Do polls show around 75% of hispanics prefer Obama to Romney, with the rest evenly split between Romney and Undecided? Polls of Mormons skew that heavily toward Romney. It is not quite the same as asking Catholics if they would vote for one of THOSE Bishops, but only because many Catholics have a love/hate relationship with church authority. Romney is Mormon royalty, and NV is the only UT neighbor where Obama won a commanding victory even at the height of his popularity (unless we count NM because of the Four Corners, but unless Romney takes Isaacs advice and puts Rubio on the ticket that seems a likely Obama keeper.) Not only UT, but most of its neighboring states have HUGE Mormon populations, it just is not that noticeable because few of them wear it on their sleeves. The Udalls are Mormon, as is Harry Reid, and do not think for a moment that did not help them win three Senate seats, just as it helped Dean Heller, the other NV Senator, win a fourth (and obviously both UT Senators are Mormon.)

The Mormon church owns the Mountain West and Southwest to an extent AL Southern Baptists can only envy. The only real challenges are NM and AZ, but Romney won the latters primary by about 20% largely due to Mormon turnout. If he gets half that bump in the general election he could win as big as McCain did despite their acrimonious '08 primary fight, but that is the only place beside NM I think Obama can compete, and NM is the only one I think he has a good chance to win.

Other than that, I learned my lesson with MO in 2008; it is hard to argue the Show Me state shows anything but red now. Obama narrowly lost it when far more popular, and only won NC by 1% (as previously noted,) so winning either now looks impossible. That would leave Romney needing just 2 EVs; he could conceivably get them in the split ME vote, but NH should lean heavily Romney also, and without OH or FL Obama would have to hold at least one plus NM AND VA AND IA. If he does that he will OH and/or FL, making the rest irrelevant (unless he wins OH without FL, in which case he will need either VA or NM and IA.)


Well, like I say, Romneys corporate raider career and suggestion we let the Big Three twist in the wind, plus highly unpopular Scott Walkers union antagonism, should make most of the Midwest except IN and OH very difficult for him. Same with PA, though whether PA is Midwestern or New England depends on whom you ask (or which end.) If Sherrod Brown were not taking so much heat for Robamacare, Kasichs echoes of Walker might cost Romney OH as well; as it is, it should be very close (unfortunately, every major OH city shrank in the last decade except very red Cincinatti, which grew nearly 10%.) I expect Democrats will get every Midwest state except IN and possibly OH, just like every year (still cannot believe Obama won IN but lost MO; guess anything can happen.)

The anemic popularity of both candidates makes any true upset unlikely for either. That puts it in the swing states, and even those must be very close to truly be in play. Holding VA would make things much easier for Obama (for one thing, it would be a likely harbinger of holding FL and OH, both of which he won by smaller margins) but the closeness of popular governor Tim Kaines race against George "macaca" Allen raises real questions about that. It also gives VA conservatives motive to show up for a RINO presidential nominee, while that very RINO status will mute the sub/urban lean toward Obama.

It looks dicey for Obama; while he can win by just holding a couple of the big states truly in play, he almost has to, because Romney will nearly run the table in the rest. He won every close state except MT and MO last time (how a Dem can lose MO in a very blue year I do not know) but that is less likely now. It will come down to OH and FL, yet again; the only thing that has really changed in the last 20 years is that PA is almost guaranteed blue (if Kerry can win it ANY Dem can. )