It is not THAT bad, for a single state, in a survey aimed at the whole country. A Pew poll with a 7% margin of error is surely more objective than the Mormons self reported number from 6 years ago, which is where I found the number nearly identical to that you cited. I would certainly be happy to have a look at your source for that figure, but since you did not state it I can only guess what it was.

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/58714/United-States-information-Nevada.html

you can look at their church records you can do a search of other sources as well. Do you have any idea what a 7% margin of error actually means? And you think that's more objective?!

Quite honestly you must be yanking my chain.

Say we use that figure though. There are about 2.7 million Nevadans, so 6.5% of them would be about 175,000. According to Huff Post, final numbers were around 32,500 total caucus voters (so turnout was, in fact, way down from '08.) We further know, based on how Mormons and non-Mormons split, that 30% of those, or just under 10,000, were Mormons, and the other 22,500 were not. Call it 23,000, since I rounded the Mormons up, too.

The means 6% of Nevadas Mormons voted in the GOP caucus, compared to <1% of the rest of the state.

Obama better HOPE general election turnout is nothing like that in the Southwest, let alone nationally, or he has no chance.

and why would it be? Extrapolating from a low turnout caucus to a presidential race. Hmmm.

Secondly
In 2008, the GOP counted 44,324 votes. If current calculations hold, that would mean there were about 10,000 fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008, which is almost half the amount Nevada GOP Chairwoman Amy Tarkanian predicted.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/05/nevada-caucuses-suffer-low-turnout-surly-confrontations/

You do not need to have 11% mormons in a state to have an outsize impact in a low turnout race. Mormons are more likely to be republican voters.

True. Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect general election enthusiasm will be any better than GOP primary enthusiasm (if anything, just the opposite; Republicans REALLY hate Obama, but everyone except the Mormons and the GOP establishment REALLY hates Romney, too.) If Mormons had an outsize impact on a low turnout primary, they will also have an outsize impact on a low turnout election and, as you note, they tend to skew Republican. Even when the GOP nominee is not the first Mormon major party nominee in history.

Romney won by 20% even though he only had an 8% lead among non-Mormons—because he won NINETY percent of Mormons, who were a big chunk of the total. Do the math; 0.38x+0.9y=0.5(x+y) so Mormons were 30% of the total, and breaking 90% for Romney gave him a majority in a four man race.

so what? Again a minority group can have an outsized impact in a low turnout race. you are trying to project from a low turnout caucus to statewide. It's flawed. You can't do it. Statistically invalid.

Small sampe>no sample. Give me some other 2012 NV election numbers and I will be happy to review them.

The problem is your reasoning is flawed. Sample vs no sample is a ridiculous thing to say when your technique is actually invalid.

Mind you rather than rehashing the same old ground I'm leaving this particular conversation. No matter what I say you wont see sense. No matter what any expert says, you wont see sense.

The proportion of Mormons within the republican party in Nevada is significantly higher than what it is statewide. Significantly. That said only about 40-50 thousand people voted. If the mormons are turning out for Romney in such huge numbers why was turnout down compared to 2008? Why did Romney get even less votes.

Your argument is flawed and if you can't see it now then somehow I don't think that anything I or anyone else tells you will make you see the light.

Actually, it was 44,324 voters LAST time, if you read your own source; this time the same source says it was about 10,000 less (and actually more like 12,000.) As to your questions: An obvious explanation for why both the total and Romney votes were much lower despite Mormons turning out for Romney are:

1) Mormons are only 11% of the state even by the Pew estimate, so low turnout elsewhere could only be offset by massive Mormon spikes and

2) Mormons surely turned out for Romney in droves in 2008, too, so there is no reason to think they would give him any more votes this time.

Colarado is not much better; the Mormon population may not be as high, but there is a very good reason I do not talk politics on the Denver Broncos forum I frequent.

As for Colorado the total amount of mormons is less than half what it is in Nevada.

True; Obama has other problems in CO. Granted, football (most sports) fans skew GOP, too, but I do not dare mention politics on Broncos Forums. He will need incredible turnout in Denver to offset the cowboys in the rest of the state, and even then it will be an uphill battle. Frankly, I am just glad Elway decided not to run for Senate when Udall got elected, and will be occupied for a while with the Broncos VP job he took last year; John Elway could get elected God in CO, by a fair margin.

