The ever-growing field of 2016 presidential hopefuls is confronting a growing nuisance as candidates look for a smooth launch to their campaigns: “cybersquatters” 

The issue of cybersquatting was cast into the spotlight this week when Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina failed to buy all the websites in her name.

The former head of Hewlett-Packard launched her campaign Monday, but not before a critic snatched up CarlyFiorina.org and used it to claim she laid off 30,000 employees.

Fiorina is far from alone. Cynersquatters have also hit a number of other presidential contenders, including Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

The practice, which has evolved from the art of trolling businesses and celebrities, can be particularly damaging for candidates if a political rival or saboteur gets hold of one of these websites and uses it to smear their name, experts say.

“It’s something they need to think about when they start running for president or senator or governor, because if they don’t do it first, their opponent certainly will,” said Steve McMahon, a Democratic strategist.

Fiorina made a "rookie mistake" that other presidential candidates should learn from, said Ford O’Connell, a Republican strategist.

“It’s becoming an emerging problem for politicians,” O’Connell said. “You’ve got to be smarter about your online presence.”

Cybersquatters can use the websites to “slime” politicians, he explained.

Read more from Tim Devaney at The Hill

It was all going so perfectly for President Barack Obama.

He had painted his opponent, former Gov. Mitt Romney, as an out-of-touch rich guy with elevators for his wife's multiple Cadillacs and bank accounts throughout the Caribbean. Romney had no plan—or at least none he was willing to discuss with voters. He was bellicose and callow on foreign policy. And The Groups—women, Hispanics, African-Americans, union members, public employees— were lined up so solidly behind the president he absolutely could not lose.

And then, on October 3 at about 9:04 p.m., Romney took to the stage in Denver and reset the campaign. He was not out of touch at all. He made sense. He had solid ideas, a sense of hope. He connected. He laughed. He seemed confident. The president looked down at his notes. He came across as not wanting to be there. He offered little reason to give him another term.

Mr. Gaffe went from stepping on rakes to stepping up his attacks, and America seemed to fall in line. Now, we're seeing the end games, and they look quite different from what President Obama expected a month ago.

It's so different he felt compelled to put out his own plan—a 20-page coloring book full of warmed-over proposals and ideas with no chance of passage. Who does this? Who interjects this into the conversation now, in the closing days of a campaign when it can't possibly be received positively by any but the most hard-core supporters? Not a confident candidate; that much is certain.

It all turned the night of the debate. But as Fox News' Chris Stirewalt notes, it took more than that phenomenal debate performance in Denver to bring the race to even. In fact, it took a flawed campaign strategy on the part of Team Obama. The Chicago strategy—bury the opponent in negative ads and character assassination, then come on all nice at the end—was found wanting.

If Romney ultimately becomes the 45th president of the United States, the political set will be talking about Obama's flawed campaign strategy for decades. He had a disastrous Plan A—and no Plan B.

Read more from Ford O'Connell at U.S. News & World Report

From Psychology Today:

Lies tend to stick in people's minds, and can sway the outcome of elections, as well as public opinion in many arenas. So, what happens within our minds and emotions that make us receptive to lies, and then resistant to information that exposes the truth? A study led by Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia explains part of what may happen. The researchers found that "Weighing the plausibility and the source of a message is cognitively more difficult than simply accepting that the message is true -- it requires additional motivational and cognitive resources."

If the subject isn't very important to you or you have other things on your mind, misinformation is more likely to take hold, according to the researchers. They point out that rejecting false information requires more cognitive effort than just taking it in. That is, weighing how plausible a message is, or assessing the reliability of its source, is more difficult, cognitively, than simply accepting that the message is true. In short, it takes more mental work. And if the topic isn't very important to you or you have other things on your mind, the misinformation is more likely to take hold.

Moreover, when you do take the time to evaluate a claim or allegation, you're likely to pay attention just to a limited number of features, the study found. For example: Does the information fit with other things you already believe? Does it make a coherent story with what you already know? Does it come from a credible source? And do others believe it?

