Acknowledgment - Western Nevada College: Fill & Download for Free

Well, I'm different in my answer compared to all the posters whom are acting like stubborn children refusing to acknowledge Siberian, Mongolian ancestry & most of these posters here are not even full blooded Native Americans or not even Native Americans at all--I'm different, I will acknowledge my Mongolian ancestry.I am of Paiute ancestry and I am close being 3/4 Native American, as confirmed by DNA testing. I think there are various reasons why many Native Americans don't acknowledge their Mongolian, Siberian ancestry.(1) They are half breeds, are mixed with White and look White and so they identify more with being White than being Native American. Even though they may be raised on the Native American reservation, they have been brainwashed to think everything that is White is better.(1)(b)Also, there are few pockets of Native American tribes that are mixed with African American and the current tribal members have no Native American facial features because their tribal gene pool has been diluted and mixed with African DNA (Shinnecock tribe in Long Island).(2) The Native American doesn't look Asian at all. They are close to being full blooded but their physical appearance is of being a typical Lakota Indian with a long face, pointy nose like a crow. Or, they look like the indigenous people from Mexico, Central America or South America. Thus, they cannot be mistaken for Asian and feel uncomfortable taking a position that they are of Mongolian, Siberian ancestry.(3) Native Americans who have never left the reservation and never met any Central, Northeast Asian and the only Asians these people have met are either Vietnamese, Southern Chinese from the Canton, Fukkien region who look nothing like Mongolian, Siberian indigenous people.(4) They are Native Americans who, have never left the reservation and live a traditional lifestyle like the Hopi, Tarahumara, or Navajo and have deep spiritual customs into their creation and origin myths. Thus, they have trouble and are baffled with being informed and educated as to their Mongolian, Siberian origins, roots.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_Bull#/media/File%3ASittingBull.jpghttp://www.newsweek.com/mexican-drug-wars-next-victims-tarahumara-indian-runners-65101http://www.imlutheran.org/content/some-facts-about-guatemalahttp://smithsonianscience.si.edu/2011/01/american-indian-museum-documents-chawaytiri-pilgrimage-in-peru/The thing is the majority of Native Americans in the US, Mexico, Central and South America look in physical appearance as mentioned above.There are only a small minority of Native Americans that have Mongolian, Siberian, Korean, Japanese, Northern Chinese physical features. These bands of Native Americans that look like Northeast Asians can be seen in Alaska (Athabascan Indians), Western Canada(Haida Gwai, Tlingit, Kwakiutl, Na-Dene Athabascans), Northern Canada Hudson/James Bay Region (Cree/Montagnais, Naskapis) Oregon (Paiute), Washington, Montana (Paiute, Soshone, Blackfoot), Nevada, Idaho, Arizona (Ute, Hopi, Navajo, Apache, Kiowa), New Mexico (Navajo, Zuni), and some Northern related Mexican tribes like the Tarahumara, Aztec.I had DNA tests carried out by the National Geographic Genome Project and have been identified to have a mtDNA Haplogroup genetic marker as belonging to the D1 haplogroup, which has been identified to predominate in the Pacific Northwest and to the lesser extent in other parts of the US and Central America, with increased concentration in the northern regions of Chile and Argentina indigenous populations. Genetically, my closest relatives are the Athabascan tribes of Alaska, Canada, Southwest, Aleut tribes of Alaska, and my closest relative tribes with the same genetic markers are the Ulchi tribe in Russian Manchuria. My same genetic marker (D1 Haplogroup) has been found in ancient 10,500 year old Ancient Jomon era tombs in Funadomari, Rebun Island, Hokkaido, Japan and also has been found in the outer Mongolia nation and the Manchurian regions of China, Russia (Ulchi tribe).20 years ago I lived in Japan, shed a lot of weight gained in college. I worked as an English instructor in Japan. I was able to master Japanese. The interesting thing was once my Japanese reached a native Japanese proficiency level, the Japanese can not tell me apart. Because of my native Japanese proficiency skills, Central Asian/Northeast Asian/Japanese appearance, everyone in Japan speaks to me in Japanese thinking I'm Japanese. It was a pretty interesting, wild experience for a Native American.I live in Queens, NYC and have had Koreans speak to me in Korean, Japanese speak to me in Japanese, Northern Chinese speak to me in Mandarin, and I've attended several Mongolian festivals (New Years and Nadam) and Mongolians speak to me in Mongolian often. I think that of all the ethnic groups just mentioned many Mongolians do look more Native American than other Asians, because they have stocky body structures, and some have physical features similar to many tribes out west. Also, there are a few Japanese that also look Native American. I have meet some that have that Tarahumara, or Great Plains Lakota Sioux look, with tannish cooper skin tone, pointy noses. I was surprised when I met Japanese with such Native features. They are a small minority of the Japanese population, it's more of a recessive gene that appears among a small percentage of the population.Please find enclosed a list of websites, scientific publications discussing my genetic marker, Haplogroup D1:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q_(mtDNA)http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken-ichi_Shinoda/publication/23414664_Mitochondrial_DNA_analysis_of_Jomon_skeletons_from_the_Funadomari_site_Hokkaido_and_its_implication_for_the_origins_of_Native_American/links/09e41509304fa3ba52000000.pdfhttp://www.genetics.org/content/142/4/1321.full.