How Obama Gets to 270 in 2012
Collective wisdom (and wishful group-think) among Republicans is that Obama will be a one-term president. “One & Done” is a rallying cry with the merchandise to match.
Not so fast my friends — as Obama’s victorious lame duck session proves, never underestimate this president or the power of the presidency.
Obama does not take defeat easily and tends to recycle negative energy into fuel for his re-launch. Obama’s re-launch plans for 2011 include spending more time outside of Washington “engaging with the public,” according to a top White House adviser. This is in reaction to criticism of him for being aloof and disconnected from the great unwashed masses.
So as the president re-engages the public, the media will be there to chronicle glowing accounts of every backyard summit. We can watch as Obama’s two-year road to re-election is paved with re-kindled love between the “lamestream” media and “The Anointed One” version 2.0. And we on the opposing team will shake our heads in disgust as our GOP candidates get lambasted in the media for every small infraction from their past and present.
Meanwhile, President Obama will have the power of incumbency. Note that since the founding of our republic there have been 56 U.S. presidential elections, 31 of which have involved incumbents. Of those 31 presidents, 21 have won, which means that, based on the historical odds, Obama has a 67% chance of winning re-election.
Now if the power of incumbency, the media fawning, Obama’s remarkable ability to bounce back, and Obama’s extraordinary campaign and speaking skills weren’t enough to ensure his re-election, let’s examine what Obama really has in his favor: the 270 math of the almighty Electoral College. (Never discuss this with Al Gore, by the way.)
But before Republicans get too depressed, here is some good news. The 2010 census has shifted 11 electoral votes to “traditional” red states. (Traditional red states as defined from the 2004 Bush victory. Texas, for example, gained 4 votes, and Florida gained 2, even though Florida turned Obama blue in 2008.) See all the electoral vote changes here on this interactive map.
However, even the gain of 11 electoral votes spread among “traditional” GOP red states matters little when examining the unfavorable odds the GOP will confront getting to 270 in 2012
We begin by using the 2004 Bush/Kerry election as a baseline for the red vs. blue electoral map. In 2004, President George W. Bush won 286 electoral votes to Senator John Kerry’s 252.
Bush carried 31 states and 50.7% of the popular vote.
But cynics warned there was trouble ahead, for if Ohio’s 20 electoral votes had gone to Kerry then he would have been elected and Obama might still be the junior senator from Illinois.
Although 2004 was a close election, GOP strategists would dream about the look of the 2004 map. If not for those pesky northeast, Great Lakes, and wacky left-coast states, the vast body of the USA was coated in ruby red.
Here is the Obama/McCain 2008 electoral map with Obama winning 365 electoral votes to McCain’s paltry 173.
Question: How do Republicans make their way back from 173 to 270?
Answer: With much difficulty.
Moral of the story? We’re doomed to four more years of an incompetent post racial president and his shrew wife running a once great nation into the ground.
Abandon all hope unless it’s hopenchange.
2012 is NOT 2008.
Palin 2012
For America
since we’re going to lose anyway.
None of the 31 reelected presidents was running against a young, attractive and charismatic woman!
More importantly, most of those 31 were not running with dismal performance numbers.
I disagree with Ms. Adams, the author. For one thing, any Obama supporter that FINALLY sees the light re: Obama The Fraud will NEVER return to the Obama camp, no matter what he does, simply because for them to admit their mistake (and I think there are more of them than we imagine) is a last resort for them. Once they verbalize to themselves and others that they are done with him, they are done, never to return. Another thing is, all the stats that refer to past incumbent presidents, including the stat that a prez usually gets re-elected if the unemployment rate is under 8%, does not apply to BO, simply because all past president incumbents were never suspected of being an illegal alien Muslim. That’s a game-changer for BO. Because of those suspicions and the suspicion that he is deliberately wrecking America, he won’t be re-elected no matter what the state of affairs is. Any Republican who runs against him will be elected. Generic polls have shown that to be true. The other polls that say BO will beat so and so by so many points, are all BS. People that are polled answer in the manner they WISH it were, not how they will vote. And they also lie to avoid being thought of as racist, even by an anonymous pollster. Fact is, only the Obama die-hards who are honestly ignorant or who stubbornly choose to remain ignorant will vote for BO. As for all the others, who now outnumber the OBOTS, when they are alone in the voting booth, they won’t vote for Obama, no matter who his opponent is.
Actually Bill Clinton’s numbers in 1996 were quite low, because of of the scandals, but he STILL beat Dole in a landslide The American people are not stupid, just as in 2008, the collective majority will pick whom is the best of all, and looking at the Republicans so far, I am happy to announce that NONE of them can come close to Obama. Pailn?–what a joke!! she is dumber than a bag of rocks(sorry to insult rocks)
POTUS GWBush handed POTUS Obama the worse economy in over seventy years, a War based on a lie and public spending designed to bankrupt the USA so that we would have to cut back on social safety net programs such as Medicare, Social Security, and Unemployment Insurance along with the rally cry recently to deny care to USA heros 9/11 first responders!
So, as your Vice President Dick Cheney stated; “Go F00K yourself” firefirefire. [Editor, i hope quoting a VP of the United States is acceptable in comments]
Wow…looks like you have your lib-media memes all polished and well-used.
This is why America doesn’t take liberals seriously anymore, doofus.
The worst economy in 70years, eh? Were you around to experience the “Misery Index” of the Carter years?
Oh, and after two years, Obama owns the economy. It is up to him to turn it around. And all his spending has led to a reduction in unemployment from 10% to 9.8% Great work.
BTW, on the Iraq War, that was won by the time he took office thanks to The Surge that Obama opposed. All that was left to do was start the withdrawal.
You really can’t be this gullible can you. Look to your lib congress and senate or do you need to take off those blue tinted glasses. The dems put us here and we will take it back from them
Seal, Quick look over there! something shiney.
1) Worst economy? Not even close. Obama used that lie throughout Fall, 2009. Late 70′s and early 80′s were far worse. Post WWII was worse.
2) War based on a lie. False, as has been irrefutably demonstrated by Wikileaks. Turns out Hussein had the means and will as soon as we would let up on him.
3) Reduce Social safety net. Wow. Just, wow. Have you never heard of Medicare Part D? How about No Child Left Behind? These were Bush’s signature Laws. The social net grew immensely under Bush. He was the best Democrat around!
This is not daily Kos or HuffPo. You cannot just come in here and spout Leftist memes, because you SHALL get taken to task by knowledgeable folks.
There is nowhere near a majority in but a few blue states drinking the kool aid you’re drinking to support another term for Obama. He has unequivocably demonstrated incompetence and an anti-American attitude to almost (as in ALMOST) guarantee no re-election. There is, of course, the chance, maybe a great one, that the Republicans will nominate someone who totally blows it, but, otherwise, it’s all over for Obama.
no, the moral of the story is that due to demographic changes, NO GOP candidate can win not only
against Obama but any other Democrat and not just in 2012 but beyond as well.
Which of course explains why the GOP took 65 congressional seats, and lost only 2 this election and hundreds upon hundreds of state legislature seats.
Anything is of course possible and one should not get over confident but if you really think this president is the front running for 2012 you are drinking something stronger than me, he will be lucky to escape a primary challenge
I can predict two things with good certainty:
1) ..Obama will beat Palin or any of the current GOP contenders in 2012,
2) ..and that America’s economy will significantly decline by 2016.
The right can win in 2016 though if they align on (economic) principle. So for F’ing damn-the-torpedoes example, they don’t raise the debt ceiling.
OBAMA WILL NOT BE RE-ELECTED IN 2012.
SARAH PALIN IS ELECTABLE NOW! SHE HAS TRUE GRIT!
KEEP YOUR CHIN UP & PRAY!
BHO won’t get back in . Sarah Palin has ” true grit” !
She is highly Electable. The people love her and respect her.
Keep your chin up and pray!
Carol
I wish that were true, but the recent polls don’t lie.
Yes they do.
Your analysis could not be more flawed.
Just because Hispanic voters are growing, does not mean that Democratic numbers are growing. An Hispanic is not an Hispanic is not an Hispanic. You cited Hispanics in FL, but those Hispanics (Cubans) vote overwhelmingly Republican. Florida is a lock for the next Republican candidate.
AZ has a Republican Governor. Very popular. AZ was very Red in recent elections. Just one spot of Blue. It has voted Red in almost every election for a long time. Governorships have a large effect on Presidential elections, too.
New Mexico likewise has gone Red and has a Republican, Hispanic, female Governor, first in the Nation’s history. NM will be very competitive for Republicans. It is foolish to think that some kind of Amnesty will sway them. Folks are being killed. These immigrants came here to get away from all that.
You also forgot NH, which tends Red, because they are very anti-tax, having no sales or income tax. Another 4 votes. ME also went heavily Red this election.
OH went heavily Red this election, its Governorship and its Legislature. Governor Kasich will factor in heavily.
AS I see it, there are Red States Obama won which he will not win again. NC (15), VA (13), IN (11). He will not get FL (29), OH (18), nor NH (4).
NM, IA, and ME will be the toss-ups. MO will stay Red. Other potential Reds will be NV and CO. PA will be questionable, as will be MI. Both went heavily Red in this election.
By my count, that leaves Republicans with 269, and Democrats with 260.
The difference is, the Red is reliable. Obama would have to run the table to win. If Republicans capture even one of NM, CO, IA, ME, PA, MI, or NV… they win. They will have the wind at their backs. The economy will still stink. I expect they will run the table, or nearly so. It looks very rosy to me.
Do Cubans really vote overwhelmingly Republican? I thought that traditionally they had, but that as time went by that was becoming less true.
