I will be voting for Nader for a third time or a Green Party nominee if Nader doesn't run.
However, I'd like to discuss my Obama campaign strategy which I think is genius. Basically, his staffers should not put any money into the closest swing states and rather dump most of the funds into swing states that he won by greater margins. Why evenly spread most of the campaign dollars over ten states and give Romney a chance to evenly spread his money and flip some of the bigger ones? It makes more sense to pile the bulk of money/staffers into the states that you will probably win and simply give up the others. If you outspend Romney in a couple of small swing states by like a 5-to-1 margin, you'll easily hold onto those and win the election. It's not about getting 365 electoral votes again, but ensuring you reach 270.
States Obama Won By Less Than 3% in 2008:
North Carolina, Indiana, NE District 2, Florida (-56 Electoral Votes)
- Obama gives up all of that, spending virtually no money in those states.
Current Standings:
Obama - 303 EVs
Romney - 235 EVs
All of Obama's concentration/funds should be spent on Ohio, Virigina, Colorado and Iowa. He will win the rest of the same states with ease as he had strong margins of victory in all the rest. If he loses all but Ohio, he wins the race. If he loses Ohio, he needs to pick up either Virginia or a combo of Colorado/Iowa. I see no reason for him to try and make states like Indiana or Florida or North Carolina competitive when he doesn't need to win any of them. Why not just outspend Romney in Ohio by an unprecedented margin with a bunch of attack ads showing how Republicans tried to curb union power in the state only a year prior? I mean, call me crazy, but Obama could probably spend $500 million in just Ohio and not a dime in the states he's obviously going to win and still end up winning with ease. If I were running his campaign, I'd play this Safe Swing States strategy and I have no doubt it would work.