Election 2012--A First Look
The buzz has already started about the 2012 Presidential election, and the biennial array of Washington pundits is already handicapping the race, evaluating the selection of possible Republican candidates and considering their prospects of taking on Obama. Hilariously, there are plenty who are already decreeing that "Obama is looking better for re-election now", presumably based on a brief bounce in the polls that came after the Gabrielle Giffords speech. Up until last month, Obama's re-election chances hinged around the number of jobs the economy creates between now and the fall of 2012. But as of this month, it also hinges around whether or not the upheaval in the Middle East either settles down or results in unlikely stable democratic governments in Egypt and whatever other countries follow in its footsteps. If Obama appears not in control of events that unfold in the Middle East, he'll be blamed and independent voters will rally towards his opponent.
With that in mind, the candidate that the Republican Party nominates is very unlikely to matter, despite the monthslong obsession in front of us over which candidate is "electable". For the most part, all of them there. Perhaps not Ron Paul, but everybody from Sarah Palin to Newt Gingrich to Michele Bachmann is fair game for the Presidency if unemployment is still above 9% and the Middle East descends into regionwide chaos. On the other hand, Obama probably gets re-elected if unemployment is below 8% and the Middle Eastern situation cools. The only Republican candidate currently on my radar who could give Obama a run for his money even in ideal circumstances for the Democrats is Mike Huckabee, although he has skeletons in his closet too.
It's too early to know where things are going, but my lean is towards continued high unemployment and increasing vulnerabilities on foreign policy, whether it be the prolonging of the Middle Eastern crisis or something else. This would bode poorly for Obama. But before getting too deeply into that, here's my take on the states that are most likely off the table no matter what the political situation and who the nominees are. Current hypothetical polls aren't worth the paper they're written on, much as Democrats think a Sarah Palin candidacy would put Nebraska and Texas in play. Once the campaign gets underway, the usual suspects will move towards their usual tribes.
Likely Obama--California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
Assuming my post-reapportionment figures are right, this gives Obama 191 electoral votes.
Likely GOP--Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
This would give the Republican 181 electoral votes.
Now for the most likely battleground states....
Colorado--It's been favorable turf for Democrats in the last few election cycles and if conditions look a bit better for the country, it's probably one of Obama's better prospects to hold onto if they can continue to get the Latino vote out and hang onto the suburban Denver swing vote. If Michael Bennet can win there in a climate as toxic as 2010, Obama has reason to be cautiously optimistic.
Florida--This one's gonna be tough to hold under any circumstances, as evidenced by the fringe-right wingnuts elected even in blue areas of Florida in 2010. Obama's enormous obstacles in this state include an elderly population hostile to him and a Jewish population that has never trusted him. He wouldn't have won the state even in the perfect storm of 2008 if not for the surge of Latino voters in the Orlando area that almost by itself made up the difference between Obama and McCain in the state. He'll need to duplicate that central Florida Latino surge in 2012 to have a prayer of winning the state. No easy task.
Indiana--Only because Obama won Indiana in 2008 do I even put the state on the list. I still can't believe he prevailed in Indiana, and I write it off as a fluke that's not likely to happen again anytime soon. Seems like no matter who the Republicans nominate, Indiana will revert back to tradition next year.
Iowa--Even Iowa's a tough call, as evidenced by the state's hard right shift in the midterms. It still might lean a little more towards Obama than a generic Republican challenger, but that state of the nation will have to look more favorable than they do now.
Michigan--On one hand, Obama can claim he single-handedly stopped the opposition party from turning Michigan into an apocalytpic no man's land by passing the auto bailout. But on the other hand, if unemployment is still over 15% there, he's not gonna get credit for "not making things worse". This one leans Obama, but never underestimate a desperate people's willingness to align themselves with political forces sworn to their destruction, as evidenced by Michigan sweeping in Republican lawmakers last fall despite the party's insistence the state's economy be vaporized only months earlier.
Minnesota--It definitely leans Obama, and I think that's the case even if favorite son Pawlenty is on the ballot. Minnesota is probably Obama's safest bet in the Midwest outside of Illinois, but again, if conditions are no better than they are today, a Republican victory is by no means out of the question.
Nevada--Given the massive surge of Latino voters in Nevada in recent years, things would have to be pretty bad in Nevada for Obama to be beaten by a militantly anti-immigration Republican. Even Harry Reid pulled off an improbable majority there last fall. With that said, things ARE that bad in Nevada, with the highest unemployment rate in the nation. It's possible that Reid's survival in Nevada could bode worse for Obama next year than it would have if Angle had won, because Nevadans may still be looking for someone with a (D) next to their name to punish.