In any case, I feel skeptical whenever I read attempts from anyone to use demographics as a promise to future electoral victories. “There’s more and more Hispanics, so the victory is ours!” say the Democrats. Well, but how can you be sure that the Hispanics will continue to vote Dem? – you don’t, as you correctly pointed out. Then there’s this latest census thing, which shows population shifting from blue to red states, and I’ve seen a few Republicans crowing that this means the future is theirs – well, but how can you be sure the expats won’t turn the red states bluer?
In any case, I thought the article above and your rebuttal read together made a good read. I don’t know which of you’s more right, but I’m glad the issue came up, and I think it’s healthy of Myra to remind us that 2012 isn’t a slam dunk.
She taking worse case scenario. It does seem true that if whites don’t start voting as a monotlithic block, we’ll be screwed until white people start acting like blacks and hispos. We are always dealing with split votes around whites; between libs and cons, squishy in-betweeners; between pro business folks and pro-union. Things getting worse can only help this situation for whites who will evetually feel compelled to engage in identity politics. We also need to start gaming it from within immigration – even though it wont change demographics in 50 years, it will keep it from getting profoundly worse. Then we can deal with the minority pops in the meantime.
You know, I think most ARMs were written in 2008 so in 2112 we are scheduled for another crash. since more ARMs are written in blue states, my question is, do they somehow manage to hold off disaster until after the election or just before? If the banks can help POTUS I think they will.
Your is the better analysis, if events are “normal”.
IA is a certain red state unless the economy turns magically.
Republican prospects at this point are good, but 2011 is critical. If the economy turns, which it could since the American economy has often healed itself, many of the states that went stong red in 2010 will become toss-ups.
Another key factor is the quality of the Republican candidate. Whoever the person is, he or she will have to bring the case directly to the voters, because the msm will be even more biased than in 2008.
The wild card, is what the marxists will be willing to do this time. In 2008, they were willing to cause a world-wide depression. In 2012, I believe they will be willing to initiate a major war to remain in power. The destruction of the US is the lynchpin in their global strategy. They will stop at nothing to achieve it.
Great analysis. But one exception: Add New Hampshire to the possible sixth state to victory.
Look, I’ve been posting this for over a year and a half now.
McCain states (AZ will be red in 2012) = 173
Nebraska split electoral vote (red in 2012) = 1
Net of electoral movement of votes to red states = 6 (my guess from last year was accurate)
Subtotal: 180
Add: Before census five close red states of IN,OH,VA,NC,FL = 86
Subtotal: 266
Final state will come from one of the following: NV,NM,CO,NH,WI,IA
If Palin wins the nomination and puts Rubio or West on the ticket, she will take the FIVE back and add New Hampshire which has a net (-8) approval rating for Obama and a state that will get the retail goodness of attention from the chief mama grizzly in the primary that will spill over to the general election big time.
Also, look for other battleground states where there are a low percentage of minority voters. This will put NH, but also Iowa and Wisconsin into play. Wisconsin went GOP big-time. Iowa is another primary state where Sarah will have already had a chance to sell herself before the general election.
Note that the GOP should be competitive in CO too. If the GOP there can succeed in building the past coalitions of western liberatarians with socons and keep the TPM energy, it can go red again.
New Mexico is a question mark due to what effect the new governor will have, and Nevada due to rampant corruption there.
As anybody who actually looks at the numbers can see, 2012 should be another great year for the GOP and we should get back 6+ Senate seats but could take as high as 8-10.
The key will be whether the new GOP House can pass clearly right-of-center legislation including:
1) Repeal of Obamacare with possible replacement with a market-based system emphasizing cross-state insurance, tort reform, medical savings accounts (MSA’s), with emphasis on catastrophic insurance, and industry funded pool for those with pre-existing conditions. Competition is the key. Expect it to be vetoed by Obama assuming it gets by the Senate. Now Sarah or another conservative/libertarian can run against Obama because of that veto.
2) Cut federal spending, especially non-defense discretionary spending such as the budgets for the Depts. of Education, EPA, FCC, NEH, NEA, Labor, Commerce, etc. Federal education spending is one of the most wasteful spending and must be cut. Once again, if it fails in the Senate, you have something to run against in 2012. If Obama vetoes it, Sarah or another will use it against him.
3) Investigations into Dem corruption in the Congress and in the Obama Administrations. Don’t go after Obama directly but against others such as Holder at Justice and attack the unconstitutional czars.
4) Do not up the debt limit without the legislation to reduce spending so that in less than five years the budget is balanced. Let Obama veto it again.
The PURPOSE of the 112th Congress’s HofR is to serve up stuff that Obama and weak Dem senators will vote against or veto thereby setting up their showdown with the American people in 2012.
And by the way, the unemployment is structural and we will probably be at 9+% indefinitely.
Now let’s get them and let’s all stop reading the nonsense that comes from Myra. We are accustomed to her hokiness so simply ignore it.
My God I can’t believe you are back,the Meghan McCain of PJM.This is not a promising start to a New Year.
my sentiments as well … book mark this page for crow.
Could Myra be Ruben Navarette? Starting to seem that way.
He pushed hard to get the biggest lumps of his first legislative agenda over and done with before the mid-terms. The reason for that should be obvious.
Despite the best wishes of the right, the economy will actually pick up – growth has already improved, and jobs will eventually follow when business has run down its stocks and starts to accept some risk.
When THAT happens, it’s going to be harder to flog a story of doom and gloom. Conservatives will have to find something else to shriek about.
I think it’s very foolish to assume he’s a one-termer.
The Fed predicts that the unemployment rate will be running about 8% on election day 2012. While that’s better than now, it’s still pretty bad, especially considering that it does NOT include discouraged or underemployed workers. Nor is the situation in Rust Belt states such as Michigan, which has the second highest unemployment rate at 12.8% in the country, likely to improve all that much. If unemployment matters, and it does, then it won’t matter if the “economy” is good, if unemployment is still bad.
Oh dear. Well … this IS bad news:
US hiring surges in Dec, buoys economic outlook
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0527607220110105
Awful. Simply awful. It’s almost like … I might be right
Yep, putting the brakes on the Obama administration in November was really good for jobs in December. Whoda thunk it? Oh, wait….
“Yep, putting the brakes on the Obama administration in November was really good for jobs in December.”
Um … you DO understand that nothing changes until the new MPs take their seats, right?
“Whoda thunk it?”
You, apparently.
The thing about employment is that it’s notorious for lagging behind other economic indicators. Employers are slow to hire after a downturn, for reasons that should be pretty obvious. And they’re usually a (bit) slow to fire when things are on the downturn. Employment growth is going to be slow to pick up after GDP growth improves, but it’s staggeringly important for consumer confidence, for housing, for everything.
So like it or not, it is actually good news.
I wasn’t convinced AZ would vote Democrat and knew those Hispanic voters in Florida were largely Cuban and more conservative, but I don’t like laid out projections with assumed numbers because I’m still somewhat vulnerable believing their possibility. So I was feeling a little like firefirefire until reading your intelligent counter response which makes at least as much sense. Thanks.
Maybe we can talk Hugo Chavez into running on the Republican ticket. No one would notice the difference from the present administration’s policy.
I disagree w your analysis and that is all it is. Your personal opinion. I live in Indiana and Obama BARELY won this state in 2008 which had not went Democrat in a presidential election since 1964. The only reason Obama won last time is because of the intense dislike for Bush who by the way was no conservative.
Obama swayed many people with his doubletalk and he did not have much of a record to dispute that he was being dishonest. He does now. The Tea Party was born because Obama was the last straw.
Americans can be gullible and naive at times but the majority of us will fight to keep what this country was founded on intact.
God Bless America!!
What I hate about articles like this is that it just assumes that voters will simply “forget” about the first TWO YEARS of Obama’s presidency. You remember the first two years, don’t you? The ones where Obama launched the welfare state on steroids? And remember those angry town hall meetings about Obamacare that almost turned into a Civil War? Not to mention the bailouts, the trillion dollar stimulus that stimulated nothing, the huge national debt, and last but not least, Obamacare itself. Did you forget about all that? Then add to that an unemployment rate stuck at around 9% and you really don’t have much to brag about except getting gays into the military or a new START treaty nobody cares about.
If Obama stands such a great chance in 2012, why was he pounded so badly in the elections in 2010? If unemployment remains high into 2012, this guy is going the way of Jimmy Carter, especially if fuel prices continue to skyrocket the way they are doing now. You can’t just erase over two years of liberal horror, no matter how “talented” or how “gifted” a speaker Obama is. Add to that the many lies Obama told people back in 2008, like that he was a centrist and NOT a liberal. I’m sure we’re all having a laugh over that one right now.
People want the economy to grow and they want decent jobs, and if Obama fails on both of these points and fuel prices continue to rise, people are not going to vote for him, especially the all-important independents.
“trillion dollar stimulus”, remember which president did that?
Try not to get your political dander up.
Remember, that “almost a civil war”, was really just some right-wing tea-bagger who brought a MACHINE GUN to a health-care town meeting…. and you and your little buddies thought that was perfectly ok. Yep. All good.
Sheesh. Go on all you want about a huge number of actual issues and actual problems this administration has been having, but your little tirade just makes you sound like you’ve got on a 3 cornered hat and some froth coming out of your mouth.
Reach down, behind you, about 8 inches below your belt. Use both hands, take time to be careful.
Congrats!
You now know your a$$ from a machine gun.
It’s evident you didn’t before.
“right-wing tea-bagger who brought a MACHINE GUN to a health-care town meeting…. and you and your little buddies thought that was perfectly ok. Yep. All good.”
You mean the African-American libertarian Lyndon Larouche supporter? Get your facts straight, ding ding.
By the way, I as a conservative, don’t have a problem with people exercising their CONSTITIONAL RIGHTS. We know you lefites hate that old ’100 year old’, hard-to-understand Constitution–but we still hold it in some reverence.