From The New Republic's Nate Cohn:

The Associated Press reports that the Romney campaign is buying television advertisements in Minnesota, a state where neither presidential campaign has purchased TV ads before. So what’s Romney’s move? Is it a bluff? A genuine late play at a state that hasn’t voted for a Republican since 1972? Here are three possible explanations: 

1) Wisconsin.

The western sliver of Wisconsin is in the Minneapolis and Duluth media markets, so airing a limited number of advertisements in Minnesota might just be aimed at covering a wider swath of the Badger State. Obama performed poorly in Wisconsin’s Minnesota media-market counties four years ago, in part because McCain actually outspent Obama on television advertisements in Minnesota. The Romney campaign could really use Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes, and they were already out-advertising Obama by greater than a 2-to-1 margin in Wisconsin’s two outlying media markets, so their strategy appears to involve persuading voters in the western half of the state.

2) Momentum.

Perhaps the Romney campaign is spending in Minnesota to make it seem like they’re on offense, expanding the map, or whatever other clichés that might make their way into Politico articles. The Associated Press article suggests as much, and it's not hard to see why the Romney campaign might want to build a better media narrative.

Romney is currently playing offense on the electoral map, but...From Politico's Glenn Thrush and Jonathan Martin:

It’s momentum vs. the map.

With a little more than two weeks left until judgment day, Barack Obama’s campaign is embracing a fundamentally defensive strategy centered on winning Ohio at all costs — while unleashing a new barrage of blistering attacks against Mitt Romney aimed at mobilizing a less-than-fired-up Democratic base.

But Sunday’s NBC/Wall Street Journal poll lays out the potholes on their narrowing path in the clearest possible terms. Obama and Romney are deadlocked at 47 percent among likely voters — while the president, struggling to ignite enthusiasm around his stay-the-course message, enjoys a 49-to-44 percent edge among registered voters. That means some of the people who would vote for Obama simply don’t plan to expend the energy to visit the polls — which explains Obama’s “Don’t boo, vote!” directive to his audiences these days.

If Obama can’t close that gap by mobilizing his base of black, Latino, young and highly educated voters, he’s toast — and Chicago knows it.

Monday night’s third and final presidential debate will be the latest opportunity for Mitt Romney to again use the Etch A Sketch that his campaign hinted at months ago.

The Republican nominee has taken advantage of the presidential debates and the giant television audiences they attract to change some stances, soften some positions and generally make the case that he is not the “severely conservative” candidate he appeared to be in the primary contests.

Some of the fall campaign’s Etch A Sketch moments include: Mr. Romney now calls for boosting Pell Grant funding — a reversal of his criticism of President Obama’s increases. Also, Mr. Romney now says there are parts of the national health care law that are worth keeping. He also has indicated more leeway on legalizing young illegal immigrants and has tried to assure voters that he will not lower the tax burden on the wealthy or be a crusader on abortion.

Republican strategist Ford O’Connell agreed, saying that Mr. Romney is trying to woo single-issue voters and to narrow Mr. Obama’s lead among the coalition of voters — women, Hispanic and young voters — that propelled the Democrat to victory four years ago.

“The president wants to make this a demographics election, but by keeping his original stances and moderating them a bit, Romney is trying to break apart the president’s coalition,” Mr. O’Connell said. “It is actually very smart, because what Romney is basically saying is, ‘I can’t win this election with voters by just touting the economy or just doing well with men over 35 years old.’”

Read more from Seth McLaughlin at The Washington Times

From PewResearchCenter:

Hindsight is 20/20 and presidential campaign strategy will always be second-guessed, even when you win.

Mitt Romney has one job between now and Election Day: Convince a majority of voters in the swing states, particularly Florida, Ohio and Virginia, that he can make America recover faster than President Obama and that his policies will improve the lives of all Americans.

And believe it or not, there is still time for Romney to make that case even though he consistently loses sight of this mission.

Read more from Ford O'Connell at Politico's "The Arena"