I think she's shown talent in that direction. I just hope she can continue.
Posted on 05/16/2011 7:51:02 AM PDT by kevkrom
First of all, 2012 polling at this stage is laughably pointless, as history shows that it is highly unlikely to be in line with the actual results, this far out from the election.
But even more so, most of these polls are taken at a national level, e.g., "Obama leads <insert candidate's name here> 47-44, according to XYZ Survey".
This means nothing.
The 2012 election is going to be decided, as most Presidential contests are, by a relatively small handful of states. By my reckoning, five. How a candidate will fare in those states matters far more than anything else, for without them, they can't reach the magic 270 mark.
To start with, we have to assume that any GOP candidate starts with a "floor" of the states John McCain won: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska (4/5), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming. Of these, Missouri is the only one that isn't a "sure thing", barring a complete and utter collapse. That's a base of 179 electoral votes.
The candidate would need to recapture Indiana, which should be a fairly simple task -- there's little reason to believe that Obama can win there again. (If he does, it's going to be an early night and a long 4 years.) So add 10 more, to get to 189.
Now we get to the five critical states:
North Carolina (16): A solid Republican state, normally, but it went for the Obama "wave" in 2008. A "must" pickup for any GOP contender.
Florida (29) and Ohio (18): Two of the three so-called "battleground states" generally must be won by a GOP candidate in order to win the election. Despite Pennsylvania (20) going strong GOP in 2010, Florida and Ohio did as well, and are more likely pickups. If the GOP nominee gets Pennsylvania too, it's going to be a blowout win.
Virginia (13): Probably the trickiest on the list. Went big GOP in 2010, but northern liberals might be more energized in an "on year" election.
Wisconsin (10): Despite looking like they aren't going to field a Presidential candidate, Wisconsin politicians are dominating the news as an example of the GOP agenda. Still, the GOP took over in 2010 and survived their first test since. Plus, the RNC head is from there and might have the savvy to provide the difference in a close race.
Now, putting those five together with the "base" above yields 275 electoral college votes, 5 more than is necessary to win. Alternate scenarios can be put together (for example, Colorado and Pennsylvania could be in play to offset potential losses in Wisconsin and Virginia), and this list may need to be revised as the actual election comes clearer into focus.
But in the end, it will be a list of 5 or 6 states that will likely determine the fate of the election, not any sort of national view.
It is not a linear correlation (of course), but the chances of pulling off an Electoral College win without carrying a plurality of the popular on a national scale has happened only about 3 times in the nation's history (1876, 1888, 2000).
Or in other words, focus on the polls within the individual states.
As election day approaches, sure. But this far out, before any primary has even started? No, that track record is much, much worse in its predictive nature.
Even then, not so much, at least for now. It's way too early for them to be reliable. Instead, the question should be: "does <insert candidate's name here> have a legitimate path to victory in these key states?"
1860?
I see you have already figured in redistricting, good job. That buys an extra 8 ECVs, which is not insignificant.
You also correctly point out that this isn’t a National election, but a State by State election. But the National numbers can tell us something. President Obama won by a 52.9% to a 45.7% National result, a 7.2% difference. National polls showing a 3 to 4% margin, and most of those with 8 to 10% undecided, would set up a “with leaners” poll with Obama leading by 1 or 2%. A 5% drop in a National result would certainly change the face of the Election.
The fact is that Obama got almost all of the swing States in 2008, and would need to do so again in 2012 to have a second term.
I view his problem as a regional problem, in particular the Mid-Atlantic and the Midwest, both regions that he dominated in 2008.
If we look at the margins of Victories in these States in 2008 and compare them to the current National poll numbers, we see a certain level of weakness creeping in to certain States. If there isn’t enthusiasm for Obama (and at this point, there isn’t), he is going to have problems with States that he won with margins of less than 10%:
Midwest
Illinois - Won by 25.11%
Michigan - Won by 16.44%
Wisconsin - Won by 13.90%
Minnesota - Won by 10.24%
Iowa - Won by 9.53%
Ohio - Won by 4.58%
Indiana - Won by 1.03%
Missouri - Lost by 0.13%
Mid-Atlantic
DC - Won by 85.92%
Maryland - Won by 25.44%
Delaware - Won by 24.98%
New Jersey - Won by 15.53%
Pennsylvania - Won by 10.31%
Virginia - Won by 6.30%
West Virginia - Lost by 13.09%
Now, if we count as floor the 179 (current EV) that McCain won, and move the percentages in these regions by 8% away from Obama, we end up adding Indiana, Virginia and Ohio. That would be 29 more EVs for the GOP nominee.