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905771/This person in this picture has a facial type similar to mine.If she were in Queens, most would think she is Japanese. She could also pass for Mongolian as well. This is the facial type that exists among many Pacific Northwest Indians and some Navajo and Apache. There are less indigenous natives that look like this among the northern descended tribes like the Tarahumara and the Aztec. But their percentages are much less:http://www.tulalipnews.com/wp/2014/02/06/special-opportunity-to-meet-the-photographer-matika-wilbur-feb-16/You also might find this pic interesting, in Peru there are some indigenous folk who have strong Asiatic features, like this child, whom looks similar to some Japanese children I have encountered while living in Japan.http://www.leoniphotography.com/peru-from-cusco-to-machu-picchu/While this South American Andean indigenous child looks Chinese:http://www.backpackingninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/dsc02724.jpg?w=300I've added pictures of the traditional architecture of the Pacific Northwest Indians:http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art-114023/A-Tlingit-community-house-and-totem-poles-are-preserved-inThis is picture of the Ulchi tribe in Russian Manchuria of which some indigenous members share my same mtDNA Haplogroup, D1:http://www.dv-reclama.ru/dv/news/16620/vystavka_buben_vselennoy_yuzhno_sakhalinsk_dekorativno_prikladnoe_iskusstvo_ulchi_nivkhi_korennye_na/This are pictures of nomadic Mongolian Reindeer herders living an untouched lifestyle as their ancestors did thousands of years ago. There are some pictures of some of these children that look similar to me as a small child:http://www.businessinsider.com/jeroen-toirkens-photos-of-dukha-reindeer-herders-of-mongolia-2014-5

Short Answer - Obama (probably) winsThe short answer is that President Obama (probably) wins, because his incumbency, positive favorable (and often approval) rating(s), greater likability, far greater political skills, and geographic-demographic advantages together should trump Governor Romney's attempt to justify another change upon claims of greater competence than the President (who will counter that such change will take the country backwards to the less popular Bush economy, probably bringing the argument close to a draw*). My intuition is supported by polling that reveals the President ahead or tied in most of the swing states he picked up in 2008. While there are enough undecided voters in at least some of those States to swing them in the other direction, they don't much like the challenger, and the President’s support is more committed (if perhaps less motivated in some places). Moreover, demographic changes, in particular the rising Hispanic population, may be such that Gov. Romney's economic message cannot alone swing enough of these states to win the election.(Very) Long AnswerThe much longer answer necessarily goes in depth through the electoral college, examining each of the potential "swing states" (and some that I dismiss from the category) en route to the same conclusion.*Note first that I'm in no position to forecast economic trends domestically or internationally; my analysis is founded upon a presumption that there will be no economic change large enough to swing the election by itself. I acknowledge that the unemployment rate is now higher than it was at the same point in the one-term Presidencies of Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, but as a political matter my impression is that President Obama is perceived as more engaged and less at fault than Carter, and more in touch than the elder Bush, a patrician more comparable to Gov. Romney. Moreover, both of the previous one-term Presidents faced far more charismatic opponents, who are more analogous in political appeal to the current President than his challenger. One of them, President Reagan, later won a landslide reelection after facing even higher unemployment rates than anything seen in Obama's first term. If the economy does in fact favor Gov. Romney, which is not clear, the mismatch in political skills draws the race into a rough tie that I expect to go to the incumbent.This discussion of the economy and candidate appeal provides a good lead-in to the meat of the analysis, because, regardless of either factor, most Americans lean heavily towards one side of the political spectrum or the other (even as explicit party affiliation declines, and many Americans claim otherwise). That's why we speak of "red" and "blue" states, which for the most part vote for one side or the other, year in and year out, and are widely acknowledged not to be elastic enough to be in play in any given Presidential election. There are, of course, States that have gone both ways in recent times and are capable of doing so again. But for the same reason that we have red and blue states – a certain number of people in a given State consistently vote one way or the other – we can predict a lot about these purportedly purple states by examining demographics and other factors that may account for their having changed hands, as well as recent polling that may indicate whether they will do so again.Blue and Red StatesFirst, I’ll