Gawd help us.

also explains the increased edits to his wiki.

would it help Romney win Ohio? hope not

and there is no one he can pick to change that. And, even picking his best option, Portman, it only changes the potential outcome of Ohio in 3,000 of out of 50,000 scenarios.

In other words, Nate isn't really helping mitt. Mitt is stuck with himself as the candidate.

That was a WSJ article from May. Maybe Nate is on our side?

What?

You know it's true!

but since him probably no one did.

Texas and a few other southern states went narrowly for JFK.

By and large that is probably the only extreme case. Though some running mates have at least helped the presidential nominee with their home states. Muskie in '68 (back when Maine was considered a fairly reliable GOP state in presidential elections), for instance.

Given the closeness of the '76 election and the suspicion that organized labor felt for Jimmy Carter, it can at least be argued that Walter Mondale, who was a union favorite, helped in the industrial midwest with union members and winning such close states as Ohio and Wisconsin.

you need pretty magical circumstances for a reasonable veep choice to influence the outcome.

i've long maintained that the veep selection is merely an opportunity to make a huge mistake.
there's no real upside.

palin quite certainly qualifies as a "huge mistake", though obama's margin of victory makes it easy to say that mclame would have lost no matter who he had chosen.



one of the many things missing from silver's analysis here is that these days it's the fundraising abilities that matter more -- and that money can then be used in any state. i don't know who the rainmakers are on the republican side, but if, say, rubio can raise a ton of money in florida, well, that money can be spent in ohio or nevada or some other state with a bigger electoral return on investment.

it's quite possible that a sufficiently superior fund-raiser might lead to more simulated wins in ohio even if from out of state.

As you say, the fundraising can be an advantage, as can a pick like Biden, who brought the foreign policy gravitas.

I tend to agree that it is a chance to make a mistake more than anything. I don't see mitt playing poker like mccain's pick of palin. He is boring and predictable as they come.

Portmaqn won in 2010, a year in which democrats stayed home and tea baggers rode on in with their anger. Never going to happen again. Ohio is becoming more and more progressive. Witness the unpopularity of the governor and the repeal of the union busting Senate Bil 5. Add also the referendum coming up on the contorted redistricting by the repugnants and changing the state constitution to put in a progressive backed and popular idea. \
Portman was never popular and ran on the anger created by tea partiers without having to join them publicly or even admit his contributions to the George Bush disaster.
I would welcome his being selected as it would cement the gains we progressives have made since 2010 and link romney and Portman much more directly with unpopular Bush economic policies.
Your belief that he could help in Ohio is ludicrous.

the amount of votes Romney will lose after he makes his pick and the whole tax return question is dredged up again. Or how the Obama campaign will focus on Bain's activity in whatever state Romney's VP is from. Not to mention the record of whatever fool he picks.

as to why not. He young and telegenic, Hispanic, so far as a cursory webcheck can see clean and could make Nevada very difficult.

Thanks for the link-its a very good read as Silver almost always is. I pretty much agree with you on Portman.