JT directed me to the Washington Post’s election roundup. And I spotted something very fishy.
We all know the 10-11 battleground states: Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and Missouri. You might add Republican-leaning Indiana in there, since Obama won it in 2008 … although Obama wrote it off very early this time.
Those are in order of Democratic leaning. Romney needed to get the last 6 plus Indiana. He got 2 (3 with Indiana).
So what did the Post do? Here’s the screen capture:
Did you catch it? Probably not — thus the sleight of hand: two of the battleground states that Romney actually won aren’t shown.
Indiana isn’t on there. Perhaps that’s OK. But they left off Missouri too. This makes Romney’s performance look worse that it was.
And what did they put in Missouri’s place? New Mexico. You know … the state that’s gone Republican once since 1988. I think Romney went there once in the summer (his calendar isn’t searchable). That’s right: the Obama colored state in this map showing part of the campaign with no Romney campaign stops:
This is a battleground state?
Further, Missouri was a tighter race than New Mexico.
In fact, quite a few states that went Democratic were tighter than New Mexico … like Oregon … and Minnesota … and Michigan … and Pennsylvania.
You gotta’ wonder what the motivation is to swap in a small state with a stronger Obama showing than a bigger one with a weaker showing … much less a handful of them.
In sum, the coverage makes Obama look like he had a 9-1 record, when it’s more like 8-3. Both are pretty good, but which record gets you a shot at a major bowl game, and which one gets you shunted off to the Astro-Bluebonnet Bowl?*
* I’m getting a warm fuzzy for remembering this obscure and bizarrely named gem, and incorporating it into a sentence.
Comments