do away with the blue and red states that almost certainly will not help decide the election. The following 42 states have consistently picked one party over the other in the past three Presidential contests (with two slight and likely irrelevant exceptions, one on each side*)."Blue" states - CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, WA, WI, VT"Red" states - AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY*Traditionally red IN did select neighboring Sen. Obama (of IL), but he received 1,000 fewer votes than those cast for the combination of Sen. McCain and libertarian conservative Bob Barr, and now trails by about ten points in the State, which I give (along with Obama’s single electoral vote in NE) to Gov. Romney for purposes of analysis. Similarly, mostly blue NM gave neighboring President Bush (of TX) 2,000 more votes than were cast for the combination of John Kerry and Ralph Nader, but now favors President Obama by nearly the same 15-point margin he received in 2008, and I give it to him as well. Both states, notably, were neighbors of what might be considered the winning candidate's home state.I realize I have to defend having taken some of the above states off the table. Yes, there is a recent poll showing Gov. Romney with a one-point lead in Michigan, which the President won by more than 16 points, and another from February showing him ahead by 2 points in Pennsylvania, which the President won by 10. So too are there polls from the last several months showing the President ahead by 3 points in South Carolina (which he lost by 9, but which is the #1 state for Hispanic population growth 2000-2010), and 2-5 points in AZ (which he lost to native Sen. McCain by 8.5, and of course home to a large Hispanic vote).My analysis dismisses all of these polls as outliers. The Michigan poll, for example, was taken by Lansing’s EPIC-MRA firm, which has a relatively poor record (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/pollster-ratings-v40-results.html), and is the only pollster to date to show Gov. Romney ahead (which it has several times). Other polling shows the President consistently ahead here, at times by double-digits, and I conclude that Michigan remains solid blue, as much as Gov. Romney might wish otherwise about his (and his father's) home State. So too does Pennsylvania, where Democrats enjoy a 1-million-voter registration advantage, and where the President enjoys a roughly 8-point average polling lead. Similarly, AZ and SC may be trending towards the Democrats as their Hispanic population grows, but the polling picture overall indicates that they will remain red this year, even if the President is able to pull within a handful of points in AZ.To be sure, any of these states could flip in a landslide (as could others like ME, MO (barely won by Sen. McCain last time), MT, and OR), but the vast majority of observers believe that this election will be tight, not a blowout.Wisconsin may be a closer question than the above States, as it voted for Al Gore and John Kerry by bare fractional margins. But they (and Bill Clinton and Michael Dukakis before them) all did win here, and there is nothing about the economy (the unemployment rate in WI is 6.8%, about a point and a half below the national average) or the quality of the opposing candidate to suggest that President Obama would not only lose the entirety of his 14-point victory, but perform more poorly than all four of his predecessors. There is one recent bad poll here showing Gov. Romney leading 47-44, a week after Republican Gov. Scott Walker won his recall election strongly over the Democratic challenger. But exit polling from the recall election indicated that the President remained strongly ahead, and the poll in which he trailed was from the Rasmussen firm, which has been accused in the past of skewing its results to the right (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/blast-from-rasmussen-past.html). Unless and until there's another survey that supports their findings, I'll deem the Rasmussen poll an outlier and rely upon the earlier polls showing the President consistently ahead, at times above 50%, with Gov. Romney never exceeding 46%.Some Background on PollsAt this point, it may be useful to digress slightly and explain how I read polls (and which polls I read). At this stage of the race, I pay less attention to who's up or down, week by week, or the size of the margin separating the candidates, and more to the absolute levels of support candidates receive over time. While trying to focus on the more reliable polls (those with larger samples, better past records or methodologies, and no partisan identification), I try to get a sense of, and then compare, the range of support in which the candidates lie, using the conservative RealClearPolitics website's occasionally incomplete but very useful state-by-state poll aggregation.For instance, in Wisconsin, President Obama has ranged over time from 44 to 53 points, with his two worst showings from the above-referenced Rasmussen organization, and his two best from, alternately, a Democratic firm and a local poll that has ranged all over the map. Governor Romney on the other hand has ranged from 35 to 47 points, with his two best showings again from Rasmussen and that wide-ranging local poll, and his worst from both a particularly unreliable local poll and a more respected national one. The (selective) average used by the RCP site provides a useful summary here (if not always) – President Obama is ahead roughly 48 to 44 points. While 48 is not a great number for an