By the way the gentleman you cite was interviewed by the local police/sheriff as well as Obama’s Secret Service detail and was deemed not to be a threat.
Ain’t that a bitch?
You amaze me, “reality,” because I’ve never seen a person use so many words and end up saying nothing. Regarding that civil war I was talking about, I guess you missed all of those videos of town hall meetings all across the nation on the evening news programs where people were about to start throwing things at their elected (mostly democratic)representatives. But to far-left trolls like you, I guess that doesn’t mean much. Only the protests by Code Pink really mean much to a guy like you, I’m sure.
And what’s really interesting about MoveOn and Huffington Post losers like you is that you never seem to refute any of the facts I pointed out. You just keep parroting the same tired old talking points from the far-left web sites. So don’t worry, buddy boy, I and people just like me will still be here in 2012 to remind the rest of the country what your butt buddy in the White House did during his first two years in office and how it’s about to bankrupt the nation.
I have no doubt that O will be reelected. What is going to happen as I see it, is the Republicans will do some of the right things, but be stupid about selling and explaining it. The economy will improve. Obama will claim the credit. The media will hammer the right relentlessly as the cause of every inequity. The sheep will dutifully vote for the party that “stands for the little guy”.
Conservatives’ communication defect is a reliable disaster. But what might two years bring the Dems? “Events, my dear boy, events.”
arhooley – well said. A lot can happen between now and 2012. Domestically, there are a lot of “events” that can occur, such exposing how corrupt the DOJ, or a successful attack by the religion of pieces. Of course, if the economy continues to limp along or if Obamacare is not undone and it begins to bite, a lot of people will be very unhappy. Abroad, there remains the event that is Iran and that could undo Obama the way it undid Jimmy Carter.
Not to mention that in the next 2 years, several Democratic states will face bankruptcy: California, Illinois, New York.
If the Dems push to bailout these profligate incompetent states, 2012 will be a Republican blowout. And there will be “blood in the streets,” as ole Donna Brazille said.
Bet on it.
North Korea, Burma(Myanmar), Iran, Venezuela, seem to come to mind, as well as Yemen, Pakistan, Mexico’s drug Cartels, and the list could go on and on.
This guy is the worst ever with foreign affairs along with Hillary Clinton. So we shall see shall we not, it is a target rich environment, with horrid national security and a still shaky economy Obama is just another Jimmy Carter only much worse, and with the internet and sites like Fox News and PJM and many others he has a tough row to hoe without even any real implements to hoe it with!
When it cones to the swing states, what it will come down to is how Obama is doing 18-20 months from now and who the Republicans end up nominating, as far as what the threshold level will be for swing voters in those states to decide they want a change.
Presidential re-elections always cone down first to how voters view the incumbent, and then if they’re willing to make a change what the alternative is. That doesn’t mean Republicans have to nominate another moderate squish like Maverick, but they do have to get a nominee who isn’t immediately disqualified by the key states’ independent voters. If Obama’s numbers don’t improve in the next two years, it shouldn’t be that hard to get a conservative nominee who can win those swing voters without compromising the party’s post Tea Party goals, as opposed to tossing your ideals over the side, as in 2008 , under the belief the nation’s moving left and the only way to win is to head in that direction.
Marc, I like your analysis and hope you are correct. The GOP can’t beat somebody with nobody, even if that somebody is Obama. It all depends on the GOP candidate.
If the GOP fields the right candidate Obama is history because the country is ready for it and that is what they are begging the GOP to do.
Considering the average mentality level and mindset of the 50+ million water-me-now $3.00 bills that elected Obama, if someone can figure how to get flies to land on her face, rats to run around her feet and her ears to grow 5 times bigger than they are now, Sarah Palin will win election in a landslide.
Why Sarah?
She is the only prominent GOP figure with the brains and below the belt go power to do the job. Alas, in a one-on-one against Obama, without the flies, rats and big ears she will lose.
Can you say, “Follow Me, Tea Party”?
“Harry” in the Czech Republic, wrote Oct. 26, 2010: “The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”
My feelings exactly, maybe this brush with death will increase awareness among the nincompoops who voted for Zero that there is a difference between a Presidential election and a vote for American Idol.
If Obama is re-elected then American will definitely deserve what it gets, and it will be a tragic epitaph to a state that helped so many.
How do you arrive at “Obama’s remarkable ability to bounce back”? The lame duck Congress passed DADT and Start and no one outside the beltway or his sycophantic media supporters gives a rat’s behind. Obama has been in the 40s for over a year? What has he ever bounced back from?
Jeff, I agree with you about his bounce back ability. From what? And his excellent speaking ability? Turn off the teleprompter and GWB makes him look tongue tied. Charisma? That big smile might have been charming when he was running for office but now it is nauseating. His ability to turn negative issues into his positive projects is nonsense. If anyone other than unions and the big guys on Wall Street got anything out of this man’s first two years I would like to know who they are. Blacks will have to hold their collective noses to vote for this bum again. Even they must see that he hasn’t delivered on ANY of his promises to them. Remember “He will pay my rent and my gas bills”? In their dreams. One of the biggest measures will be the 31 Demorat Senators who must defend Obamacare and try to get reelected. If the Republican House can get this voted on again and again the vulnerable Senators will have to see that they are the lynch pins of Obama’s future. Most voters do not jump around and vote against their own Senator and then vote for the President that put them into such a bad position in the first place.
I think that the election will depend on a number of things, but we must realize that a lot of the unusual states (Rocky Mountain West and a couple states in the South) that voted for Obama in 2008 largely turned against him in 2010. It would be foolish to ignore this. Consider the following exit polling in 2010:
- Indiana: Job disapproval 62%-37%; Florida: Job disapproval 54%-45%; Arizona (voted against Obama in 2008 but some people suggest it will flip Dem in 2012): Job disapproval 60%-40%; Nevada: Job disapproval 52%-46% (even with a corrupt, pro-Reid turnout); Ohio: Job disapproval 57%-43%; New Hampshire: Job dispproval 53%-46%. Pennsylvania: 53%-47%; Colorado: Job disapproval 51%-48%.
The list goes on and the Red states of 2008 just got a whole lot redder (like Obama’s Texas job disapproval was 61%-38%) and these states grew. All in all, there are a lot of Obama states in 2008 that are vulnerable in 2012. And please no doomsday predictions with the Hispanic vote – Hispanics – no overconfidence but let’s not give up either!
The only thing right about this article is that Obama has the power of incumbency. Other than that Obama has shown no special skills at anything other than reading a speech off a teleprompter. He got away with that in 2008 thanks to a carefully packaged campaign by David Axelrod and because he had no record to defend. Next time he will have to defend a miserable record on the economy and the deeply unpopular Obamacare. In 2012 anyone on a major party ballot whose name is not Barack Obama will automatically have a strong shot at becoming president.
Obama’s chances of re-election are slim. I base my opinion on what happened in my province of Quebec where the separatist Parti Quebecois was voted in with the enthusiastic participation of the soi disant pseudo intellectual anglo population so they could feel good about how broad-minded they were. Obama’s victory was mostly based on the same sort of self-congratulatory see how broad-minded I am voter. Once those voters get a taste of the destructive reality their votes created, their loyalties shift big time.
Hillary will not allow His “O”lliness to run for re-election, if he’s smart he’ll step aside voluntarily (and early).
I believe you may get your wish if his horrid Health Care is repealed by the congress in both the house and senate and there is a veto override! If so before the next State of Union
SpeechReading over a teleprompter where he resigns, hopefully in disgrace!No, no, no! This is no wish of mine! The Hildabeast knows the way to boil a frog is to turn up the heat slowly, she would get us much further down the toilet of statism before people reacted. Further, the idea of giving the anti-gun nuts a martyr would be an unthinkable tragedy.
This is a prediction, and something people need to be prepared for. There is nothing more dangerous than a wounded Hildabeast.
This column serves only as a wake-up call for Republicans who think knocking off Obama in 2012 will be a cake-walk. True, the midterms were very good for the GOP at all levels but the midterm vote is NOT a presidential vote. The demographic groups that vote in presidential elections tend to be more favorable to the democrats. It is a mistake to look at the midterms and think the results will be the same in 2012.
We have a long climb back to 270 no matter who is nominated.
You will have to try much harder than threatening a blue AZ to make that case. Can you imagine a defendant voting for a plaintiff? When was the last time AZ voted Dem? I wouldn’t even give him NM. Look to TX and understand that Hispanics have different voting styles depending on where they are.
Your opening comments about the MSM fawning all over their great hope for the dawn of Utopia do, in fact, I think, point to the essential heart of the problem.
They will spin it and spin it again until the whole debate consensus is shifted, subtly or not, and their hero is re-fitted. They will try to provoke some GOP disasters and/or scandals. They will do whatever it takes.
There have been some good exposures of the media corruption and bias, such as the JournoList revelations, but they will, indeed, be doing everything in their ability to make a comeback. And their clout is immense.
I think Palin would probably be absolutely great in the fight that lies ahead.
Another “we’re doomed article”. You’d think these writers were working for the other side or something.
There are other factors as well. As everything rises but wages and employment under this clown of a President, the people will become increasingly disgruntled. There is an underlying current of discontent which has not yet bubbled to the top in this country…an UGLY one. One not unlike that original one back in 1776. Remember that only about 10-20% of colonists actually supported the Revolution in the very beginning and even at full tilt, maybe 30% (my estimate) were actually whole-heart supporters, but the people who DID support it won it for us.
