June 11, 2012
Could Romney Win Oregon?
If there is an unheralded state that could be in play this year, it might be Oregon.
Oregon has been sparsely polled, but the most recent survey found a tight race there, and
the state has been extremely competitive in the past — like in 2000 when Al Gore
won it by less than a full percentage point.
And Jay Cost,
who shows Oregon as a swing state on his map.
And that's what I've thought for some time, though I haven't gotten around to writing
The basic argument is simple: Romney could win any state that George
W. Bush won in 2000 or 2004 — and any state where Bush came close in those
elections. Bush came very close in 2000, losing Oregon by just 6,765
Could doesn't mean will, and if I had to place a bet now, at even odds I would probably
bet on Obama. But at 10-1 odds, I'd probably bet on Romney. How much lower
would I go? I haven't decided yet. (Silver gives Romney almost 1 chance in
5 of winning Oregon.)
Cross posted at
Jim Miller on Politics.
(For the curious: Silver and I have
estimates of the national odds, right now.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 11, 2012
10:42 AM | Email This
1. If Romney actually wins Oregon or Washington, it means Obama really is toast. It will be good if Obama just has to spend money defending either of them.
2. In 2000, Nader took over 5% of the vote in Oregon. If I'm not mistaken, it was his best showing in the country. With Nader off the ballot in 04, Kerry won 51-47.
Washington Post reports:
'NET WORTH OF AMERICAN FAMILY FALLS 40% IN 3 YEARS'
This could be one reason why Oregon could be in play.
I would be surprised if Romney wins OR and if the election was held today, he wouldn't. Oregon has vote by mail and they are not vigilant about scrubbing their voter rolls to my knowledge. He will probably be closer in OR than in WA. Things may change, but it its close, the edge goes to the left because more of their dead will vote.
If the truth was allowed by the cowardly meda to be out there more, Owebama would lose OR and maybe WA. However, the urban media and media weenies will pretend they are Pravda and do what they can do to aid and abet our malevolent president. However, there's a breach in their dam of protection.
5. The election will be over before the votes are counted in Oregon.
True- a loss in Or and Wa for Obama would be symbolic.
The more important question are the senate races in both states.
Cantwell can't like the anti-obama tide and the fact that McKenna is trending well. It would take a higher change of tide though for her to actually lose.
Maybe Baumgarter has a shot against Cantwell. He will defeat Coday, who is hardly visible. I heard him speak and he has some talent.
The trend looks good, but there is still 5 months to go and the Democratics will throw out a large assortment of monkey wrenches between now and then.
10. I predict Gary Johnson will do very well in Oregon at the expense of both Obama and Romney.
"2. In 2000, Nader took over 5% of the vote in Oregon. If I'm not mistaken, it was his best showing in the country."
Nader got twice that in Alaska.
13. I moved down to the Ashland, OR area from Seattle just in time for the 2008 election campaign. This town is similar to Seattle with its 80/20 split in elections in favor the Dems and the area was plastered with Obama bumper stickers etc. I also heard lots of pro Obama comments in the gym locker room and in supermarket checkout lines. This time around things are much quieter...so far anyway...and few stickers for 2012 although some still sport their old 2008 and 2004 stickers. I cannot prove it but I do get the feeling this state could be in play. It all depends on the turnout in Portland and Eugene, which provide the Dems with their margins in this state. Oregon is really two states: Portland/Corvallis/Eugene vs. the rest of the state. Much like WA state. Locally speaking, it is Ashland vs. the rest of Jackson County, which generally speaking is more conservative. We have the sole GP congressman in the state.
Most Americans would applaud what Mitt Romney said here;
"The United States will not bail out European countries if the eurozone economy falls apart under a spiraling debt crisis, Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney said Sunday.
"We're not going to send checks to Europe. We're not going to bail out the European banks. We're going to be poised here to support our economy," Romney told CBS television's "Face the Nation" program.
He expressed hope that "regardless of what happens in Europe, that our banking sector is able to weather the storm," noting that US banks are on a "much stronger basis" than during the last crisis.
Romney, who is seeking to oust Obama from the White House in a November elections, has accused the president of trying to create a "European-style entitlement society" in the United States.
"I wish that over the last three and a half years that the president would have taken action to rebuild the basis of our economy... get it on such a strong footing that the challenges in Europe if they occur wouldn't have as significant impact as they might otherwise," he said.
"But right now, we're dealing with 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work or underemployed, homes are still bumping along the bottom, foreclosures are (at) very high levels, median incomes are way down; the president's frankly made it harder for our economy to reboot."
A collapse of the euro currency, or financial spillover that could spook US markets, could move closer after Greece's election on Sunday and has the potential to further weaken the tepid US recovery before Obama seeks reelection.
Romney and other leading Republicans support US government austerity measures to help rein in runaway debt and balance the budget, policies similar to those pushed by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Europe's biggest economy Germany, and that have triggered massive debate and protest in Europe."