Republicans should be happy about the latest polls coming out of Pennsylvania. Two of the three polls conducted there in the last few days show President Obama’s lead over Mitt Romney down to four points while another run by the Democratic-leading PPP firm has him up by seven points. This is quite a turnaround for a state where Obama has led by large margins for most of the year. The same might also be said for Michigan where Romney has narrowed a once large deficit in some recent polls. Both are important states the loss of which could be potentially fatal to the Democrats’ hopes of re-electing President Obama. But Romney would be well advised not to expend much effort trying to exploit this potential weakness in the president’s Electoral College lineup.
No Republican has won either state since the 1980s which means that if Obama is looking weak in places where he had double digit margins of victory in 2008 it stands to reason that it might be wise for his campaign to double down on their investment there so as to make the Democrats expend funds in areas that they thought were already in the bag. That would be a mistake. Though the president’s support in both states is far softer than anyone imagined a few months ago, converting them from blue to red would involve far more effort that the prize would justify and still fall short.
Despite the bad polling numbers, Obama still has overwhelming advantages in both Pennsylvania and Michigan. Unions and still potent Democratic organizations in cities like Philadelphia and Detroit have the ability to generate high turnouts that are likely to offset any losses in other parts of these states no matter how much Romney spends there. Were the Republicans to switch gears and divert resources there from other more winnable and arguably more crucial Electoral College targets it would materially lower Romney’s chances of victory.
The key to Republican victory remains those toss-ups where they have at worst an even chance of winning such as Florida, Virginia and Ohio. Pennsylvania is an inviting GOP target made even more tempting by poll results that illustrate Obama’s weakness. But the Romney campaign is wise to relegate it to a lower priority. Their good polling numbers are fool’s gold best ignored.
I honestly don't know why Obama isn't down big in Pennsylvania and I wouldn't count that state out either unless there is going to be massive voter fraud in Philly.
Isn't that massive fraud a given?
Interesting – back in 2004 I remember watching the election returns coming in. I can't remember which station I was surfing through, but Dee Dee Myers was chatting away – it was about midnight out here on the West Coast, and she was in Cleveland, I think. Anyway, everyone was a little punch drunk waiting for Ohio – but PA was real close, looking like a remote possibility for W. (As I recall, PA was closer than OH in '04.) nBack to the relevant story – Philadelphia wasn't all in yet (Mayor John Street at the time) and Myers made the comment – I was stunned – that "with all the Street money" in the City of Brotherly Love she suspected it would go overwhelmingly for Kerry and thus carry PA. She was laughing while she said it. Like I said, I was stunned – but I swear it happened! nSo, yeah, massive fraud is probably a given, and apparently Democrats 1), think it is funny and 2), don't care about advertising it.
What was Reagan's electoral strategy in '80, when he was running against that decade's Obama? Does anyone here remember if RR expended resources in even nominally-solid-dem states, or only in states which appeared easier for him to win? IIRC, right up to the election he was polling far behind Carter; how did he manage such a sweeping and transformational victory across the whole country? Were I on the Romney team, strategizing on defeating Carter II, I'd be trying to follow RR's path as closely as reasonably possible.
I also think PA is in play. PA is coal country and lawn signs saying "Stop the War on Coal" – Fire Obama" are everywhere in western PA. Very few pro-Obama lawn signs in ultra Democrat Pittsburgh.
Romney needs to focus on the "must win" swings and leave states like PA and MI to national momentum. If he is ahead in enough swings to get to 270 going into November 6th, then a few "lean Obama" states will likely fall Romney's way.
If I were Romney, I would not go into Pennsylvania or Michigan UNLESS Obama does. Why? That would be more than a hint that Obama himself has polling that shows those states are seriously up for grabs. So far Obama hasn't which makes me think that their own polling shows them safe. But if he does……..then it would be the first indicator that would make me optimistic about this race.
The point regarding both PA and MI is that if Romney wins them he won't need them. It would be gratifying to have a "massive repudiation" of the incumbent, but that can be left to national trends. The campaign needs to be 100% positive they have the 270+. When that's locked up they can try to spring some surprises.
That's a very good point. The only thing is that conditions are not equal in all states. It's possible to squeak out a victory say, in Florida, Virginia and North Carolina, but lose Ohio. So, if these states are in play, they become counters to Ohio(or any other swing state). Also, by expending resources—personal or money—it helps to assure the victories in the big three or four. But again, I wouldn't do it unless Obama makes the first move by going to these states. By the way, from my understanding of Romney's resources, he now has plenty of money to make such a move.
Outstanding article. I'm sure (well, I hope anyway) that Romney's people are smart enough not to waste much money or time in Michigan or Pennsylvania. In the few instances when Republicans have carried those two blue states they won landslides. Romney needs to spend all the remaining time before Election Day in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Missouri, Colorado and New Hampshire and any other ''battleground state'' where Republicans have done well in past winning campaigns. That's where the election will be decided.