New Hampshire--Another tough call, but with the war no longer looming as a hot-button issue, taxaphobic New Hampshire voters may revert back to form and vote Republican again at the Presidential level. If I had to put a wager on it right now, I'd bet Obama is denied New Hampshire this time.
North Carolina--It's a longshot that Obama will recapture one of his more eye-opening victories of 2008 with an encore win in North Carolina, but I'll say this. The demographic changes in North Carolina make that state seem like a somewhat better bet for Obama in 2012 than Florida.
Ohio--Here's a state that never had much love for Obama even at the height of Obamamania, so he doesn't have much of a margin for error here. Still, Ohio voters had their backlash vote of 2010 and installed Republicans at every level of government once again, and the state's destitute voters will get another taste of what life under Republican government is like...and I don't think they'll like it. If Obama seems like he has things at least a little bit under control by next year, I'd give him slight odds of holding Ohio.
Pennsylvania--Given the center-left nature of the Philadelphia suburbs that determine the winners and losers of Pennsylvania elections, one would be hard-pressed to predict that whatever nominee the Republicans put forward who has gone far off onto the right flank as is necessary to win the party's nomination has much chance of winning the state. Things would have to be 1980 Jimmy Carter bad for the incumbent to fail to win Pennsylvania.
Virginia--Like Colorado, I think the demographic shift of northern Virginia has changed this state's politics to the Democrats' advantage with all things being equal. Again, it depends on the economic conditions of election day, but my money is on Obama holding Virginia.
Wisconsin--After the beatdown Democrats took in Wisconsin last fall, we could be looking at a permanent change in the political environment in the Badger State. It's impossible to tell on this one, and I'll have to make a more informed call based on how Wisconsin voters respond to their new Tea Party Governor calling for members of the National Guard to fill the jobs of the state employees he plans to destroy. If Scott Walker doesn't scare straying 2008 Obama voters straight, nobody will.
Barring a 1984-style economic surge like Reagan enjoyed in the months before his landslide re-election, I expect the best Obama can hope for is a considerably narrower victory than he got in 2008 with losses all but inevitable in blue states like Indiana, North Carolina, and Florida. But on the other hand, there's potential for a Republican victory on par with Obama's 2008 victory, at least in the Electoral College.
With that in mind, the candidate that the Republican Party nominates is very unlikely to matter, despite the monthslong obsession in front of us over which candidate is "electable". For the most part, all of them there. Perhaps not Ron Paul, but everybody from Sarah Palin to Newt Gingrich to Michele Bachmann is fair game for the Presidency if unemployment is still above 9% and the Middle East descends into regionwide chaos. On the other hand, Obama probably gets re-elected if unemployment is below 8% and the Middle Eastern situation cools. The only Republican candidate currently on my radar who could give Obama a run for his money even in ideal circumstances for the Democrats is Mike Huckabee, although he has skeletons in his closet too.
It's too early to know where things are going, but my lean is towards continued high unemployment and increasing vulnerabilities on foreign policy, whether it be the prolonging of the Middle Eastern crisis or something else. This would bode poorly for Obama. But before getting too deeply into that, here's my take on the states that are most likely off the table no matter what the political situation and who the nominees are. Current hypothetical polls aren't worth the paper they're written on, much as Democrats think a Sarah Palin candidacy would put Nebraska and Texas in play. Once the campaign gets underway, the usual suspects will move towards their usual tribes.
Likely Obama--California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
Assuming my post-reapportionment figures are right, this gives Obama 191 electoral votes.
Likely GOP--Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
This would give the Republican 181 electoral votes.
Now for the most likely battleground states....
Colorado--It's been favorable turf for Democrats in the last few election cycles and if conditions look a bit better for the country, it's probably one of Obama's better prospects to hold onto if they can continue to get the Latino vote out and hang onto the suburban Denver swing vote. If Michael Bennet can win there in a climate as toxic as 2010, Obama has reason to be cautiously optimistic.
Florida--This one's gonna be tough to hold under any circumstances, as evidenced by the fringe-right wingnuts elected even in blue areas of Florida in 2010. Obama's enormous obstacles in this state include an elderly population hostile to him and a Jewish population that has never trusted him. He wouldn't have won the state even in the perfect storm of 2008 if not for the surge of Latino voters in the Orlando area that almost by itself made up the difference between Obama and McCain in the state. He'll need to duplicate that central Florida Latino surge in 2012 to have a prayer of winning the state. No easy task.