Hispanic population is 26.5% in Nevada, Colarado 20.7% New Mexico 46.3% and back in 2008 Obama got 67% of the hispanic vote. Considering that Romney's immigration stances I really don't see him improving markedly on McCain's performance. The polling thus far has not shown much of a shift at all for who hispanics will vote for. Furthermore the percentage of hispanics in those states would almost certainly have grown since 2008, I don't think the percentage of mormons would have grown. and Obama also had some very impressive winning percentages in those states in 2008. Every reason to believe he has a chance. In fact he seems to be the slight favourite in New Mexico. Wouldn't call it safe but it's leaning that way. I wouldn't bother counting Arizona as even remotely in play not unless Obama wins in a landslide.

Back in 2008 Obama got 53% of the national vote, but the next election is in 2012. Regardless, 3% of AMERICAS hispanic population is there illegally and thus not voting (despite GOP claims to the contrary.) LULAC says hispanic turnout in 2008 was half again that in 2004, but that 11 million was less than 10% of the 130 million people who voted and, once again, Obama was far more popular in 2004 than now.

You're making a few mistakes here.

Firstly we are talking statewide but you are projecting nationally.

Statewide totals in Nevada, New Mexico and Colarado would be higher than the 11% you quote. All projections are for an increased turnout from minority groups including hispanics this year. Show me the data that suggests they are staying home and that they wont vote for Obama or that they will vote for Romney.

It doesn't exist at the moment.

Try this

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/03/05/gop-hopefuls-losing-ground-to-obama-among-latinos-poll-says/

Hello, Vice President Rubio. Shore up Romneys conservative cred, flip 25-33% of hispanic voters and deliver 29 FL EVs. If you think that is good news, well, you are welcome to believe it; in my book, it just makes OH indispensable to Obama. Unless Romney is stupid enough NOT to put Rubio on the ticket, or Rubio refuses a perfect platform from which to launch his own run in 2020.

But, yes, statewide turnout in AZ, NM and (probably) NV were surely higher in 2008 than the 11% national total. The 50 million US hispanics account for 15% of the population, so turnout was most likely proportionately higher in states where it was two or three times that. There as in every other demographic, however, it is impossible to believe turnout for Obama will be anywhere as high this time; he simply has nowhere near the appeal he did then. Conversely, anti-Obama turnout will be correspondingly higher for the same reason.

Democrats only need one-third to one-half as many hispanic voters to turnout in NV to offset Romneys Mormon edge—if they break as hard for Obama as Mormons do for Romney, but 90% will be a hard number to match. Unless Romney does something stupid like not putting Rubio on the ticket, Obamas only Southwestern chance will be NM. I will not say he CANNOT win NV; Sharon Angle hurt the brand badly with NV hispanics two years ago. Odds are pretty long though, and despite all the Democrats mindlessly applauding Obamas chosen fight with the Catholic Church as a stroke of tactical genius (much as they did the debt ceiling showdown that erased all the goodwill Obama earned killing bin Laden) it did him no favors with hispanic voters.

I would not assume the Mormon population has not grown relative to others; from its very origin, the Mormon church has actively promoted both proselytizing and reproduction to increase numbers, and thus influence. I am sure Obama remains far more popular than Romney with hispanic voters, but whether that makes a pivotal difference in the Southwest or nationally depends on how many there are, how many can vote for him and how many actually do. The second two are almost given for Romney with Mormons, whose numbers are large throughout the Southwest. I think Obama will hold NM, but that is about it.

where's the proof that the mormon population has grown massively? Even a 10% increase over two years would make it about 7% of the statewide population in Nevada and that's extremely unlikely. Not a big deal.

Um, the question is "where is the proof the hispanic growth has outpaced Mormon growth?" That was your contention, remember: That the hispanic population has grown enormously while the Mormon population has remained fairly flat. Obviously that would support your argument if true, but is no reason it IS true.

As for the rest I wont go into any long discussion here but polls in Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina etc suggest that those states are in play. Here is the state of the map that most people would go by. You might quibble around the margins but it's like the current map in this thread. People aren't seeing anything in the polls that suggests that there is a big movement one way or another. Obama is damaged but so is Romney who is proving to be a mediocre candidate but the best of a bad lot.

http://cookpolitical.com/charts/president/ev_scorecard_2012-02-23_07-56-34.php

I just cannot imagine Romney SO damaged Obama can improve on his 2004 performance anywhere, and polling supports that: NO state McCain won is rated a tossup, by anyone. That means every state Obama narrowly won will be a big challenge for him to win again (hence Cook rates IN Likely Rep. and NH Leans Rep.) It also means NC (which Obama won by 1%) is virtually hopeless. It is far more significant that NV, a state Obama won by 12% when running against neighboring Senator McCain in 2004, is now rated a toss up. Either large Mormon turnout is expected in NV, Obama is MUCH weaker now, or both, which makes the Southwest tough sledding for Obama.