This time around, I think that are a whole lot more supporters of a second American Revolution. When molotov cocktails start taking out gas stations that gouge us at $3-4-5 a gallon and firefights break out in the street with illegals and citizens at each other’s throats and other such incidents, and terrorists hit something big again, who will the people blame? Yup. O-boo-boo. If it happens on YOUR watch, you get the blame. Wait for it.
The only thing that matters in elections is winning the independent voter and they vote for President just like they did vote Senior Class President. If the economy is the same or better, you get four more years of Obama because they won’t change horses for the devil they don’t know. All you have to do is look at 1996 and the Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to help themselves again because they don’t have a clear and concise message to take to the masses. They will end up with either a polarizing choice that independents fear (Palin) or some weak non-electable (see Dole).
Any Republican worth a darn isn’t going to waste millions and two years of their lives on a toss up dependent on independent voters, which most at the moment are likely to win. Now this all changes if the economy tanks because the scared independent will look for an adult with solid ideas on how to fix things (Christie). The Republicans should not completely write-off 2012, but should build a solid platform of spending and government reforms. They should spend lots of energy on winning the Senate because Obama will be worrying about his legacy in his second term, so he will be more willing to work with the Republicans. We can make the best of a less than ideal situation by taking the Senate and holding the gains in the House.
You can slice and dice the numbers any dozen of ways, but it is just and exercise in selling your particular story. The reality is that the voters look at their pocketbooks and wallets, if things are headed in a positive direction Obama wins. If things are headed south then a straight talker with a solid plan wins, which is most likely Christie. Palin is too good looking to win because a lot of women hate her for her looks and accomplishments (women are catty, surprise, surprise).
Nice thoughts but you are missing some key ingredients:
There is another housing crisis on the horizon. All the programs to renogiate mortgages has done little to actually work and just put off the problem.
Several Republican states have changed their election laws to ensure that candidates prove they are natural born citizens. What, oh what, will Obama do about this?
There is another crisis brewing with educational loans. People took out big loans, now saddled with debts,and can’t find jobs.
The big failure of public union pension plans. We already had one city who just stopped sending checks. This is the tip of the iceberg. The large blue cities and states are all bankrupt for practical purposes. They can’t paper over this much longer.
What about the bankruptcy of the federal government itself. Oh, no a federal government can not actually file bankruptcy. So with the money printing and the Fed buying the bonds, inflation has a good chance of suprassing even the incompetent Jimmy Carter’s tenure.
Unemployment will likely still be quite high. No one in business (outside of the corporatists) trusts Barack Obama and for good reason. Even Wall Street who backed Barack last time, have soured on him.
It will be a fight, no doubt about that. But two factors can eliminate a lot of the guessing: will Republicans field a likely black or female candidate, and will Republicans find a likely Hispanic candidate.
I like Palin a lot, and have for years, but don’t think she’s the best candidate. I know a lot of the flack has been unjustified, but it still tars her in the public eye.
I also like Herman Cain. As a black, conservative business leader he’d be a likely substitute for Obama to black groups, and be acceptable to most conservative groups because of his no-nonsense business approach to government and his pro-life stance. I’d expect a lot of voters would find him a worthy candidate.
What’s harder is finding an acceptable Hispanic running mate. The two that readily come to mind are serving in the senate and governorship of New Mexico. But there are others who have strong ties to Hispanics in general.
Run with this and 270 would be easy.
As we learned in 2010 with Meg Whitman, John Reese and Linda McMahon, more often than not, self-funding candidates with little political experience are poor candidates in the general election. Rick Scott performed well, because he had some lobbying experience during the Clinton years (against UHC) and he was helped by downticket races. Rubio’s Senate campaign and a roster of other great Republican candidates including West and Webster, meant the GOP swept Florida in a year when redistricting was at stake.
Thanks to the author for her fatalistic view on 2012 and the GOP’s chances. I would like to ask the question to all those reading on this forum: why on Earth would we take the opinion—and it’s just her opinion—from a woman who worked for two GOP RINO establishment candidates Bush and that failure McCain?
The temperature of this country and the sweep of November 2010 and it’s continued momentum means that if AND ONLY IF the GOP is dumb enough to run another elitist, milquetoast, RINO republican, who promises to “reach across the aisle” and to end bi partisanship and fix a “broken Washington”, then you can bet the farm that your predictions for 2012 will come true and another four years of Obama will be inevitable.
“Obama’s victorious lame duck session”? Excuse me? Victorious in the eyes of who? Those polluting the Beltway? Melrose Avenue Maos? Boca Raton Bolsheviks? It may have been victorious for Obama and his Democrat pals on the way out, but it wasn’t popular among the American people. You should be ashamed of yourself for pushing the typical MSM narrative of so called victories.
Comparing Obama vs_____ to Bush Vs Kerry is out of context. 2004 was a completely different time. The US was just fresh from a terrorist attack and gone to Iraq. The economy in particular the job sector was roaring with an unemployment average at about 5.5%. The voters didn’t want change they wanted continued stability back home and a strong leader during war time. In 2011, economists are predicting jobless to rise past 10% then drop down to 9. not good times. Also, Obama has proven he is not a war time president bowing to dictators and appeasing Iran and North Korea.
Comparing Obama vs_____ to Obama vs. McCain is out of context. 2008 was a completely different time. Joblessness began to rise, stock market crashed, mainly because of liberal spending on both sides of the aisle and of course the sub prime mess. The US also wanted out of 8 years of Bush and didn’t want to elect another old white man so the opted for change. The only saving grace of the McCain campaign was his choice of Sarah Palin as his VP. Before he had trouble fundraising and couldn’t even get 500 people to show up at a rally of his in Arizona. The voters wanted change.
I suspect they will want it again in 12. As for swing states, many states that Obama won like Florida, Michigan and NJ now have Republican governors. That will in fact hurt his chances to grab those states. As for Arizona and Hispanic voters—don’t you mean illegal immigrants? And that state as well is run by a high profile firebrand of a Gov. Jan Brewer who has been very visible in the fight against illegal immigration and proving to the country how inept the federal government is in securing the border. A majority of Arizonans along with Americans are against amnesty and illegal immigration and for securing the border. how does that fact missing from this piece translate into a victory in Arizona a state that has traditionally gone red GOP for decades?
Anyone who worked for Bush and McCain commentating on the direction of the nation needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially those who claim that Republicans have been “hostile to Hispanic issues”. You’ve gotta be kidding me? Because many conservatives like Brewer, Palin, Perry and others who don’t want illegals coming over the border and bilking the system and others who bring gang violence with them not being compassionate.
Again, grain of salt and polls should be too. Please read this interesting article for a blogger on polls and Obama’s chances.
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2010/12/22/who-will-win-the-2012-presidency-the-definitive-answer/
RINOs are determined to remain in power, even if it requires creating their own fantasies, ala the marxists. Number 1 on their priority list is not offending the boy king. Evidence of that is manifest. They prefer crumbs from his plate to banishment from the halls of power. The people, the country, the future? fuggedaboutit
It’s way to early to be predicting about 2012. President Obama currently has more negatives as his favorables continue to fall. ObamaCare will remain a tar pit for President Obama & the Obama Democrats until it is repealed. The economy & high unemployment will remain a factor until it gets at or below 5% by Obama’s own standards. Your negative prognosis is more flawed than anything else based on false assumptions.
It will remain the same and get worse (inflation, unemployment and a bad economy in general) until the next flush of those in the democrat party are done!
We have to vote them out and regain sanity to this country. There was a mistake made in 2008 and I believe this country as a whole will correct it. Obama was actually voted out in 2010 and shall be in reality in 2012 due to the fact that anyone opposing him is better than He is!
It is indeed “A wake-up call” for conservatives to beware of allowing the nomination to be hijacked by a RINO like Romney or Huckabee.
I would rather lose the Election with a solid conservative candidate who offers genuine Conservative values such as a strong economy and national defence as well as a smaller,less intrusive federal government and you might as well throw in one who wants to reform the arcahic tax code to something more fair for everyone.
Add one who seeks true energy independence for America and I think we’d have a fair shot at taking back the WH. We will not allow the media to gloss over Obamas past this time around. McCain let them get away with that in ’08 and we won’t be fooled again.
Palin2012
For America
It is the economy. If it is better, the Dems will come back. If not, the GOP will do well.
Remeber, 40 to 60 % of the eligible voters do not vote. The two parties have to find ways to get some of them to vote their way.
We have three political groups:
people who vote GOP; people who vote Democrat; the 40 to 60% who do not vote. The main political doctrine in the USA is: apathy.
A former Shell president said gas is likely to reach $5 a gallon, and it looks like unemployment will hover around 10% and inflation will continue. With the Misery Index back, let’s look to Iran and see if this is Carter II.
“A former Shell president said gas is likely to reach $5 a gallon”
Not a chance. It will obviously reach 5$ eventually (it’s called “inflation”), but not by 2012. Probaby not this decade. Have a graph:
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
“and it looks like unemployment will hover around 10%”
Probably not: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0527607220110105
“and inflation will continue.”
Erm, yes. It will. That’s what inflation does. But if it continues at the current low rates then I don’t think the prez has much to worry about. It will pick up as demand grows, though.
“With the Misery Index back,”
Enjoy it while it lasts. I think the US will be a much happier place by the end of this year. That’s bad news for obama-haters, but it’s good news for america … and the world.
Here is what throws a monkey wrench in this whole arguement that Republicans can not win: MARCO RUBIO. Rubio will be very likely to be the VP choice of whomever has the Republican nomination and this will splinter the Hispanic for Obama and cause him to loose the White House in 2012.
Imagine a Palin/Rubio ticket or a Palin/West ticket?
We’ll get IN,OH,VA,NC,FL back.
Then we just need one more from the following: NV,NM,CO,IA,WI,NH
Work hard and fight and we can win the Senate and White House back in 2012.