incumbent candidate, close to danger territory, 44 is simply not enough for a challenger to credibly threaten a win. Romney's recent 47% mark, if repeated, would put him within striking distance, but he’s not quite there against an incumbent who has polled above 50% at least half a dozen times.Which brings me to my second point on polling. There has been a marginal move towards Gov. Romney in polling around the country over the last several weeks. Some of that surely reflects conservative consolidation around the Republican candidate after his lockup of the nomination, as well as the impact of new SuperPAC ads running against the President. But there is another factor too, I believe, and one that may be one of the dirty secrets of the polling world. Polls simply become noisy during the Summer, in my estimation (and I'm not alone – http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/news_you_can_use_summer_polls_useless/,http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/presidential-polling-in-june-flip-a-coin-instead/), so much so that they may be meaningless until some time after Labor Day. Why? Simple – the weather is nicer and it is more likely that poll respondents will not be home to answer the phone (compounding problems that pollsters have reaching respondents by landline/in general, http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/polls-cell-phone-users-prefer-obama-landline-users-153934903.html,http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/15/what_if_people_no_longer_talk_to_pollsters.html). More Americans travel during the summer than any other season, with vacations peaking in August, during which month I believe polls become useless every year. It also may be particularly difficult during this period to reach groups who are disproportionately likely to vote for the President (and Democrats in general), in particular young people (including college-age voters no longer in school and perhaps occupied at summer jobs), who are the most mobile and physically active voters, and African-Americans, both of which groups are disproportionately reliant upon cell phones rather than landlines (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/statistical-noise-in-election-polls/#more-31232).Although summer polls should not be ignored entirely, I don't bother too much about the ups and downs until after Labor Day. In the interim, remember that it’s in the interest of the political media to oversell such blips to draw readers into an apparent horse race that is probably still being lined up at the gate.While I'm on the subject of polling problems, I'll mention a third concern. There's evidence that polling throughout the year is undercounting minorities, Hispanics in particular – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/17/gallup-poll-race-barack-obama_n_1589937.html. I suspect that the explanation is that pollsters have failed adequately to overcome the Spanish language barrier. Consider that in 2008 the President dramatically outperformed his pre-election polling averages (per RCP) in three Hispanic-heavy Southwestern States – CO (by 3 points), NM (by 7.5), and NV (by 6) – all of which flipped to the Democrats. Which provides a good segue into my discussion of the swing states...The Tight States – PredictionsHaving dispatched of the red (or pink) and blue (or light blue) states, I can move on to the 8 (or fewer) true "swing" or "purple" States – CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NC, OH, and VA. These are the ones that recently have gone either way, and could well do so again. Which doesn't mean that they don't really lean in one direction or the other – on the contrary, several of them do. They're just closer than the red and blue States, as a matter of percentages and/or absolute numbers, and a few really are too close to call, at least for the moment. I'll call them the tight states, because I believe many won’t swing, and break them down one by one.Colorado – Obama (probably) winsUntil 2008, Colorado had been a "red State" for over 40 years, voting only once for a Democrat when Ross Perot helped Bill Clinton to victory in 1992 (it was one of just 3 red States in which he failed to repeat in 1996). But Obama won the State by a strong 9 points, suggesting that Colorado might now be true blue. What happened? Well, the President did have a very successful convention here, culminating in a massive football stadium audience for his acceptance speech, and that surely played a role in the conversion. But the change was a long time coming in a State whose demographic makeup has shifted significantly over the last decade or so.Colorado was the 9th-fastest growing State in the nation between 2000 and 2010 (just behind six other Southwestern States), and a lot of that had to do with Hispanics. Their share of CO’s population, combined with that of Asian- and African-Americans, rose by over 4 points in the same decade. These factors together likely help account for the rise in the Democratic share of the vote here from 42% in 2000 to 47% in 2004 (higher than any Democrat since LBJ) and then a huge 54% in 2008. While continuing economic uncertainty (CO's unemployment rate remains high, near the national average) and the lack of a convention here are likely to bring down the President's 215,000-vote margin (equivalent to 80% of new voters over 2004), he will still likely exceed John McCain and George W. Bush's totals (which fell by 25,000 from 2004 to 2008) even if he loses half, or possibly even 3/4, of the nearly 300,000 votes he added to John Kerry's