I hate to show Blunt in a positive light, but I was reading this article about Nevada's Republican governor's 28 percent approval rating in the NYT today, and almost fell over laughing. From the article:

In the last few months, Mr. Gibbons, a Republican, announced a plan to turn coal into jet fuel to raise money (problematic, as Nevada has no coal to speak of) and proposed paying for a $3.8 billion shortfall in highway construction money by selling water rights under state highways (it turns out the state did not actually own the rights).

He told a local editorial board he could not pronounce the name of his energy adviser because she was “Indian” — she is Turkish — and vetoed a bill that would stop budget-busting tax breaks for builders of “green” buildings before issuing an executive order to end them anyway (with the exception of four companies).

Mr. Gibbons is the subject of a Federal Bureau of Investigation inquiry into whether he failed to report gifts from a military contractor while serving in Congress. The governor, who would not be interviewed, has denied wrongdoing, and once suggested that Democratic operatives might have paid off newspaper reporters who have written about his troubles with the F.B.I.

And faced with a collapsing public education system and extensive state infrastructure needs, Mr. Gibbons at one point threatened to veto the $7 billion two-year state budget and shut down government largely over his desire for a security center in Carson City — an idea that law enforcement officials dislike — and his plan to save small businesses two hundredths of a percent on their taxes.

And later:

During the campaign, it was revealed that Mr. Gibbons, whose platform was heavily focused against illegal immigration, had once hired a nanny who was an illegal immigrant.

Mr. Gibbons chose to be sworn into office 12 seconds after midnight on New Year’s Eve in his home in Reno, citing ominous nonspecific security threats that aides later said pertained to the execution of Saddam Hussein

Why does this have anything to do with Bill Richardson? An anti-Republican sentiment in that state could swing that state Democratic. Bush won Nevada by less than 5 percent. While some Democratic candidates, such as John Edwards, may not do well in a general election in the state, Richardson could easily swing discontented Republicans to vote Democrat.

So what, Nevada only has 5 electoral votes? Well, lets look at this a little longer.

Bush, also won 5 electoral votes from New Mexico with fewer than five percent of the vote. Richardson could surely swing that state to Democrats.

Then there is the coveted 20 electoral votes in tightly contested Ohio. Well, it used to be tightly contested. Bush won that state with less than five percent of the vote in 2004, but Democrat Sherrod Brown was able to win the 2006 Senate race with a 12-point spread. Ohioans are still pissed at Republican's for the former governor's coin collecting scandal and Rep. Bob Ney's ties to Jack Abrahmoff. Those wounds cut deep, and likely won't heal by 2008.

Colorado, although Bush won relatively comfortably in 2004, saw a huge Democratic movement in 2006 at the state house level, and many are predicating a Democrat will win the U.S. Senate seat that will be vacated by Sen. Salazaar. Richardson gives Democrats the best hope of picking up those nine electoral votes.

While Ohio may swing Democrat regardless of the candidate, those Western states can insulate against a possible loss in Michigan (17 electoral votes), which Kerry barely won. Michigan's Democratic governor has been unpopular with a lot of groups for her efforts to raise taxes. Organized labor is also seen as a source of a lot of the state's economic woes, which may make a Democrat less popular.

Across the board, any Democratic candidate could probably win the rest of the states Kerry carried in 2004. Here's a good Web site for the 2004 breakdown.

What does that have to do with Missouri? We have to do what we can to give Richardson enough momentum to get through super-duper Tuesday.