Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

former9thward

(33,424 posts)

4. Swing states have nothing to do with the margin of lead that Obama or Romney may have.

Reply to Texas Lawyer (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:12 PM

Sep 2012

Swing states are states which switch back and forth between R and D depending on the election. There are only 8-12 of those. That is why neither campaign is going to waste resources in states like CA, NY, TX, etc. It was known 3 years ago how they will vote.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rethinking "what is a 'swing state'"? We must question the narrow conventional view that limits us [View all] Texas Lawyer Sep 2012 OP

PSA: "Swing State" is an opinion, not a fact. bemildred Sep 2012 #1

No. Swing states are very real things thanks to the Electoral College. LovePeacock Sep 2012 #3

"Very Real" opinions about future events. bemildred Sep 2012 #5

The 2008 "swing states" were as follows: LovePeacock Sep 2012 #7

I expect they do something every election, that's not the question. bemildred Sep 2012 #8

If not for Presidential elections.. fun n serious Sep 2012 #2

Swing states have nothing to do with the margin of lead that Obama or Romney may have. former9thward Sep 2012 #4

I'm not suggesting that the campaign ought to devote vast resources to winning NY, CA, or TX. I'm Texas Lawyer Sep 2012 #9

You are probably right but that is not the focus of the Obama campaign. former9thward Sep 2012 #10

I recall that, but that strategy was from a time before the President was a 4-to-1 favorite. Now Texas Lawyer Sep 2012 #11

Because even if those states are in play, they still don't matter. k2qb3 Sep 2012 #6

Three thoughts: First, those states DO matter down-ballot -- the President cannot pass his agenda if Texas Lawyer Sep 2012 #12

The possible Congressional seats to be won aren't necessarily in presidential swing states muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #13

Many of the tightest races are in the "expanded map" winnable states: Senate races in AZ, IN, MO, MT Texas Lawyer Sep 2012 #14

If we can't poll higher in Indiana and Missouri I doubt Arizona or South Carolina or Jennicut Sep 2012 #15

Even if we do not win Arizona, South Carolina, or Georgia, a campaign which lifted the campaign to Texas Lawyer Sep 2012 #16