totals. Gov. Romney, meanwhile, probably has to match or even exceed his predecessors, at least one of which was a better politician (Romney may at this point be more skilled than McCain). While he may benefit from increased (but already large) Mormon turnout in a State with nearly 150,000 adherents (while suffering from anti-Mormon sentiment among conservatives who may be drawn to third parties in a state fond of them), as well as some minor goodwill appeal from his (fairly anonymous) handling of the Olympics in neighboring Utah, Gov. Romney is not the Westerner that either of his predecessors were, and also seems unlikely to pick a "sagebrush" Vice President quite like Wyoming's Cheney or Alaska's Palin.Between the foregoing factors and continued population growth that I estimate will only be of further benefit to the Democrats, I regard Gov. Romney as unlikely to overtake the President in Colorado. Public polling in the State lends support to that conclusion, as the President has led in nearly all samples, with as much as 53% support, and when he has tied, Gov. Romney has reached only 45-47%. Those numbers are not very different from the 54-45 margin in 2008. Colorado may well be a little closer this time, but looks likely to return to the President's column.Florida – Too close (and early) to call, but may lean RomneyNo state is harder to read at this moment than Florida. President Obama's 2008 victory here was his smallest percentage margin in the nation, after you discount his knife-edge quasi-victories in Indiana and North Carolina. The President won by 235,000 votes, or just under 3 points, and to get there, he had to turn out vastly more voters than John McCain did vis-à-vis their predecessors. Take away just 30% of that turnout increase and candidate Obama would have lost, which does not bode especially well for his reelection prospects.While the President may still be liked better than Gov. Romney by the Florida electorate, that won't necessarily be enough for him to again outdo a potentially more motivated Republican turnout, especially in a State where the unemployment rate exceeds the national average. Still, the prospects for both sides are complicated somewhat by the fact that population growth in the State since 2008 equals the victory margin from that year. The uncertainty that reins here is further borne out by polling in the State, which has seesawed between the candidates.Even if Florida is a true tossup today, the Republican team probably has more of an opportunity to influence the State via the convention it will hold in Tampa Bay (and possibly a home-State Vice Presidential pick, though I consider that highly unlikely), in or near the key swing section of the State. Florida may again come down to a ground game, but I believe there's a good chance it will lean to Gov. Romney after the convention, and remain that way through the election.Iowa – Leans Obama, but too close to callIowa really may be a swing, or "elastic" (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/swing-voters-and-elastic-states/), state in the truest sense. With little change in the size of the electorate here between 2004 and 2008, candidate Obama nevertheless swung John Kerry's fractional loss into a nearly 10-point victory. The State certainly could swing back the other way, but the President would probably have to lose virtually every voter he added to Kerry's base, a good number of whom may in reality be Democratic partisans, not independents (note that Hispanics nearly doubled here in the '00s, and the population has continued to grow).A Romney win seems unlikely to me given the personal qualities of the candidates, the state of the economy (Iowa is performing significantly better than the national average), and the natural advantages of incumbency – consider that Vice President Gore and President Bush both won narrowly here. However, Iowa may be in the unusual position of undergoing an additional demographic change that could work to the detriment of the President – outmigration of young adults due to a decline in rural employment (and the increasing cultural attractiveness of urban life). This appears to have left Iowa with a population of potential first-time voters who are less disposed in the President's favor than they might be in other States (because more progressive young voters have gone elsewhere). The President may draw some comfort, however, from the greater predisposition towards him of older voters in the State vis-à-vis those in some other swing states.How the various demographic changes here play out I'm not sure, but the small numbers in the State should cause some concern for the President and give a bit of hope to Gov. Romney. That too seems to be the message of the polling. While several polls from a Democratic firm have shown the President near the 50% mark and ahead by as much as 10 points, he otherwise has rated only in the 44-46% range, while Gov. Romney has ranged from 39 to 47. Those Romney numbers are not quite good enough, but the Obama numbers are certainly weak here, especially when one considers that Sen. McCain substantially outperformed 2008 pre-election day polling in this heavily white and rural state. To be sure, I think the fundamentals remain in favor of the Democrats, and that President Obama will probably win in the end, but the potential is there for the State to swing to Gov. Romney, and I'm not yet prepared to call it against him.Nevada – Obama winsIf Obama is likely to repeat his win in 9-point Colorado, then surely he would also repeat in 12.5-point Nevada, right? Probably right, but not