Indiana--Only because Obama won Indiana in 2008 do I even put the state on the list. I still can't believe he prevailed in Indiana, and I write it off as a fluke that's not likely to happen again anytime soon. Seems like no matter who the Republicans nominate, Indiana will revert back to tradition next year.
Iowa--Even Iowa's a tough call, as evidenced by the state's hard right shift in the midterms. It still might lean a little more towards Obama than a generic Republican challenger, but that state of the nation will have to look more favorable than they do now.
Michigan--On one hand, Obama can claim he single-handedly stopped the opposition party from turning Michigan into an apocalytpic no man's land by passing the auto bailout. But on the other hand, if unemployment is still over 15% there, he's not gonna get credit for "not making things worse". This one leans Obama, but never underestimate a desperate people's willingness to align themselves with political forces sworn to their destruction, as evidenced by Michigan sweeping in Republican lawmakers last fall despite the party's insistence the state's economy be vaporized only months earlier.
Minnesota--It definitely leans Obama, and I think that's the case even if favorite son Pawlenty is on the ballot. Minnesota is probably Obama's safest bet in the Midwest outside of Illinois, but again, if conditions are no better than they are today, a Republican victory is by no means out of the question.
Nevada--Given the massive surge of Latino voters in Nevada in recent years, things would have to be pretty bad in Nevada for Obama to be beaten by a militantly anti-immigration Republican. Even Harry Reid pulled off an improbable majority there last fall. With that said, things ARE that bad in Nevada, with the highest unemployment rate in the nation. It's possible that Reid's survival in Nevada could bode worse for Obama next year than it would have if Angle had won, because Nevadans may still be looking for someone with a (D) next to their name to punish.
New Hampshire--Another tough call, but with the war no longer looming as a hot-button issue, taxaphobic New Hampshire voters may revert back to form and vote Republican again at the Presidential level. If I had to put a wager on it right now, I'd bet Obama is denied New Hampshire this time.
North Carolina--It's a longshot that Obama will recapture one of his more eye-opening victories of 2008 with an encore win in North Carolina, but I'll say this. The demographic changes in North Carolina make that state seem like a somewhat better bet for Obama in 2012 than Florida.
Ohio--Here's a state that never had much love for Obama even at the height of Obamamania, so he doesn't have much of a margin for error here. Still, Ohio voters had their backlash vote of 2010 and installed Republicans at every level of government once again, and the state's destitute voters will get another taste of what life under Republican government is like...and I don't think they'll like it. If Obama seems like he has things at least a little bit under control by next year, I'd give him slight odds of holding Ohio.
Pennsylvania--Given the center-left nature of the Philadelphia suburbs that determine the winners and losers of Pennsylvania elections, one would be hard-pressed to predict that whatever nominee the Republicans put forward who has gone far off onto the right flank as is necessary to win the party's nomination has much chance of winning the state. Things would have to be 1980 Jimmy Carter bad for the incumbent to fail to win Pennsylvania.
Virginia--Like Colorado, I think the demographic shift of northern Virginia has changed this state's politics to the Democrats' advantage with all things being equal. Again, it depends on the economic conditions of election day, but my money is on Obama holding Virginia.
Wisconsin--After the beatdown Democrats took in Wisconsin last fall, we could be looking at a permanent change in the political environment in the Badger State. It's impossible to tell on this one, and I'll have to make a more informed call based on how Wisconsin voters respond to their new Tea Party Governor calling for members of the National Guard to fill the jobs of the state employees he plans to destroy. If Scott Walker doesn't scare straying 2008 Obama voters straight, nobody will.
Barring a 1984-style economic surge like Reagan enjoyed in the months before his landslide re-election, I expect the best Obama can hope for is a considerably narrower victory than he got in 2008 with losses all but inevitable in blue states like Indiana, North Carolina, and Florida. But on the other hand, there's potential for a Republican victory on par with Obama's 2008 victory, at least in the Electoral College.
posted by Mark at 4:12 PM
1 Comments:
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. Connecticut would not continue to be ignored. 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.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). 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. 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.
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 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%, FL – 78%, 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%, ID – 77%, ME — 77%, MT – 72%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, OK – 81%, RI — 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT — 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, VA — 74%, and WV – ’81%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, OR – 76%, and WA — 77%.
The National Popular Vote 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 74 electoral votes – 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Post a Comment
<< Home