Chait writes: "Mitt Romney's team announced last night, in the immediate wake of the Democratic convention, that it was unleashing a massive swing-state ad blitz."
Mitt Romney delivers remarks in New Hampshire, 07/20/12. (photo: Getty Images)
Romney's Playing Field Narrows
08 September 12
itt Romney's team announced last night, in the immediate wake of the Democratic convention, that it was unleashing a massive swing-state ad blitz. Since the announcement came well before the lousy jobs report, and even before the mixed reviews for Obama's speech, it ought to be seen as an attempt to give Republicans a reason for enthusiasm. A closer look suggests more reason for GOP concern.
Romney is targeting eight states: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and New Hampshire. No Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. This is surely not because Romney is husbanding scarce cash. Campaign aides also told Fox News yesterday that they basically have so much money they have to come up with ways to get it out the door, Brewster's Millions–style, before election day. (“We have $100 million we've just raised. If you look at our burn rate to date and our cash on hand, there's not much more we can spend on infrastructure. So we've got to start spending our general election funds in a big way, because you know what the value of that money is on the day after the election? Zero.”) And it's probably not because they want outside super-PACs to spend in those states, either - they can't legally coordinate, and the super-PACs will take their cues from the Romney campaign about where to fight. (The GOP super-PACs have already pulled out of Michigan and Pennsylvania.)
The reason this looks worrisome for Romney is that he's pursuing an electoral-college strategy that requires him nearly to run the table of competitive states. The states where Romney is not competing (and which aren't obviously Republican, either) add up to 247 electoral votes. The eight states where Romney is competing add up to a neat 100 electoral votes, of which Romney needs 79 and Obama just 23. If you play with the electoral possibilities, you can see that this would mean Obama could win with Florida alone or Ohio plus a small state or Virginia plus a couple small states, and so on.
Unless I'm missing something badly here, Romney needs either a significant national shift his way - possibly from the debates or some other news event - or else to hope that his advertising advantage is potent enough to move the dial in almost every swing state in which he's competing.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Remember during the coming add blitz that we have no idea where this money is coming from. Romney says he has so much he doesn't even know what to do with it.
There must be SOME reason the .01% want President Obama out of office SO bad. It's one of the main reasons I'll be voting for him in November.
No matter who it has benefitted, both have to be repealed before heavy $ can be flushed from the national consciousness and free and fair elections become part of the national fabric -but don't hold yer breath too long, or ye'll explode.
In any case, I hope Twit/Rayand crashes and burns, never to be resurrected! The US and the PLANET can't afford another disastrous Rethug' presidency.
These things are entrenched by the power of self-interest.
It was a good question. I think they've already shown how ugly they can be, but you might be right. Obama in a 2nd term and not worried about re-election might just drive them over the edge going bat-shit crazy.
The NRA is probably routing for Obama because of all the extra weapons they know they'll sell after he's re-elected. There's nothing scarier than a scared stupid redneck.
"Deadheads for R-N-R!"
You didn't mention somebody else, who would love to get rid of Obama. Netanyho, his warmongers, and the neocon HAWKS in our country. they would LOVE to see Romney win so they can start a war with Iran.
They have been itching to start it for years. Remember McCain in 08, when he was singing Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran. That old man is so eager for war.
I think he loves war. He also want us to get involved in Syria. It is horrible what is happening there.
But I remember that we got involved with, and armed the Mujahaddin in Afghanistan. We gave them stinger missiles, so thy could defeat the Russians.
Do you remember how THAT turned out??? They were used AGAINST US...... In the Syrian fighting, a number of Al Queda fighters are getting involved, so it is extremely difficult to know who is against us, and who we can work with. So in my opinion, all we CAN do is help the poor refugees.
RSS feed for comments to this post