necessarily. Like Iowa, Nevada is a small State, in which it's easier for the numbers to swing wildly – Obama's 120,000 vote margin here was six times that by which Gore and Kerry lost. Still, unlike truer swing-state Iowa, Obama's very substantial percentage victory margin reflects primarily the changing demographics of this increasingly Hispanic State. He has consistently led in polling here, and even after a post-Memorial Day dip, Gov. Romney has yet to exceed 46%, despite Nevada's unemployment and home foreclosure rates being the highest in the nation. This is likely a reflection not only of Hispanic support, but also of the strong union influence in a State that, despite its vast territory, is one of the most urban in the nation at 95%, likely outweighing whatever additional Mormon vote Gov. Romney might turn out. What happened in Vegas in 2008 stays in Vegas in 2012.New Hampshire – Obama winsOne could argue that New Hampshire doesn't even belong on this list. True, it is a (small, mostly white, and) fairly elastic State, just like Iowa, and probably moreso than Western states in which demographics dictate changed outcomes, and two of the last three elections here were decided by fewer than 10,000 votes. But New Hampshire, in the heart of New England, is quite different from middle American Iowa. It's the famously flinty independent spirit here that has accounted for the State's occasionally changing hands, with a big vote for Perot arguably handing it to Clinton in '92, and a smaller one for Nader certainly handing it (and the election) to Bush in 2000. The Democrat+Nader margin here has been at least 2 percentage points (about 15,000 votes) from that year on, and Obama increased the margin to 10 points (or about 70,000 votes, only about half of which appear to have been swing voters) in 2008. Given the absence of any serious third party candidate this year, Obama can lose virtually all of that extra support and still win.Gov. Romney may well get some mileage here out of his history in Massachusetts, but he’ll likely have to do significantly better than not only favorite adoptive son John McCain, but also Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, to get ahead of the President. Though not impossible, that appears highly unlikely. After leading most polls here in 2011, at times by as many as ten points, Romney has not exceeded 44%, at best, since the beginning of the primary season that defined him as more of a conservative, while the President has polled above 50% several times. New Hampshire should remain the blue state it has been ever since the Rockefeller Republican era effectively came to an end in the early-mid '90s.North Carolina – Leans Romney, but too early to callIf there is one “swing” state in which Gov. Romney is truly favored at the moment, North Carolina is it, and it may not even be a swing state. Though it was an impressive pickup, President Obama won here by a mere 14,000 votes, fewer than the 25,000 cast for libertarian conservative Bob Barr, and today he trails Romney slightly in several recent polls after frequently leading him prior to and during the primary season.So this should be an easy reversion to Gov. Romney, right? Not so fast. The State's changing demographics, among other factors, keep it up in the air. For one thing, there are at least 60,000 more Hispanic registered voters in the State today than there were in 2008. The major influx of Northerners into North Carolina's business centers (sufficient to produce the acronym "Concentrated area of relocated Yankees" for the Research Triangle suburb of Cary) might well aid the President too, though these Yankees may be of the middle class independent sort who could well be predisposed or lured to Gov. Romney's economic message, provided his brand appears more moderate than conservative. The impact of North Carolina's much higher-than-average unemployment rate similarly might depend on how much Gov. Romney appears either a job-cutter or job-creator to more discontented voters.Add into the mix the big elephant – er, donkey – in the room, that being the Charlotte Democratic convention and its football stadium centerpiece, and the outcome is simply too difficult to predict at this stage of the game. While the tossup may lean in Gov. Romney's favor today, the Democrats have a real opportunity to grab the ball.Ohio – Leans Obama, but too close to callThe President's 51-47 victory here in 2008 (third parties including Ralph Nader and Bob Barr garnered 2% of the vote) was his smallest after (Indiana, North Carolina, and) Florida, unsurprising given Ohio's reputation as the ultimate swing state in Presidential politics. With fewer than 100,000 new voters in 2008, the Obama-Biden ticket increased Democratic totals by 200,000 votes at the same time as the Republican vote declined by 60,000, a mixed swing voter and base turnout victory. That's close enough for Gov. Romney to be able to take the State back, and so are the post-Memorial Day polls, in which he leads with 46-48% (to 44-45 for the President). Still, I'm skeptical of those summer polls for the reasons stated earlier, as well as their origin – one is from Rasmussen, and the other is from "Purple Strategies," a new (bipartisan) firm. In polling prior to Memorial Day, Gov. Romney failed to exceed 44%, while the President hit 50 several times.I think the numbers in Ohio reflect that the fundamentals aren't quite in place for Gov. Romney. Even if he were able to beat Sen. McCain’s totals here (and, as a native Michigander who could pick as his running mate new Ohio Sen. and former