Just curious what West or Rubio would bring to a Palin ticket besides their ethnicity. Why would blacks, who support Obama 95%, vote against the first African American president because of a black VP on the GOP ticket? Like so many conservatives, I am thrilled that FL elected West, who has joined the Congressional Black Caucus. But I don’t see how he helps a national ticket.
Tell us again why the Democrats won so heavily in 2010?
Once the average American gets a hint of what the end run the EPA is doing around the Cap N Trade failure means for them it may well swell the ranks of the Tea Party.
If the spineless Republicans manage to grow some cahones and educate the American people on what this means in terms of quality of life and pocketbook they may be able to turn this on Obama with great success.
If…
“Hispanics are conservatives who don’t know it yet.”
That is how Republicans can attract hispanic votes. They have strong family ties and work ethics (contrary to stereotypes). The illegal immigration issue is race-bating- no different than what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do.
I was at a restaurant, and started a converstion with a man from Costa Rica. He said he was a naturalized citizen. He and his sons had a drywall business, but the bad economy was hurting it, and illegals were working under the table for less and taking his business. We need to get Republican hispanic leaders talking to these people and explaining how Obama and the Democrats have hurt them. People like Marco Rubio can speak to that community and they will listen. Don’t write them off to the Dems!
Thank you for this insightful analysis, Myra, and for prompting the ensuing debate. Ignore the insults of the ignorant!
The demographer and political pundit Ben Wattenberg observed that the model for the Hispanic community is the Italians, not the African-American or Jewish immigrant communities. Hispanics are generally hard working conservative Catholics who may start out poor and vote Democratic but over time the hard work pays off and as they and their children move up the income and social ladder and their voting patterns become more Republican. Hispanics are not generally here to become welfare dependents or public employees like many African-American nor are they congenitally committed to socialist politics like the Jews. If the Democrats are counting on Hispanics to bail them out they are being very naive and are ignoring history.
The re-election of Mr. Obama is dependent on an improving economy. This is not the 1930s when FDR parleyed failed economic policies into electoral success. The administration is dead set on to continuing job destroying policies like carbon control and restricting energy production. The price of gasoline will have more to do with his chances for reelection then anything else. The price of gas will be pushing a record $5.00 a gallon by the summer of 2012. This will put an already weak economy on the skids and at that point Harold Stassen could be Barak Obama.
By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Toto:
This bill is an interstate compact that requries the consent of Congress to have any effect. It is also not clear that such a compact would pass constitional muster. [Ezra Klein not withstanding.] The impetus for this compact was the 2000 election where Al Gore got cheated by the system. Do you think a blue state like California would go along if it meant that a Republican would win?
In practical terms the only time this compact would have any effect would be in elections where the candidate with most electoral votes has fewer votes to the loser. That is a once a century event and I guarentee you had this compact been in effect and the position of Bush and Gore reveresed blue states would suddenly find that the compact was unconstitutional and go with the state vote.
It is not a question of “passing Constitutional muster,” it would require Constitutional amendment, at the very least. Further, it would be a profound departure from not only the letter but the spirit of the Constitution; the system was set up as it is precisely so that it would be the states electing the president, and ensuring the participation and inclusion of all the states in the process.
State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 30 ballots for choosing a method): “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The winner-take-all method is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district.
Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.
The U.S. Constitution provides:
“No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state….”
Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has method, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can “not be read literally.” In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
“Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.
“The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta.”
Specifically, the Court’s 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
“Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”
The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
“The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States”
The National Popular Vote compact would not “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States” because there is simply no federal power—much less federal supremacy—in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. This will be more obscene than the already outrageous facts that in 2008,, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Nor were big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota — 75%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
Most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.
A poll in October 2008 showed that 70 percent of California residents and likely voters would support a national popular vote for President, while 21 percent of residents and 22 percent of likely voters would prefer the current system. Among likely voters, support for this change was 6 points higher than in October 2004 (64%).
On August 14, 2008, the California legislature gave final approval to the National Popular Vote bill and sent it to the governor; however, the governor vetoed the bill. On June 30, 2008, the California Assembly passed the National Popular Vote bill. On May 14, 2007, the California Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill.
The 2006 bill was vetoed on September 30, 2006. On August 30, 2006, the California Legislature gave its approval to AB 2948 (passed in the Senate on August 22 and earlier in the Assembly on May 30) to implement nationwide election of the President.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large population states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, The District of Columbia, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Toto:
A fine example of astro-turfer talking points. This compact would only be in play once a century and would be dumbed as soon as the non-preferred candidate benefits.
Although landslide presidential elections were common for much of the 20th century, the nation is currently in an era of consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008).
Therefore, it should not be surprising that we have already had one “wrong winner” election in this recent string of six non-landslide presidential elections. If the country continues to experience non-landslide presidential elections, we can expect additional “wrong winner” elections.
The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is further highlighted by the fact that a shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in five of the 13 presidential elections since World War II.
For example, in 1976, Jimmy Carter led Gerald Ford by 1,682,970 votes nationwide; however, a shift of 3,687 votes in Hawaii and 5,559 votes in Ohio would have elected Ford.
In 2004, President George W. Bush was ahead by over 3,000,000 popular votes nationwide on election night; however, the outcome of the election remained in doubt until Wednesday morning because it was not clear which candidate was going to win Ohio’s 20 electoral votes. In the end, Bush received 118,785 more popular votes than John Kerry in Ohio—thus winning all of Ohio’s 20 electoral votes and ensuring his re-election. However, if 59,393 additional voters in Ohio had voted for Kerry in 2004, Kerry would have become President (thereby nullifying Bush’s lead of 3,500,000 popular votes nationwide).
tdiinva,
This whole article is predicated on the idea that, not only is it reasonably likely that the winner of the popular vote will not win the presidency, but that it will work to Obama’s benefit.
There is no Constitutional reason why we need to keep the current winner take all system. States can award electoral votes as they choose. Do we want to keep electing presidents based upon their popularity in a small handful of “battleground” states?
I understand the reflexive opposition to the National Popular Vote, but there’s more to it than Bush v. Gore. Large swaths of the population vehemently oppose Obama’s agenda, and he is free to ignore that fact under the current system.
The last thing this country needs is a direct vote for President. That was never the Founders intention, wisely so. A mixed system of elections is best. A good start to restoring that concept would be the removal of the 17th Amendment to allow State Legislatures to once again appoint Senators to Washington. The less “democracy” the better. The Electoral System has ensured representation and helped to avoid extremism for over two centuries. To tamper with that is folly.
Mrs. Adams’ point, apparently, is that to win in 2012, the GOP must lead on Amnesty for “Hispanics”.
Given that her favorite person in the world, was the face of amnesty prior to his being the defeated GOP nominee in the 2008 Presidential General Election can we finally shelve this game plan.
Giving away citizenship to those currently stealing its benefits simply won’t overcome the gravy the Democrats already promise to give the same group. It has been tried and disproven, it’s time to drop the premise.
Keep trying Myra, you may one day stumble upon a sentient thought.
Not discussing “Amnesty for Hispanics.” That is not the point.
Please do not put words on the page for me. The GOP needs to address how this voter group can go from 67% to Obama in 2008 and more to Republicans in 2012. Is it possible to have a civil discussion about that important topic?
Don’t let Wooden Head get under your skin, Myra. He appears to be one of those bozos who pounds his chest after attacking women who come up with a cogent set of arguments that wouldn’t occur to a Philistine like him!
Clearly, you’re not making any sense. A majority of American voters have a serious problem with amnesty and illegal immigration. The reaction to the problems of Arizona should make it clear that Americans are angry and passionate at this issue. If pandering to illegals was such a good idea and if the American majority liked it so much, amnesty and the Dream Act would’ve been passed already. A republican who takes the pro amnesty approach and fails to understand that the borders must be secure will lose the election on that alone. The GOPer will alienate his conservative base by pandering to illegals. it’s that simple.
Thanks to people like you who paint GOP conservative as anti immigrant just because they are anti illegal immigrant, anti those people who cannot simply follow the law, anti those who break the law, anti those who are criminal illegal immigrants gang bangers, drug runners, rapists, pedophiles etc ARE NOT ANTI IMMIGRANT. Commentators like you are the problem.
the lefties have two more years of overreach left
the economy will not improve dramatically– the extension of bush tax rates merely keep an economic meltdown in a very feeble check
jerry brown is taking the gov’s seat as we speak and with california’s implosion imminent who is to say that, albeit a miracle it would be, cali begins to shed its redness for blueness
dems will never win a presidential election w/ out california’s electorals and the stranglehold of progressive leftyism that poisons the state could be the very thing that causes their ruin
Yes with Moonbeam now in his third term as Governor and fails miserably to make any real inroads to the mess that liberalism in that state is only good for the state as a whole…Hey what happened, it is now even worse than it was a couple of years ago. So The state goes for a real republican to help them out in all branches of government!
*sigh*
Look closer at the Golden State.
Outside of LA and Frisco…CA is rather red in the south (where most of the population lives).
Why did we go for Moonbeam?
Yeah…Meggie. Great choice. The idiot or the shrew that ruined e-bay.
Why don’t any GOOD Republicans run?
I’m NOT a fan of Reagan, but, seriously…what state was the SOB governor of? That’s right…California. Who named an airport after the Duke? That’s right…Cali (granted, it’s Orange County, but still). Note how many Congressional Districts are Republican in CA (again, ignoring LA and Frisco). And I would dare anyone to go to San Diego and declare that they’re lefties.
We are crazy, not commies.
