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?