Assuming that the numbers stay steady, dropping Florida (Obama won by 2.81%) and North Carolina (Obama won by 0.33%) into the bucket would add an additional 44 EVs.
With those two assumptions, that brings the GOP figure up to 252 EV.
This would also put Iowa (6), Pennsylvania (20), Minnesota (10) and Wisconsin (10) into play.
Now of those, it looks like Pennsylvania is the plum, right? Wrong. The Upper Midwest has been trending Republican the last several cycles, and making a concerted effort to play to the Upper Midwest is the path most high payed strategists will be looking towards. If you look at the Governors of the Midwest you will see something striking.
Ohio - Kasich (R)
Indiana - Daniels (R)
Wisconsin - Walker (R)
Iowa - Branstad (R)
Michigan - Snyder (R)
Illinois - Quinn (D)
Minnesota - Dayton (D)
Missouri - Nixon (D)
In 2012, 5 of 8 Governors will be GOP. In 2008, only 3 were (Indiana, Minnesota and Missouri). And of the 3 Democratic Governors, only Quinn is in a comfortable position to support Obama in 2012. Nixon ran as a conservative Democrat in Missouri and Dayton won his election by 0.4% in 2010.
The Midwest, in particular the Upper Midwest, is where the fight will be this next election. Minnesota is the lynchpin in my opinion. If it falls, the path that Obama has to re-election becomes, much, much more difficult.
I think Walker will keep taxes low and the "rust belt" will leave Obama.
The youth vote will not be there as most are scared for their future as we have a new term for college graduates Boomerang Students those who can't get a job and move back home.
Everyone seems to be discounting the GOP for doing the smart thing, that is, waiting til’ the last minute to get out there and campaign.
By declaring early, you are simply asking for prolonge 24/7 scrutiny from the MSMedia....
Good analysis. Now we take these basics, with the Dem candidate having disappointed pretty much every independent voter, and use these electoral college trends to choose the right GOP candidate.
I think Sarah palin must be deeply thinking along these lines — she can see that the GOP with a good candidate can win, but there is a math problem with palin’s negatives. If she cannot find a way to overcome her negatives, all caused by the MSM and Tina Fey, she might actuall sway some of the important states away from the GOP.
Also, a mild looking milquetoast candidate might not provide anything other than Not Being Obama, so that could also prove problematic.
Her negatives aren't for any content, so they should for the most part disappear once she starts campaigning. Her name recognition will help her, and voters with any potential to vote GOP will listen to her message to see if she matches the MSNBC/NYT/SNL caricature.
I hope you are right. Her negatives are led by Alinsky mocking which would come from the friends and colleagues of the potential voter. Amazing how devious Alinsky tricks are for spreading and shaming people into groupthink. If palin speaks about this honestly, she may have a shot to overcome this.
As in “...people will tell you I’m stupid. They will tell you that I don’t know what newspapers I read, or that I can see russia from my house...”. I mean, she has to fight Alinsky with brains and turn the mocking back on the idiots who try to make her into the Fey caricature.
Well, what I meant by that is look to the polls that matter. The president is elected by popular vote but on a state by state basis, with each state by the votes of its people populating the national assembly called the Electoral College. And whoever gets a majority of the members of the assembly gets the presdency.
I think she's shown talent in that direction. I just hope she can continue.
No, 1860 does not qualify. I said “plurality”—and Abe Lincoln got 39.8% of the popular vote.
The others are seconday battlegrounds. If the Republicans have to duke it out to win Virginia or North Carolina, they've already list. If the Democrats have to duke it out to win Minnesota or Michigan, they've lost as well.
Especially with Minnesota. They last time Minnesota went GOP in a presidential contest was 1972, though Reagan did come within less than 4,000 votes in his 1984 landslide. For some unexplainable reason, Minnesota voters have a soft spot for dumb candidates. Look at the present governor and two U.S. Senators for Exhibit A.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