Cincinnati-area Rep. Rob Portman, he could), he almost certainly will have to come closer to President Bush's 2004 numbers to have a chance of catching the President. If you believe Karl Rove, that 2004 victory was founded upon turning out several hundred thousand additional evangelical voters, who might not look favorably upon Gov. Romney's religion. Regardless of the truth of Rove's claim, Ohio is still a fairly rural State with Appalachian influence in its Southern tier. Even if Gov. Romney can make inroads in the Michigan-influenced Northern tier of the State, he's a poorer fit than President Bush in the more downscale Southern half, and similarly wealthy Rob Portman, whose Statewide influence is fairly limited, won't help much in that regard either (there’s a wild card VP pick or two who might do better).Ohio may be closer this time than in 2008, and looks like it will come down to a ground game that is too close to call, but I tend to believe that it will stay with the incumbent who saved the auto industry to its North and has kept the (still-high) unemployment rate below the national average.Virginia – Obama (probably) winsVirginia may be the President's firewall. He won here by the same margin he did Florida, on the strength of another big turnout increase. But in this smaller State, his percentage margin was more than twice as large (and larger than that in Ohio), over 6 points (smaller than Iowa as a percentage matter, but larger in absolute numbers). He would probably have to lose half his 500,000-vote turnout bump over John Kerry to fall behind the relatively stable Republican vote here. That seems unlikely, given that much of that strong turnout was from a base of minority voters unlikely to convert to the GOP.Like Colorado, Virginia has been transformed in recent years, not only by Hispanics, but also by Asians. Together, their share of the population grew by about 6 points from 2000-2010. While some of President Obama’s new support may well stay home this year, especially in economically-depressed African-American areas like Richmond, that shouldn't be enough for Gov. Romney to win. For his part, Romney probably has to convert a good number of swing voters in the moderate, business-friendly exurbs of booming Northern Virginia, while stanching any bleeding in the mountainous Western part of the State where he fits in more poorly. Polling in the State thus far suggests that he is failing in that endeavor, as the President remains several points ahead, even after Memorial Day.Though he may need another strong ground game to win Virginia again, the President has more opportunity to influence the State, from Washington on one end and his North Carolina convention on the other, and probably maintains his advantage here through the election.Result – Obama (probably) winsGov. Romney cannot win the election without winning back for the GOP both convention States – NC (Dem) and FL (Rep). To his benefit, at least one and perhaps both of them may lean his way today, and the Obama-friendlier of the two is even likelier to do so after the GOP convention. It’s too early to call either State, but I'll give both to Gov. Romney for purposes of analysis. Doing the electoral college math (here is a calculator - http://americanresearchgroup.com/ev/), he still must win back from the President at least three more states (depending on their size). The eternal swing state of OH almost certainly must be one of them, as without it, Gov. Romney would have to run the table of the rest of the swing states (or convert a true blue State), highly unlikely given that OH was closer last time, percentage-wise, than any of them. OH probably leans slightly to the President, but I’ll call it a tossup and give it to Gov. Romney as well.To go on to victory, Romney needs to add at least two more States, at least one of which, given their relative size, must be one of the new swing states of VA and CO, which the President won by 6 and 9 points respectively.* I've already called both States (and therefore the election) for the President on the basis of past results, demographics, and polling. If I'm wrong, and Romney takes both, he's won. Assume I'm half-right, and Romney picks off one of them. He still needs to add at least one of the small swing States (IA, NV, NH), all of which the President won by 9 or more points. IA is probably the easiest to reach, and if Gov. Romney combines it with VA, he's won. But VA may be even harder to win than CO, in light of the convention move and the scale of demographic changes, and if Romney takes the Western State instead, he'll need to add a second small State (presumably NV from the same region) to get over the finish line.Bottom-line, Gov. Romney needs the five-pack of NC/FL/OH/VA/IA or CO, or the six-pack of NC/FL/OH/IA/CO/NV or NH. His problem is that President Obama probably leads in more than half of these States, and may sit atop a demographic firewall in one or more of those the challenger needs to win. While Romney certainly has a chance, he is playing on the President's map, both figuratively and literally, and as of now the incumbent is poised for another electoral college victory, probably substantially smaller than his Clinton-sized victory in 2008, but quite possibly larger than both of President Bush's fairly tight victories.