No, it doesn't mean any such thing. Polling suggests Obama is still in the race. Obama is less popular that's true but then Romney is damaged goods as well. Where is your evidence that North Carolina is anything less than a toss up apart from Obama being less popular? Find me a poll. Gut feeling and supposed logic isn't proof.

My evidence is that Obama won it by a single point last time and is FAR less popular now. All the NC polls RCP lists are partisan, but none are good news for Obama: The margin ranges from Romney +11 to Obama +3, and while most show a slight Obama lead, that is only because 16/19 are from liberal Public Policy Polling. Even one of THOSE polls shows Romney ahead by a point (though one GOP poll shows Obama +2.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/north_carolina_obama_vs_republicans.html

Add to that the NC demographics: Predominantly rural and Southern; Obama needed massive turnout from blacks and in Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill to eke out a razor thin victory last time. Romney is in no worse shape there than McCain was, but Obama definitely is. Liberal voters are fairly demoralized by Obamas failure to deliver on his mandate, while conservative voters are very energized by their incorrect belief he did.

North Carolina is still in play and both sides will be fighting hard for it. No team would even think of wasting money on it unless they thought that it was genuinely in play.

Except the whole reason Obama won NC, VA and IN last time was adopting an "All 50 States" strategy to both play some long shots and force McCain to spend money nationwide to keep pace. They are not going to change what worked, especially since this election will be tight. They will need to hold every state they can, and cannot afford to concede any where there is even a remote chance of victory.

The Cook ratings show 195 EVs as Lean Republican or better. There is no way a much weaker Obama holds a NC he won by a single point in '04, so we can add 15 more to get 210. The Mormon population that elected both Mormon NV Senators take its 6 EVs off the table, too, so that is 216. With 29 EVs in FL and 18 more in OH, that would be 263, meaning the only other Toss Up Obama could afford to lose is IA (6,) and none of the leaners will flip given the lack of enthusiasm for both nominees. Neither nominee can win without FL and/or OH, whatever happens in the popular vote.

No you can't you have no proof of anything. Obama is weaker yes, but how much weaker will he be on election day? How much weaker will Romney be by then? Will either of them be stronger? what will the state of the economy be?

Heaven knows; it is a long way off and a major scandal or disaster could eliminate either candidate. Barring something like that, it looks tough for Obama NOW.

Nevada is not taken off the table. Either nominee can win without them it is possible. If they win however more than likely they will win with either of them.

Whoever wins the popular vote will more than likely win nationwide unless it is really close within a percentage point.

Cart and horse. Obviously, the candidate who wins the Electoral College is certain to win the popular vote as well unless the latter is VERY close. If a candidate get a majority in most states, he will get a majority nationally; it is almost mathematically impossible to do otherwise, and the only time it does not happen is when the popular vote is VERY close. In those cases, of course, the states decide the election, not the popular vote, because that is always the case: It is just more obvious some times than others.

Regardless, if one candidate wins both FL and OH, that will win him both the popular vote and the far more important 270 EVs necessary for election. If they split, the one who gets OH will almost need to run the table to be elected, though Romney has more paths in more favorable states to get there; regardless, the candidate who wins the most EVs will incidentally win the popular vote unless it is very close, but close or otherwise the deciding factors will still be either FL or OH plus a near perfect run in the remaining battlegrounds.

One point not to be underestimated is the dynamics of US politics and in particular the fact that low turnout ALWAYS hurts Democrats. There are many reasons, and one of the biggest is that election day is a regular work day; most people are entitled to an hour off work to vote, but in practice many are expected to vote before/after work, even though polls most places are open from 7-7 (or 8.) Add in lines that can be several hours long at some places and times, and many people decide they are too busy earning a living and making the kids dinner to blow three hours casting a vote highly unlikely to change even their states outcome, let alone the nations. People in that work/kids vs. voting scenario tend to be Dems, for obvious reasons. Perhaps most significantly, there is are strong and opposing psychological trends among Dems and Republicans: While many of the latter consider voting a civic duty and obligation (even though many resent the federal governments very existence,) many Dems are inclined to reject ALL the candidates as "fascists" or corporate stooges, and stay home.

All that is why every single election sees Democrats trying to maximize turnout by any means necessary while Republicans try to suppress it by those same means. Both sides cry fraud around the country; Democrats accuse Republicans of disenfranchising voters and Republicans accuse Democrats of paying voters or registration illegal aliens. Low turnout is bad for Democrats, and the anemic interest in both candidates and election strongly suggests this will be a low turnout election. That means Obama has to do better than 50%+1, because higher GOP turnout will offset a narrow Democratic majority.