The big variable that is missing is the enthusiasm gap. Last I heard it was around 13% in Romney's favor. Obama owned it over McCain. It's easy to give an answer over the phone but where the rubber meets the road is who actually gets out and votes. So any statistical tie is essentially a Romney win because Romney voters are much more likely to get out and vote at this point.
I agree that Romney currently holds the enthusiasm gap but he is also way behind in the "ground game." In states like North Carolina the Obama campaign offices never closed after 2008 so they currently out number Romney offices nearly three to one and Romney has only started opening offices in the past month. This matters as much as enthusiasm. Secondly, a hidden statistic that no one is talking about is that 28% of the country say they will not vote for a Mormon. As you can imagine, these are more likely to be evangelical Christians who believe that Mormonism is a cult. These are not typically democratic voters. Romney should also be discouraged that the RNC "bounce" brought a very modest bump in the polls that still leaves him a half point behind in the national polls, which of course really don't matter. Electorally Romney has a long road to hoe. As you very well pointed out, though, there are many caveats to this Presidential election that we've never encountered before. It will be very interesting, simply from a political science pov, to see how it unfolds. In Romney's defense, I thought he did an excellent job softening his image during the RNC and gave perhaps his best speech ever.
Timing is everything and Romney may be peaking early. Obama hasn't yet rallied his base at the convention. Blacks and Hispanics are traditionally low turnouts, but indications are that they are going to vote in significant numbers this time. The independent swing voters are the key. But they traditionally vote in high numbers anyway.
My issue with the presidential election is the continuing reliance on the Electoral College, originally put in place by the Founding Fathers, because they felt the populace was too stretched out geographically, with poor travel and communication methods to achieve a voting public intelligent enough to make an informed decision. While some would argue that while we have better ways to get the message out to most of America, this antiquated method of ultimately electing the person to the most important position in the United States, needs to be abolished. Literally every other elected office is decided by the people because of which person achieves the most votes, but not the presidential election. That's decided by a bunch of unnamed people from each state based on who wins each state. My vote counts until the final tally in my state. Then whichever candidate gets the most votes wins the state, which basically takes my vote away, and it becomes a moot point. The candidate with the most votes nationwide should win, and that should be that.
The worst problem with the electoral college and the "winner-take-all" delegate selection is that it effectively keeps third parties from emerging and having a voice. Even if they win a significant number of seats, if they can't win an entire state, they get nothing. With modern media, internet, and telenet communication, there is absolutely no need for the electoral college. But both parties will join together to fight any attempt to change it. They fear the emergence of a moderate third party.
Red you have a good point. Some states have changed the distribution of electoral votes so that they devide electoral votes by the percentages actually cast. That will do two things. First make more states competitive as the path to 270 becomes much more complex and options for reps to take electoral votes in blue states like a & NY will contrast with the same by dems in red states like Tx & Fla. Second it may give hope to 3rd parties and indies though without representation in Congress a 3rd party or indy pres would be hamstrung. This may help and with changes in the way we map congressional districts to eliminate gerrymandering would provide less room for ideologues on either side. You can't be a radical in a 50/50 district.
A pre-debate update on where we stand electorally for the upcoming November election. If ever there is an opportunity for Romney to gain some ground I would agree that it is in the upcoming debates. That said, if he takes a shit in the first debate I fully expect major fundraisers to start channeling their money into close Senate and House races and abandon Romney for dead. Without further ado, here is the current state of the race: Obama Solids: Washington(12), Oregon(7), California(55), Hawaii(4), Minnesota(10), Illinois(20), Michigan(16), Maine(4), Vermont(3), Massachusets(11), Rhode Island(4), Connecticut(7), New York(29), Pennsylvania(20), New Mexico(5), New Jersey(14), Delaware(3), Maryland(10), District of Columbia(3) Total = 237 electoral votes Romney Solids: Alaska(3), Idaho(4), Utah(6), Arizona(11), Montana(3), Wyoming(3), North Dakota(3), South Dakota(3), Nebraska(5), Kansas(6), Oklahoma(7), Texas(38), Missouri(10), Arkansas(6), Louisiana(8), Indiana(11), Kentucky(8), West Virginia(5), Tennessee(11), Mississippi(6), Alabama(9), Georgia(16), South Carolina(9) Total = 191 electoral votes It should be noted that both Nebraska and Maine have the ability to split their electoral votes if they so choose. With one being in each column I do not know that it will be a significant difference even if they do decide to split their votes. Nebraska split their vote in '08, giving 2 to Obama and 3 to McCain. Now for the one that will decide the next President: our swing states. These are Colorado(9), Iowa(6), Wisconsin(10), New Hampshire(4), Florida(29), Virginia(13), North Carolina(15), Ohio(18), Nevada(6). The totals listed below are a cumulative average of all polls from 9-3-12 thru 10-2-12. This leaves us with an average of the published data over the past month. Colorado - Obama ahead, 49-46 Iowa - Obama ahead, 48-45 Wisconsin - Obama ahead, 51-44 (Wisconsin has only been considered a swing state because it is Paul Ryan's home state but is generally dem) New Hampshire - Obama ahead, 50-44 Florida - Obama ahead, 49-46 Virginia - Obama ahead, 49-46 North Carolina - Tied, 47-47 Ohio - Obama ahead, 49-44 Nevada - Obama ahead, 50-45 Unless Romney mounts a serious come back all indications point toward an Obama re-election and if Romney continues to stumble it could actually turn out to be a landslide election. Romney is definitely hurting House and Senate candidates down ticket from him and if Romney doesn't perform well in the first debate I look for a mass exodus of financing, surrogates, etc. If Romney performs better than expected this could still turn out to be a close election but I still believe the President wins because the paths to victory for Romney are so few and far between.
I think the chances he wins any of those states is very low. I fully expect to see a landslide Obama victory.
