The buys are in markets where broadcasts bleed into IA and WI.

to try and create the illusion that they are expanding the map.

this article is phrased wrong

he is NOT locked in a tight battle.

just spin and bravado and a lie

Keep in mind that Walker and Priebus likely manipulated voting machines in Milwaukee in 2011 election--where voting defied logic. This many be the final home game--manipulate elections in Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida.

spent more time in WI the whole campaign? If Walker could steal it for him wouldn't it have made more sense to bet heavily on WI as opposed to say IA? You have to have very close margins to steal. You can't just go from a 3pt lead in one direction to a win in the other.

And what's the proof on WI manipulation? What I remember is polling showing WI just didn't want the recall. The DNC knew this from the get go and that's why they had to be dragged into throwing money. Everyone knew it was a bust but the base.

It looks like he has a small lead (1-2 points) nationally, but the president was so strategic from so early on that he knew that Ohio was key and carpet-bombed it with dollars while Romney was still trying to win the nomination.

So Romney recognizes that he could win the popular vote but still lose because OH is quickly getting beyond his reach. His only option is to leapfrog the firewall and go after a few targets that we originally thought were less likely to go red than OH. WI is key to that strategy. If he can't win OH, he can still win the E.C. if he can take two of the CO/NV/IA/NH (assuming it's not NH without CO... and assuming that he wins all three of the FL/VA/NC group).

I really hope Romney doesn't win the popular vote.

It would make Americans look as bad as they did during the Bush years.

The international poll of other countries shows that most people overwhelmingly reject Mittens in the rest of the world.

What sort of message would that send?

... returning many progressives to the design of our founding fathers.

Did you know that leading up to the 2000 election there was some thought that Bush could win the popular vote yet lose the election? Democrats (correctly) defended the Constitutional schema. Our system was designed that way for a reason... and that reason still resonates today.

But then the 2000 election went the other way and too many of us lost our principles in exchange for whatever it takes to win. We saw way too many progressives actually begin to believe that the nation would be better off with a new design that puts winner of the popular vote into the White House.

That ends if Romney wins the popular vote but loses the election.

We return to sanity.

Mitt Bluffing.

Last edited Sat Oct 27, 2012, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)

(AZ, GA, NC, VA) and more states that he's trying to steal (IA, CO, NH, OH, NV, WI, MI, FL).
Romney does not have enough money to spread around to all of these states because he has to both try to steal states from the President and protect previously red states from being stolen. Whereas, the President is spending his money wisely, in key states that need to be held.

Republicans trying to steal MN is completely ignorant on their part and a bad use of their money. But hey, I hope republicans mortgage their houses to pour money into a state that they are going to lose. Those people will likely not donate nearly as much to republicans next time.

Despite some Republicans wanting to claim so.

People forget that Minnesota hasn't voted Republican since Nixon in 1972!

Minnesota is the ONLY state that didn't vote for Reagan in 1984.

.