It is easy to get confused in the final week of a presidential campaign, and we are at that point in Campaign 2012. There are conflicting polls in battleground states, moves by the campaigns into new states, widely varying assessments from the partisans in both parties and persistent spinning by the candidates' advisers.
There are also certain realities about campaigns that offer some anchors, if not real answers, for assessing what is happening now and what may happen Tuesday. Where candidates spend their time in the final days is one clue. How states have performed, relative to one another, in past elections is another. Another is how different groups of voters are leaning.
One question in dispute right now is whether Mitt Romney can actually expand the electoral map by putting Pennsylvania, Michigan and even Minnesota into play. Republicans are advertising in those states, claiming there is an opportunity for the GOP nominee to win. President Obama's campaign has countered with ads of its own, which Republicans say is a sign of weakness. Obama officials claim that Romney is probing those states because he's run into trouble in true battlegrounds.
The electoral map
Money spent in unexpected places by the campaigns or their supporting super PACs tells us little at this point. That's because, unlike past presidential campaigns, resources are not an issue for either Romney or Obama and certainly not for the super PACs. Neither candidate is taking federal funds for the general election, which means there are no limits on spending. Both have extra funds to play with down the stretch. So the fact that Romney's campaign has put some money into ads in Minnesota and Pennsylvania doesn't necessarily say much.
Republicans say that recent public polls showing the race tightening in Pennsylvania and Michigan are evidence that Romney is in a position to overtake the incumbent in states that once appeared off the boards.
It's expected that states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and even Minnesota will show relatively close contests. That doesn't mean the balance has shifted to Romney in those states -- he's still trailing Obama. It only means that if the national numbers show the race essentially tied or with one candidate ahead by a point, these states aren't going to show the president ahead by seven or eight or nine points. Only if Romney were to win a big victory in the popular vote is he likely to carry these states.
Look historically at these states. Republicans haven't won Pennsylvania since 1988. Four years ago, John McCain's campaign team thought they saw something happening there and sent him there in the closing days. But Obama won it by 11 points. Pennsylvania should be closer at this point than it was in 2008, given where the national polls are, but it still tilts toward Obama.