The five states just discussed consist of what I consider test cases for the Tea Party movement. The first four – Colorado, Florida, Kentucky and Nevada – contain elements that make them susceptible to Tea Party influence, and the last one – West Virginia – sports a probable winner that is susceptible to Tea Party influence. The outcomes of the first four, and Joe Manchin’s behavior once in office, will demonstrate the effectiveness of the Tea Parties – at least in those five states.

I have received some comments about using the “Republican” polling firm Rasmussen Reports for the bulk of my numbers in these state examinations. Let me say two things about that. First, any accurate polling service in today’s political climate is going to look like a Republican outfit – that’s just the mood of the country right now. Secondly, I use Rasmussen because they have proved to be the most accurate polling firm over the past few years – In 2004, Rasmussen projected the national vote totals for both George W Bush and John Kerry within half-a-percentage-point; in 2008, they projected nationally that Obama would defeat John McCain by a 52% to 46% margin. Obama won 53% to 46%. In Missouri, Rasmussen polling showed McCain and Obama tied at 49% each. McCain edged out Obama 50% to 49%. These represent the most accurate results of any national polling firm over the period.

I now move to three key swing states that will be an early litmus test for 2012 – Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania. All three exhibit tight races, and all three are attuned to the nationalization of this year’s races. Again, I will take them in alphabetical order.

Missouri is interesting, not just because the Show Me state tends to be a bellwether, but because the two candidates are from well-entrenched political families. Republican Roy Blunt, a member of Congress since 1997, has held the number two GOP position in the House, serving as minority whip. His son (Matt) was governor of Missouri from 2005 to 2009. Democrat Robin Carnahan is the daughter of an ex-senator and a former governor (Mel). The seat for which they are contesting is being vacated by retiring Republican Senator Christopher “Kit” Bond[1].

The latest polling shows Mr Blunt leading Ms Carnahan 49%-43%, with 4% wanting some other candidate and 4% undecided[2]. Inside those numbers we have 16% of likely voters in the state who have a Very Favorable opinion of Blunt, and 21% who view him Very Unfavorably. Carnahan is viewed Very Favorably by 28% and Very Unfavorably by 31%. Assuming that all 16% of Mr Blunt’s Very Favorables also view Ms Carnahan as Very Unfavorable, that still leaves 11% of those who view Mr Blunt as just Favorable or No Opinion that view Ms Carnahan as Very Unfavorable[3]. This is perhaps reflected in the fact that Mr Blunt holds a 25-point lead among voters not affiliated with either the Democrats or the Republicans. These numbers constitute a headwind that Ms Carnahan must overcome to achieve a majority on November 2; turning out more Democrats than Republicans plus Independents will be vital to her cause.

Each candidate has found an issue that has moved the numbers. Ms Carnahan spent the month of May trying to tie Mr Blunt to major oil and by association to the spill in the Gulf, and the early June numbers moved him downward into a 45%-45% tie with her – a low-point for Mr Blunt and a high-point for Ms Carnahan. In June, Mr Blunt endorsed the “Repeal ObamaCare” movement, and by late-June had moved back to a 48%-43% lead, which he has held since. On August 3, a referendum on ObamaCare appeared on the primary ballot – Proposition C – that ask voters if they wanted to reject the mandate to buy insurance or be fined. By an astounding 71% to 29% they do.

To address some of the spin, I’m going to have to get into the weeds a little. One complaint is that because the Republicans had more competitive races in the primary, more Republican voters turned out, skewing the anti-ObamaCare numbers beyond a true reflection of the electorate. While that may be true, it also reflects the realities of what November will look like, absent some October surprise. If 10% fewer Republicans show up in November and 10% more Democrats show up, that still spells a 61% to 39% tilt against ObamaCare. A resounding defeat for President Obama’s signature issue, and likely to translate into Democratic fates in the state. It’s going to be all about voter enthusiasm in November, and as of now, the Republicans have it and the Democrats don’t. The other main spin has to do with the fact that Prop-C is what is called a negative initiative – it asks for a “Yes” vote to negate something (mandated coverage) and a “No” vote to affirm (mandated coverage). Those who lose these ballot initiatives always claim the electorate was confused by the ballot language, and may have voted the wrong way by mistake. Despite the heavy TV and print advertising by both sides, let’s assume that, again, 10% of voters went the wrong way – that means that 7.1% of the “Yes” votes should have been “No” votes, and 2.9% of “No” votes should have been “Yes” votes. That would yield an outcome of 66.8%-33.2% against ObamaCare. Twice the confusion (20% wrong votes) still yields a 62.6%-37.4% defeat for ObamaCare in Missouri. Proponents of ObamaCare are also quick to point out that Prop-C isn’t binding, and that’s true, but it does show a sense of the electorate about how things are going.

Missouri is, and always has been, politically volatile, which is why I’m still cautiously listing the Show Me state as Leans Republican. Mr Blunt’s strategy should be to keep ObamaCare in the forefront of the political conversation statewide, and alternate it with the lackluster performance of the trillion-dollar “stimulus” in Kansas City and St Louis – two cities that will go Democratic, but keeping the jobless “recovery” and ObamaCare up front will turn out Republicans in those two venues.

[1] In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I have run campaigns for Roy Blunt, Mel Carnahan and Kit Bond.

[2] See Rasmussen Reports, Election 2010: Missouri Senate, July 27 2010.

[3] This also assumes that all 4% of those wanting another candidate view both of these as Very Unfavorable.