This is interesting, re: Obama's proposals outlined during the State of the Union on housing-- Brookings:

Since the president says the plan is for “responsible homeowners,” this presumably means that those who are delinquent on their mortgage payments are not eligible. (There are currently about 4.1 million delinquent loans, with approximately 1.8 million of these delinquent for 90 or more days.) This program is also not for borrowers who are current on their payments but have homes valued more than their homes are worth (“above water”), since such borrowers should be able to refinance without a new government program. And this program is not for those borrowers who are underwater and have a Federal Housing Authority (FHA) or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (F/F) backed loan, since they can refinance under the recently ramped-up Home Affordability Refinance Program (HARP) started by President Obama. Thus, this program will likely be targeted to underwater borrowers who are current on their mortgage payments and who have a mortgage that is not backed by the FHA or by F/F.

[...]

It is important to note that reducing mortgage interest rates for underwater borrowers should only contribute mildly to foreclosure prevention. The key determinant of foreclosure is the cumulative loan-to-value ratio for the borrower, with a contributor factor being an inability to pay due to job loss. This program would not affect the loan-to-value ratio, as the amount of mortgage debt is unaffected by the refinancing. (This is why the administration’s previous plans to lower mortgage interest rates, through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), did not result in a substantial reduction in foreclosures.)

(emphasis mine)...

The Hispanic vote: Everyone in presidential politics wants and needs a good chunk of it to win (including in big states like Florida). President Obama will need somewhat more of it to win than whichever Republican we wind up nominating.

So, opponents of Obama will undoubtedly cheer this news this morning, from Politico*:

The conservative Hispanic Leadership Network, which is co-sponsoring tonight's presidential debate on CNN, had Republican-leaning Resurgent Republic survey 500 Hispanic Voters in Florida last week. On the generic ballot, President Barack Obama gets 46% (compared to 57% in 2008). There's an even 46-45 split on whether it's time for someone else to be president, but 48 percent of independent Hispanics say yes. Six in 10 say the president hasn't delivered on his campaign promises. 40% say the situation for Hispanics is about the same under Obama (38% say it's worse; 15% say its better). 42% blame Obama's policies for making matters worse. 56% said Obama is weaker than they expected.

Yes: Mr. "I'm for comprehensive immigration reform but I voted for five poison pill amendments that killed it in the Senate" turns out to be falling short of Hispanic voters' expectations.

No, no puedes, it would seem. [intro]

Meanwhile, Romney supporters who recognize the importance of Hispanic voters in Florida (as well they should, since their vastly greater of support of McCain over him in 2008 basically cost Romney the state) will be cheering this tidbit relating to polling out of ABC, as well as their effective victory with Newt Gingrich pulling down a Spanish language radio ad describing Romney as "anti-immigrant" after Marco Rubio complained about it:...

The last 24 hours have seen just about every political pundit around the country weigh in with their thoughts about what will happen in Florida now that Newt Gingrich has decisively won South Carolina. Many of them are missing or glossing over some important facts, in my view, as they focus a bit too exclusively on things like momentum, debates, and existing polling (without broader context). This is a quickie post outlining what I think is being overlooked or treated with insufficient seriousness that might matter— and in whose favor each factor weighs. [intro]

1. Money spent to-date

Florida is a big, expensive state, and TV advertising remains a primary tool for reaching voters (though campaigns and SuperPACs continue to spend on direct mail, too).

When we say expensive, how expensive? Campaigns probably need to budget no less than $1 million a week for voter contact, and perhaps more (this Reuters piece indicates that $1 million a week is the minimum, and anything up to $5 million a week might be required—for what it’s worth, more than $1 million a week sounds about right to me).

According to that same Reuters piece, the Romney SuperPAC has dropped $5 million into Florida since the middle of last month, about $4.4 million of which has gone on ads and mail that attack Newt on the same grounds that pro-Romney forces whacked him so effectively in Iowa. The Romney campaign has also already spent big in the state; the Tampa Bay Times estimates the total amount already spent by what might be termed “Romney and friends” on TV at $7 million....