When people continue to anti up with the Bush administration’s errors as justification for the current administration’s errors (many times magnified as compared to Bush), they forget that the Tea Party people knew all that going in. That’s exactly what they were raging against…corruption in Washington. Please remember that Bush is NOT RUNNING AGAIN! Pointing out his short comings does not do one thing to help the American people get control of their government. Why compare presidents at all? It is a waste of time unless you just want a history lesson. Conservatives need to spend their time holding feet to the fire, regardless of the outcome to other administration’s records. Are you listening Darrell Issa?
Yet another permutation of the “Republicans should become Democrats if they want to win” argument.
“Hispanic Institute Five-State Voter Project”?
“Vice President Rubio.”
I think it’s highly likely that Obama will server 2 terms. The Republicans are still trying to gain ground. If they country was truly swinging in their favor, the Senate would have also been taken back by the GOP. The Tea Party is their biggest distraction and will dived them come 2012.
You must be a delusional Democrat. The Senate was such a long shot as to be highly unlikely. (11 seats would have had to change hands.) Your tea party comment is both wishful thinking and as usual, pure projection. It is the lefty base that will divide the Democrats.
sorry, playa, but roughly twenty of the thirty-odd Sen seats up in 2012 are dems (and half of those in states that just threw out House dems). Highly probable that O’ wins but almost virtual certainty that another 6-7 seats go red. Sorry, that’s just the facts. Of course, should the GOP get their head out of their ass and convince a Daniels or Christie to run, then its a clean sweep. Ironically, you Dems better pray that Palin gets the nod as that is their only shot of Obama holding on. Unemployment gets any worse (say 11-12%) and even Palin could take down O.
Daniels will not beat Obama, and Christie has to finish his first term before he can claim his policies improved conditions in NJ.
It is sad that in so called blue and purple states, huge numbers of minorities, (uninformed voters for the most part), union thugs, public employees , and university dunces seemingly have not even looked at the last two years of socialist horrors by the faux CIC. So it is bad news for liberty and freedom. On the other hand, suppose some have buyer’s remorse and realize how bad the legislation was for America. The lack of private sector jobs, no border solutions, the CARE mandates, no pro military views, phony economic stats that Obama and the Reid types put out, the need for our own energy policies that do not depend on OPEC. Perhaps those states will be very close and eek out a victory for the Pub candidate. And suppose in these next two years,Obama is even more of an economic illiterate as well as a pansy liberal on many issues? It is possible that Indies, Reagan Dems ,Libertarians will just be so sick of this inept community organizer, that they will hold their nose and vote the Pub person.
head shots, I hate to be the one to mention this, but you have to factor in the voter fraud that took place, and always takes place in favor of democrats EVERY TIME. Someone care to explain that phenomenon to me?
Apparently November 2nd was meaningless…to those who don’t want to read its meaning.
Forget the analysis – if unemployment remains unimproved and gas goes above $4 Obama will be gone….
I agree with #47 and even a good PR guy like they had with the HOPE and CHANGE slogan or; even a good song like “Happy Days Are Here Again” will not save the presidency. There are too many red cities and counties to increase the electoral and popular vote over the remaining blue cities that are wasting away in population as people flee Democrats in controls. What will the new census, population shifts and gerrymandering in Republican controlled states do is another question that favors the average working (or would like to be working) person’s vote.
President Cloward-Piven does not require a second term to bring the US system to its knees so is can be replaced with totalitarian ruling-class privilege.
The seeds have been planted and will bear fruit.
His next step is to be the Secretary-General of a United Nations (Ineligible? Are you serious?) with global powers of taxation.
A UN with taxation powers is the de facto world government we have been waiting for.
The only thing left for him to do is force the US to pay annual monetary tribute to the UN. Doesn’t matter how small the amount. It will grow like a metastatic cancer in no time.
This electoral prediction holds true IF Palin is the nominee. I love her – you love her; but I took my anti-cognitive-dissonance pills this AM and realize that she scares the bejeezus of the legions of fence-sitters who turned the Capitol “red” this past fall. Fiscal conservatism in the mode of Christie/Daniels wins in a landslide of Reaganesque proportion. Palin should go for RNC chair and speak truth to power; but stay away from the ballot!
She would be a perfect fit for RNC chair. We all understand her personal reasons for resigning from the governor’s office. But Americans do not want a movement leader for President; they want a leader with relevant experience. Palin has not done enough to prove to voters that she has the gravitas to be leader of the free world.
As long as those who side with Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodds, Frank, et al., continue to be blind to revising balance sheets downwards, they will continue to live in cloud cuckoo land.
Those who are owed money will have to deal with less coming in, than what they shelled out. Why? Because what they shelled out for resembles pyrite instead of real gold.
This will lead to why so many people in states that tended to trend Democrat, got aboard the Tea Party Express. One is my sister in Washington State who voted for Obama in ’08, and then voted for Dino Rossi for Senator in 2010.
Personally, I appreciate the wakeup call and the vehement dialogue it prompted. Voters are tired of the usual suspects and business as usual.
This year and next, the Rs need to show what they’re made of … let’s hope it’s not styrofoam. Engaged/enraged voters will be watching closely, which means every Republican officeholder at both the state and federal level will influence voter opinion pro or con. If the new bevy of R governors and state and federal legislators buckle, compromise and go along to get along, they’ll sink the presidential election long before Nov 2012 rolls around. The Rs will make another grave error if they run just any-old-body thinking anti-Obama sentiment will draw the votes to win.
This country needs a leader, plain and simple. We’ve seen what the Dems have to offer. Can the Rs field a candidate team with the experience, vision, integrity and spine to get this country back on track? Can such a team win the support of die-hard Rs, RINOS, new Rs, conservatives, Tea Partiers and independents? That remains to be seen.
Myra’s right to remind us that the 2012 election will be a battle not a race.
With the House remaining, and the Senate becoming, Republican (with a Tea Party flavor), in 2012…I frankly don’t care who gets elected to the Presidency.
Divided government….worked well in the 80′s and 90′s…time for a rebirth.
late
T
Agree with the gist..but not an accurate analysis. The analysis should be based on what happened in 2010…not 2008…Despite a miserable economy, GOP only won one House seat from the Dems on the west coast plus Hawaii…
78 electoral votes. Add to that other states where the GOP did not make much headway…VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, MD, DE and DC…74 electoral votes…he is already half way there. Now throw in only IL and MN…30 electoral votes…for a total of 182 electoral votes…he now only needs 88 electoral votes to win. GOP has locked up 182 electoral votes as well if we include all the traditional GOP states…so there will be a battle royal in the wide swathe of midwestern states plus PA. It is likely to be close, but probably a slight advantage for Obama at present. However, one thing we can all guarantee…there is no prayer for the GOP in NY, MA, CA, WA, IL, OR, MN, MD, DC or HI…no prayer….and no prayer for Obama down south and TX..and for that matter NC. The chances of a white man going away with an Asian woman in the bachelor show are considerably higher (5%) than Obama loosing CA or NY (-1%)…not going to happen!
Great article. As painful as it is to crunch numbers for 2012 it must be done. Some encouraging signs:
1. Christies win in NJ. VA was a nice win, but NJ going Conservative is a shock. Perhaps people of NJ have finally realized that only God can afford the cost of Communism. Thing to watch is whether Christie stays popular. Should he get on the ticket (they all say no, ignore his denials) he might just bring NJ along.
2. Marco Rubio’s win in FL. Gotta love this guy. Great speaker. Cubans and other Hispanics will not remain Democrat for long. There is a slow migration to the right which could certainly use some nurturing. Rubio on the ticket helps secure FL.
Which certainly makes Christie/Rubio a very interesting ticket but it would just be so darned satisfying for Palin to win and she has absolutely laid down all the prequisite foundations: books, speaking tours etc. After all the the marxists have done a Palin win would just be sweet as apple pie.
With the stock markets continuing to do surge, factories adding jobs, America is once again reaching it’s zenith. The American people will see past the rantings of the tea-baggers and other anti-Americans. Obama appears to be blessed to lead America to closer to achieving what Ron Reagan called “America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.” We could be witnessing a rebirth in the true American aspirations.
Oh dear, Edward the Troll. You may enjoy the thrill of being Teabagged in your frequent trips to the YMCA (the occasional hairs in the mouth can be annoying, of course) but to the rest of us it is a very offensive word. Would you call a black man a ni**er? Someone from China a Ch*nk? Probably, not because like all delusional Marxists, it is only appropriate to use vulgar words for people you hate. And in the twisted land of Oz you inhabit, it all makes perfect sense.
And how dare you use (the usurper currently soiling the WhiteHouse)name and Reagan in the same sentence! Reagan loved his Country. I’m convined the other guy doesn’t like us at all. To him America is a broken shameful place that only HE can bend into some grotesque shape he thinks the US should be.
And it’s RONALD WILSON REAGAN, not Ron Reagan. nitwit.
Yeah, Ron Reagan is the former President’s pompous son. Ironic isn’t it? The adopted son is the one after his father’s heart whereas the natural son wants nothing to do with his father’s legacy.
Only the most abject leftist could compare the Reagan and Obama economies and not see the most glaring difference; Reagan was a supply sider. That meant controlling the money supply to reduce inflation, and spurring economic growth by reducing tax rates, government regulation of the economy and certain types of government spending.
The reason Edward A. thinks the “market is surging” is because Helicopter Ben has the money spigot open like a johnny pump in July at the Fed. Obama cronies are reaping the rewards of their political patronage, but Main Street is picking up the tab. Look at Reagan’s record to see real success.
During Jimmy Carter’s last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan’s last year in office (1988). Over those eight years, the unemployment rate declined from 7.1% to 5.5%, hitting annual rate highs of 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983) and averaging 7.5% during Reagan’s administration. GDP grew at 3.85% per year after 1982′s recession ended. Sixteen million new jobs were created. The Cold War ended.
There is simply no comparison between Reagan and Obama.
