When Nevada is polled, President Obama never trails -- he's tied or (more likely) has a small or significant lead. He also has other advantages in the state, as Jonathan Chait notes, citing the dean of Nevada political reporters, Jon Ralston:
Las Vegas reporter Jon Ralston has explained that the polls miss the impact both of [Harry] Reid's turnout operation and the strength of the Latino vote. (Most polls don't ask questions in Spanish, and thus miss the Spanish-speaking vote, which is expanding in size.) About ten days ago, Ralston explained the dynamic in a column, and then, as the early vote has rolled in, has reported on the very sizable Democratic edge, which makes a Romney win in that state nearly impossible.Read those Ralston links. This is definitely Obama's state to lose, and there's every indication that he's winning it -- with significant registration and early turnout advantages.
And yet Romney keeps campaigning in the state. Why? Ralston today says there are several reasons (Team Romney is counting on its own ground game and super PAC money, and hopes to save down-ballot Republicans). But there's also this:
I think Romney also is playing here because he can -- the money is there -- and because he needs to, as one wag put it, "show off for his investors," including Sheldon Adelson. This is about what happens after the election, too, even if Romney becomes president and has lost Nevada. He at least has to give it the old college try.Wow. Is he really squandering time and resources in a state where he's likely to lose just to mollify Sheldon Adelson? Is Romney that willing to say "How high?" when one of his top paymasters says "Jump"?
To some extent, that's true of all pols in this big-money age -- but if the Romney campaign can't make his own resource-allocation decisions and, at least on this, requires one particular deep-pocketed patron's approval, it tells you something about how owned Romney will be if he's ever president, doesn't it?
7 comments:
Because, unlike the Obama campaign, which paid for ad spots much earlier, Mitt's campaign is spending a fortune for advertizing in the last 3-4 weeks before Election Day - also forgetting about early voting - so, I wouldnt' be at all surprised to see his ads there, or even in NY State, where he's got NO chance of winning.
And that's a indictment of how he'll be as a President, if he wins.
Not to mention that Adelson has more reason than most of his fellow 1%ers to wish for a Romney presidency:
The feds are investigating whether Sheldon Adelson's multibillion-dollar Las Vegas Sands Corp. violated money-laundering laws by failing to alert authorities when a pair of questionable high rollers transfered massive sums to its casinos, the Wall Street Journal reports.
According to the paper's sources, the U.S. attorney office's probe extends to handful of senior executives but does not appear to include Adelson himself. The probe is believed to have begun last year, and any charges likely won't come for several more months, possibly not until after the November election
[[ it tells you something about how owned Romney will be if he's ever president, doesn't it? ]]
Nothing we didn't already know. ;-)
I don't buy it. Romney's gotta win for Adelson's investment to have any value. If Romney didn't think he could win Nevada, he would have to focus on states where he realistically had better chances. Even Adelson would agree.
Perhaps Romney is counting on armies of onsite voting challengers to suppress the Hispanic vote enough to give him the edge. We know that's going to happen, the only question being how effective it will be.
Romney will lose the election!
Or shall I say,Romney already lost the election!
If Adelson's giving him 10 million, why not spend 5 million in Nevada to keep Adelson happy?
Romney would spend half of Adelson's millions in Israel if could get away with it.
Post a Comment