter on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 02:16:00 PM EST

down enough to probably give Obama a Bush '04 style win.

The numbers still have a 2000-ish weirdness. Nothing quite adds up the way it's supposed to. And that has the Obama camp doing a bit of nail-biting.

You could brush this all aside Nate Silver style. And that could well be the right reading this time. But I've closely followed a lot more elections than Silver. And sometimes the true picture hides behind these anomalous out-croppings.


Ooooh Really (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 02:25:20 PM EST

In 2008 Nate Silver called 49 of the 50 states. Missed Indiana which went to Obama by 1%. He called every Senate race. How's your record? I know everyone hates having a true professional take over the spinning hot air brigades, and I would never want Nate to become so over confident that he stopped doing the thorough work he does, but you my friend are no Nate Silver :) Just observing is not the same as crunching the numbers, not even close, that's like trying to compare a Picasso to an architectural blueprint.


"...you my friend are no Nate Silver." (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Angel on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 02:40:12 PM EST

That reminded me of Lloyd Bentsen's takedown of Dan Quayle in the VP debates. How I miss Lloyd Bentsen, what a great public servant he was.


: I said it that way for that reason (none / 0) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 03:47:52 PM EST

Bentsen was one of my grandmother's favorite politicians. I watched that debate with my grandmother. I just happened to be home for a visit.

Nate has one election under his belt ... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Robot Porter on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 02:56:52 PM EST

that's not a track record. He could well be right again this time. As I said. I basically agree with his prediction.

But there is a weirdness in the numbers. There's just stuff in there that doesn't look the way elections normally look.

Nate just considers that noise. He may be right. But in politics the truth is often hidden in the noise.


Ooooh, I think that 2012 (none / 0) (#11)
by Towanda on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 02:41:51 PM EST

is not 2008.

Silver is good stuff, but he does not have a track record yet.

I hope that Robot Porter and I are wrong, but I have to agree, if only because Silver does not factor in voter suppression, intimidation, etc. And 2012 is not 2008 in those ways, too, but feels more like 2000, at least in my state -- a swing state. It's probably not happening in Alabama.


He has an excellent track record (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 03:44:13 PM EST

In more than just politics. Look up his sports prediction record. And because of that, I did not take the guy seriously in the political arena when he showed up. He has more of a record though than one election. I don't bet on sports, only follow soccer and some horse racing so have no reason to be interested in his sports success, he has much more of a numbers cruncher history though than one election. Given how anything can happen in sports given a little opportunity and a lot of heart, I would think predicting political elections is a cake walk compared to a baseball game.

I have been reading his book and was struck by how from my perspective the Bush administration created its own noise much like the yakking pundits do, but the Obama administration in its approach to terrorism doe not do this. At least IMO this is true. Who found Osama? The people actually listening for the signal and not the noise.

You know what seems really sucky horrible to me, when he started his own blog he suffered an enormous leftwing blog commenters lashout about being self serving and self promoting. It seemed like it lasted forever too. What has been launched at him lately smells and tastes the same and I'm literally thinking to myself haters gotta hate.


I know all of that about him (none / 0) (#16)
by Towanda on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 04:34:50 PM EST

and none of that tells me that he has factored suppression, intimidation, etc., into his predictions. That is our point. You may have other points, but they do not address our point.


: He can't factor that stuff in because he's (none / 0) (#17)
by Angel on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 04:38:20 PM EST

analyzing the polls only. There's no hard data for suppression or vote tampering. I do understand what you're saying and I am with you on the fear that those two things can and might change the true voting outcomes for one or more state. I'm just hoping that the Justice Department and the Obama Team are on it and don't let anyone get away with anything that changes the true results. The Supreme Court, on the other hand...no one can control what they do. Another fear altogether.