First off, why don’t we try being honest. We aren’t talking about the “Hispanic” vote, we’re talking about Mexicans. The so-called Hispanic vote is far more diverse than the Democrats, and Republicans, give it credit.
In Florida its Cuban (who are heavily Republican) and Central American immigrants, not as much Mexican. And there is no love lost between those groups and Mexicans. Most Central Americans dislike Mexicans because of the way they are treated on Mexico’s southern border; all the things that we are accused of on our border the Mexicans actually do to Central American on their border.
I think this question is a lot more open than the “experts” give credit.
Well Thank you Ms. Adams! Who needs MSNBC when we have you are our side? I want to thank you (and Michael Barone, and Charles Krauthammer who have already been castrated). I had already asked the boss for the first Tuesday of November 2012 off so I could vote early and watch the election returns all day. The Dom Perion ’57 was on order as well the the Cuban cigars (smuggled from Canada). But your insightful predictions of unavoidable electoral doom saved me from wasting a precious 24 hours of my life on an impossible dream. I may not even turn out to vote. Why bother? What a folly to try to replicate the historic thrashing the Clown Prince of Chicago took just a scant two months ago. In that case, I agree with firefirefire-since were doomed anyway, lets vote for a real conservative like Sarah palin. Nothing to lose right?
Don’t quit your day job, or maybe in ‘that’ president’s economy (Like Lord Voldemort, I refuse to utter his name)you long since lost your day job. Anyway, your chin may be on your chest, but don’t bring those of us who are still mad as hell with this socialist takeover of America, and would rather have our tongues and fingernails ripped out than put up with this manchurian president until 2016
This article and the left want you to feel discouraged, and would like you to give up against the unrelenting horde of brown people.
Its illusory. We are still the majority, and freedom, God and making a buck are in the blood of European American stock. It may take a while to figure out and wake up about what we are, but it will happen.
A divorce from the Federal gov will really shake things up. COnstantly transferring our tax money to stated of economic parasites is keeeping our demise tied to our production. We need to cut the means of profuction from politics. Then, it won’t matter how many bazillion brownies live in this country; they will work or perish. Their will be no slush fund to keep them going without contributing.
The joke is that we are right now through taxes financing our own destruction. Cutting of entitlements will resolve this. After that, what can they do? Riots can be quelled and destroyed. They can ibstalll another Obama type, but the fed gov will be neutered. The key is to destroy the fed govs power through repeal.
You can calculate all you want from the history of the past and that’s where you will be, in the past. The election last November blew the doors in on all the experts both in and out of Washington and it’s going to happen again with each election. There isn’t a lot of money out here but there are a lot of votes and that is exactly what terrorizes the left, because we are quiet, no need to shout and carry on all we will do is vote. We have been schooled by your promises and lies and yes even your tears, they don’t work because we will turn on our own if they become RINO’s.
LOL, whoever wrote this article sounds like a fortunate teller.
Actually, the five Red Rogue states returning to the GOP fold isn’t a huge assumption at all. I’m frankly pressed to name one that will not–largely due to internal state politics, Florida is more reliably Republican now than anytime in history. As for the West, the issue will be whether Hispanic Americans find the DREAM Act a more pressing issue than double digit unemployment. Reid got lucky when he drew Angle as an opponent because the answer to that question is so obvious.
You have some good points here, though, and it is good to focus attention on some hard facts. I put my money where my mouth is on Intrade back when Obama’s re-election was almost at 70, aka February 2010. It’s been a steady downward trend ever since.
If this counts as analysis, then this woman is not very good at her trade. She mixes bold unsupported statements w/ magic hispanic dust to reach 270 for Obama. How about starting at looking at BO’s rating in various states. A good proxy for that is the recent elections. He could bounce back. Anything is possible, but he’s starting out behind, and that is never a good place to start a race.
Agree that the president and the power of the presidency should never be underrated. The rest is not really meaningful – whoever the candidate is they will bring strengths and weaknesses that overshadow the characteristics of a generic candidate. Unemployment is still around 9% come summer 2012 and Obama’s a goner. The unemployment number will be the single most important factor in the 2012 election barring a national crisis after July-August.
> Myra Adams is a media producer, writer and political observer, who served on the McCain Ad Council during the 2008 McCain campaign…
I’m sure Ms. Adams means well. But working on the McCain campaign hardly makes someone an expert in how to win the presidency.
Even so, there is a bigger battle going on, for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. I would venture an opinion that the GOP controls its own destiny. Republicans like Bush and McCain did their level best to turn the GOP into a liberal-lite party. They said it would help win elections. So much for their expertise, too. The Republicans need to stay focused on their message over the next two years: that they are serious about getting the growth, cost, and scope of the federal government under control, spending in particular, and freeing up our economy. If they establish their credibility as the good Dr. Jekyl, they win in a walk. If they revert to Sen. Hyde, they lose again.
And be advised: there are “moderate” Republicans who would prefer a Democratic win to a conservative Republican win. This past election proved that. Grima Wormtongue lives, and he’s a RINO.
I think this analysis ignores several Elephants in the room.
1. The TEA Party – It changes everything and is likely to grow stronger and take credit for any improvements in the economy.
2. Unlike the bad economies of Reagan and W. Bush there have been no massive tax cuts to stimulate the economy. So to those saying the economy is making a comeback. Why is it going to do that? Cities and States are going bankrupt, but the economy is going Rock for Obama? Call me doubtful
3. The Largest measure of money supply called M3 is still deflating, deflation is destructive, it destroys businesses, people lose their jobs, and foreclosures skyrocket (like now). 60% of American family net wealth is held as equity in their home, and the American family nest egg is being crushed by falling home values.
All great points!
…. Obama’s victorious lame duck session ….
Lost me Right there.
Obama’s victorious lame duck session belonged entirely to the tea-party-movement Republicans.
And We (The People) ain’t done yet!
Obama will be a one term President until 2012.
Its still two years out, should we really be prognosticating certain defeat OR victory yet? Of course not.
What we should be doing is targeting the states where we think we’ll have the most trouble but that are within reach, and hammer them with our point of view and our supporters for the next two years to counter act the media love in that Barack will be receiving from the end of this State of the Union speech on, while continuing to ram down Obama’s throat the 14 trillion plus in debt, the 1.3 trillion dollar deficit and make him either veto spending cuts and hurt him with the middle or make him sign them into law, further shattering his base, which is what left him in the dust this past mid term.
I’m not the biggest fan of Palin, but Obama has proven himself to be a mindless ideologue to whom things like facts and observable evidence no longer matter, hence his continuing insistence on spending to stimulate despite the clear fact that it has come up a big old nothing in practice.
I would respond to the author’s response above, asking how do Republicans win Hispanics away from the Dems?
It’s easy, really. Talk to them. In Spanish. Bush was President because he got 40% of the vote, rather than the usual 30%. Because he campaigned in Spanish. “People do not care how much you know until they know how much you care.” For immigrants, that means speaking to them in their native tongue, or trying to somewhat.
You also cannot alienate them. Taking a hard line against immigration with out having them on board with it is a loser. Republicans were successfully painted as anti-immigrant in 2008. The Left defined us. It is important control the message. We are pro-immigrant. This country was built by immigration and still is. But you can overdo things. Too much of a good thing. You have to fight for the public perception.
This does not mean you appease them either. You have to sell your position. Conservatives have it extremely hard. They do not have a favorable press. They not only have to get their message out, but they have to expose the falseness of the dominant memes. They have to be educators. They must be articulate. They must use Jiu-Jitsu on the memes. If they push a meme, embrace it. Or side-step and mock it. One must take the political club out of the Dems’ hands. Mostly, one must not fear it and run from it, but rather, fight it.
All Latinos are not created equal.
Cubans have historically voted Republican.
Mexicans have historically voted Democrat.
Salvadorans are radically different than Mexicans.
South Americans…wow.
(I don’t know enough Puerto Ricans.)
Are there exceptions? Yes, Si
There are an awful lot of Mexicans who are VERY anti-illegal immigration. Problem is, the MeCHA Chicano/as get the press.
A smart Republican/Tea Partier would present a real, workable immigration plan. Simplify the procedure (among other things) and you will get a chunk of the Latino vote. Not “close the borders” but something everyone can buy into.
I’m sorry, but I haven’t read through all the comments and have nothing to contribute to the subject at hand at this time. But I just wanted to say that when I first read the headline, the first question that came to my mind was “You mean 270 rounds of golf by 2012?”
or lbs. with all the gorging behind moochelle’s back
“Moochelle”
I can’t imagine why people perceive the Republicans and Tea Partiers as being racist ignorant people.
Tea Partiers! Lesson in reality: You need to make sure that what you do is NOT AT ALL racist. This is NOT about political correctness. This is about having to go beyond because of preconceived notions. Every time someone holds up a sign with Obama as a witch doctor, you feed the image that the TP is inherently NOT about what it claims to be, but is instead about a Black man (yes, I know O’s a mulatto) being an uppity…African-American…and daring to be President.
Obama ran as a candidate who was Black, NOT as a Black candidate.
Baggage. Recognize it.
W turns into a monkey. Insult to Bush.
O turns into a monkey. Summons up images of “The Black man is little more than an ape.”
Make sense?