*Romney could lose both VA and CO and still tie (probably winning the election in the House) by winning all three of the little swing states, or combining IA and WI, but those electoral college outcomes (win tiny but 10-point NH and 13-point NV while losing 6-point VA and 9-point CO, or win 14-point WI while losing 6-point VA) might be almost as unlikely as they are undesirable for the country after the 2000 election.One final note, on the debatesThere are some who say that the race is not really on until the candidates step out onto the same stage, allowing voters to literally size them up against each other (Romney has an inch, and 14 years, on Obama, though the height advantage didn't much help John Kerry). There can always be a "You're no Jack Kennedy" or "Where am I? Why am I here?" moment, though those are far more likely at the less-ready-for-prime-time third party and/or VP level; this year's candidates are unlikely to make such mistakes.I think there's some truth to the point, but only at the margin when placed in context of the above red-and-blue analysis. Consider that John Kerry probably won the debates in 2004, but still lost the (admittedly very close) election. Similarly, Al Gore was perceived as performing poorly in the 2000 debates, but still won the (again quite close) vote that year (even if the election was certified for his opponent after legal wrangling). I expect both of this year's candidates to perform well in the debates. While Gov. Romney will probably be able to score some points against the President, ultimately I think the silver-tongued law professor with good timing will outlast if not run rings around his silver-spooned, more data-driven opponent (as does someone who knows both men - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/classmate-romney-obama-debate-_n_1553427.html). More likely than not, the debates will only help solidify the President's chances for victory.

I wouldnt ever want the USA to be broken into multiple countries. However if the Red hatred towards the federal government worsens into open rebellion, it might eventually prove to be necessary.I would only consider a partition into two parts. No sense in splintering the USA into mini-states: this would weaken it greatly.A) The first country would be called the Conservative Confederacy.It would be contiguous.Geographically, it would consist of the entire South, Texas, and the great Plains.The capital could be Richmond Virginia, to acknowledge its role as a former capital of the Confederacy. (It's also close enough to DC to enable easy shuttle diplomacy between the two parts of the former USA.)They could have some version of the Confederate flag since they love it so.All the controversial statues of racist rebels could be put back up immediately. Double or Triple or Quadruple them. One in every neighborhood!The official religion would be Christianity. Love it or leave it. Jews , Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and many Atheists/Agnostics would leave this zone.All GLBTIA people with common sense would leave the CC immediately.There would likely be no more immigration to this zone. The new government would cancel the citizenship of all Hispanics on their way out.They would probably end up writing a new constitution emphasizing White identity. No more subtle dog whistles. Loud and Proud.It would not attempt a role in world affairs.I dont anticipate it joining the UN, NATO, etc.B) The second country could be called the USA because it would preserve the current Constitution, minus the damned electoral college.It would also be contiguous.Geographically, it would consist of two blocks.The East Block: from Maryland to Maine, over through the Great Lakes states up to and including Minnesota.The West Block: from Washington state down through Oregon to California over through Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.These two blocks would be connected in the north by a fifty-mile wide land bridge. With a high speed train, a trucks-only highway, a buses only highway, a military-only highway, and a 50 lane civilian highway running through it.The land bridge would run adjacent to the Canadian border from Minnesota to Washington state. North Dakota, Montana and Idaho would cede this relatively small land bridge in return for a one-time monetary compensation.Plus Hawaii, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, US Samoa, etc. These people are certainly not welcome in the CC.Plus Alaska with its oil and gas fields based on the national need for energy. It's actually not strictly fair because Alaska is very red. But we need to create two viable countries in terms of energy. The CC gets Texas/Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico. The USA gets Alaska. That ought to do it.Washington DC would be the honored capital. This country doesnt see government as the problem, but as an integral part of the solution.It could keep the traditional American flag. Liberty and Justice for all!It would continue the traditional American role in the world: NATO, UN, etc.It would probably end up a bilingual English/Spanish speaking country due to continuing immigration from Latin America, which would not be rejected, just screened carefully.Politically it would move left, but hopefully not reach the ideological lunacy of Western Europe.However, without the steadying influence of American Conservatism it might indeed eventually get to be pretty flakey. That is a big problem. And that's the exact reason why I hope the USA never splits into two.The self-assertive self-protective America First instincts of Conservatives balance the cockeyed impractical excesses of Liberals. If only mutual respect could be restored. I hope the USA remains united. We need each other.I hope to God that our country never splits in two. But if it had to split, the above plan is what I would suggest.