There is no way Johnson will end up with 7% anywhere except perhaps New Mexico where he was governor. Even there my guess is he gets 5 max. As the election closes in, people will begin to get the usual "throwing away my vote" cold feet and get back into the fold of the major party candidate they were leaning toward.

The bigger 3rd party threat to Romney is constitution party wing nut former congressman Virgil Goode, who has qualified for the ballot in his home state of Virginia. Even a 1 point swing from Romney there could be the difference between a win or loss. Goode could be Romney's Nader: doing well enough in one state to cost him the election .

Perot won Montana for Clinton in '92. And speaking as a fifth generation Montanan, lots of us are creeped out by the Mormons too.

@3 As a Montanan also, I concur.

Obama got a respectable % in 2008, far more than Clinton garnered in 92 when he 'won' the state. The truth is, Montana isn't like most 'red' states, and many of the craziest right wingers in my home town hail from the Bay Area. So I don't think they are very representative, just extremely loud. Most of us hate being pooled into the same group as the Dakotas, Wyoming and Idaho. Now those folks are just plain crazy.

I'm seeing the debate, the only debate, as being such a disaster for Romney that come the eve of election day the question will be: Will Johnson actually hand the O a unanimous electoral victory?

"...and if enough Ron Paul voters turn out for Johnson..." This only affects things if these voters would have voted for Romney otherwise. Adding more third party votes does not change the vote count for the two other candidates.

@4: It's odd, really. I'm a Chicago boy, but I was in Kemmerer, WY for two weeks in 2007. Clinton 08 and Obama 08 posters up here and there, no sign of any Republican flyers. But then again, I was in a city (if you can properly call the home of 2651 people a city).

I was going to say what @7 said, but they beat me to it.