What a horrible analysis. First off, PA is VERY VERY vulnerable for Obama…but isn’t even discussed by you. Second, to believe that the Hispanic vote will increase over 2008 is pure fantasy. That Hispanic vote for Obama combines: 1) A lot of GOP Hispanics who did a one-time-in-a-life crossover to Obama believing in the hype, something that won’t be there in 2012. 2) A lot of non-voters who voted that one year, who won’t be back because of him doing NOTHING for immigration reform when he had both houses. Add on an already brewing revolt over how they ignored Immigration reform in 2009 and 2010. Add on the GOP showing big Hispanics in the party like Rubio and others (and Jeb Bush will be prominent in ’12 with his Hispanic wife), and there is NO WAY Obama gets near his ’08 Hispanic numbers. Its also pretty obvious GOP turnout will be more like ’10 than ’08, meaning a lot of those close states will go GOP (and we know there will be some 3rd party candidate like a Nader draining Dem votes in close states as well). This is a LOT more like 2004, where the GOP will get enough of the close small states, and the GOP will need either Ohio or PA to lock it all up – and guess what people, OHIO IS GOING GOP FOR SHIZZLE. The thing is, it will be an early night if PA goes to the GOP. If you think PA is a Dem lock, before Obama, the Dems only won it 51, 51, and then lost it 49 in 2000. And PA is rocked by unemployment, and the immigration issue Dems need in the West will HURT THEM horribly in PA.
Shonuff: I mention PA as a state that should be targeted by the GOP to balance other states we could lose.
Keep in mind PA has not gone “red” since 1988.
Some reasons why this is wishful thinking for Progs:
1. Unemployment will most likely stay high
2. Inflation will likely get worse
3. Gas will probably be exorbitantly priced
4. Energy prices may soar
5. Food prices will be much higher
6. The economy will still suck
All of these things are election killers for presidents looking to repeat office. What is crucial for Republicans is who gets picked to run. That will make all the difference in the world.
As for the fawning press, that is becoming less relevant month to month as the old MSM dies a well deserved slow and painful death.
George Soros is doing a great job of destroying the USA using his latest puppet Barry. He orchestrated the October surprise that got Barry elected, and Barry is busy on vacation while his handlers use the Cloward and Piven strategy to crash our society and re boot us into communism. Not that the Republicrats are much better. We have one party with two branches, one that promotes tax and spend, the other borrow and spend. Both embrace the Reconquista. This country is doomed to follow the fate of the Roman empire. Bloated spending, corrupt leaders, and an open door to barbarians. It was fun while it lasted. “May you live in interesting times.”
Agree and disagree.
The O man is not a commie. Sorry. Fascist? Yeah.
Will agree…one party, two branches.
Obama’s “remarkable ability to bounce back” and “extraordinary campaign and speaking skills?” I think you’re overselling here. What exactly has he bounced back from? We’ve seen through the “speaking skills” and I don’t think the next campaign will be quite so extraordinary. After all, this time he finally has a record he has to run on and won’t be able to razzle-dazzle us with all that messianic hopenchange crapola. 2008 was a once in a lifetime deal. Not sayin’ he can’t win, just sayin’.
Almost every waking hour working in Washington? That’s not exactly how I remember it. He spent a fair amount of time on the links and gadding about with and without Michelle and the girls. I lost count of the number of “town halls” and such he held around the country trying to sell health care and others of his programs. And he was always on television. People were actually starting to get sick of the sight of him. What exactly will this engagement entail? My guess is he’s hitting the campaign trail. He may want to rethink this whole strategy as, any more, his charms tend to wear off rather quickly.
What an utterly made-up controversy.
Like it or not, the president is the president of the whole country. It is appropriate for him to travel. If he spent all of his time in washington, you’d just accuse him of being out of touch.
And the meaning of that sentence seems obvious enough. The sentence isn’t
It’s
i.e. it says that of all the waking hours he had in washington, he had to spend almost all of them working on solving the financial crisis. Obviously he managed to get health care through as well, so much the better.
There have in fact been 36 elections in which an incumbent President sought re-election, not 31.
Five incumbents have been denied re-nomination: Tyler, 1844; Fillmore, 1852; Pierce, 1856; Truman, 1948; Johnson, 1968.
So the record of incumbents is 21 re-elections in 36 attempts – 58%, not 21/31 = 68%.
Sorry Rich:
Nice try.
Being denied the nomination by the party (not since the mid 1800′s) or taking themselves out of the running for re-election (like Truman in 1952 by the way NOT 1948 when he won his first election on his own or Johnson declining to seek the nomination in 1968)is NOT in the same catagory as an incumbent actually running for re-election in an actual campaign.
The number 68% re-election of incumbents actually running AND winning still stands.
The GOP will believe their own publicity and bury their heads in the sand while obama waltzes to victory, lying all the way to the oval office. Palin has far too much baggage to ever be elected. I’m already tired of seeing views of Alaska and the pictures of her kids. She’s a ‘different’ kind of woman, that’s for sure, but for every one who likes her, there are several who don’t.
To GOPers who voted for Stockholm Syndrome McCain: Long before the first caucuses and primaries the Democrat party knew McKainnedy was their guy. They did everything they could to make sure he was the Republican party’s front runner. Heads, Obammie-the-commie wins, tails, with McKainnedy, they win. Coconspirators in the MSM sold the nation on McKainnedy as the reach-across-the-aisle guy. Ya gotta respect the brilliance of the Communist Party. Once they got their guy rolling, it was all down hill.
What a bunch of insecure losers!!!!!!!!!!!! Why this level of desperation? You profess and rant about your belief in the US Constitution, the American way of life and more. Yet you A****holes cannot live with the fact that your incompetent candidates aka John McLoser and Sarah balloonhead Palin were smartly and authoritatively crushed, defeated and tossed out like true garbage by our brilliant POTUS. All their rhetorics, hatred and division meant nothing. Their war mongering, fear mongering amounted to nothing. Look at McLoser nowadays, maverick he ain’t, sycophant and complete tool of the lunatic right wing zealots he is 100%.
The economy is improving and will improve. There is nothing you can do about that. The POTUS will rerun of course and once again prove true America, middle America is not what you boot lickers of your corporate masters want it to be. Look at your darling Walker from Wisconsin, by his arrogant and stupid action, he has galvanized another movement. The least of your worries should be the “Hispanic” and “Black” vote which are by the way a billion times more American and more patriotic than your your “corporate bought vote”- you sycophants and bootlickers.
In the age of a global economy where America’s position as a leader of the world hinges totally on education and responive and responsible government, you espouse and practice a feudalistic system of governance where you creat a class system of the haves and have-nots, a corollary of the then landed gentry and the peasants.
Come 2012, you need to worry about the working class white vote,you know that subgroup of voters who vote traditionally against their economic interest for the repukelican candidate who is almost a whore-mongering, war-mongering Chrisitian value wanna be hypocrite who undermines the life,liberty and pursuit of happiness of those voting block from within insidiously. The Walker incident alone will cost you several million votes in 2012!!!
So take your pills daily and restrain yourself from so much doom and gloom and be prepared for the inevitable- Obama 2013-2016. Four more years of responive and responsible government and oh yeah four more years of deafetism and incredulity, disbelief and agony of bigots. Love it
Interesting article.
In the interest of full disclosure, I voted/volunteered/contributed to the O man. Barry O’Bama won because Whites voted for him, as well as Latinos and Blacks.
FWIW, I have been sorely disappointed in him. I plan to vote against him in the Dem primaries. Sure, my vote’s a waste…but then again, Hillary was a foregone conclusion in the last Dem primary. (Unless it’s Hill as the sole opposition.)
As for state elections…California had the Governator in power, and yet we went for Obama. We re-elected Feinstein and Boxer.
Palin is a very polarizing force, much like Hillary is on the Democrat side. Personally, I think she’s unelectable. (I’d love to see Hillary v. Palin in 2012…THAT would be an interesting election.)
Just a thought for all of the Republicans and Tea Partiers…look at Reagan and look at Bush Jr. Not exactly fiscal responsibility.
Personally, I sincerely believe that the election will hinge on who the Republicans nominate. You guys need to find a dark horse candidate who will appeal to the disgruntled (2008) Obama voters. Someone who does not reek of the standard GOP politics.
Most states are made up of people who are slightly left and slightly right of center. We live in an age of style over substance. You need to find someone who will beat Obama at his own game.
My take (declared or, IMNSHO, likely to run)
Bachmann? No. She lacks media savvy. When she raises *valid* points, she comes across as a crackpot.
Barbour? Sure. Run a good ol’ boy against Mr. Personality.
Brown? Possible. Good dark horse choice.
Jeb Bush? LMAO. Sure. W’s brother. “Yeah! 4 more years of Bush!”
Christie? He would stand a chance, generally speaking, but I don’t see him beating Obama. Four years from now? I can see him as a prime candidate.
Gingrich? Too much “GOP as usual.”
Huckabee? I just don’t see him as having a broad-based appeal.
Jindal (as VP candidate)? Trust me on this one. He will kill any ticket.
Johnson would be an interesting choice. I doubt that he would get the nomination, but, realistically, he would make one hell of an opponent for Obama to fight. Honestly, you’d stand the best chance with him (give him a Latino running mate, and it’s a lock).
Miller? Will be slaughtered on the experience issue. (A “flight attendant?” Seriously? I am NOT saying this as an insult, I’m saying this pragmatically.)
Palin is WAY too divisive. I know, all you Palin fans think she’s the second coming…perfect…our one shot to save this nation…
…just like Obama. Think about it.
Paul. Dr. Paul would also make an interesting opponent. If he were to market himself correctly, he would be a great opponent. However, I seriously doubt he’d get the nomination. (Note to Tea Partiers: Give up on Palin…Paul has a MUCH better chance in the general election.)
Romney is who I think will likely get the nomination. Will get tromped on the health care issue. Highly unlikely to beat Obama, but small chance.
Trump. Oh yeah…he stands a chance. New drinking game: take a shot every time someone brings up how he refuses to shake hands. I really don’t see him as a viable candidate.
Just a Democratic liberal libertarian’s thoughts.
Good luck.
whoah this weblog is great i really like studying your articles. Keep up the great work! You know, many persons are hunting around for this information, you can aid them greatly.