An Early Look at Obama's Re-elect

Coverage of the 2012 elections has recently gone into overdrive, with attention focused largely on two issues: President Obama's standing in the polls and the Electoral College. The two are obviously interrelated. Though it's a bit early to be discussing all of this (there's almost no correlation between a president's standing in the polls at this point and where he ends up in November two years later) it is always useful to examine where things stand today - with the understanding that things may change for the better or for the worse for either party over the next 18 months.

One thing the polling data have confirmed over the last two years is this: President Obama is more popular than his policies. Going back to the earliest days of his presidency, Obama's overall job approval rating has typically been higher than the ratings he's received from voters on most individual issues - particularly on top domestic concerns like the economy, spending, the deficit and health care.

It isn't hard to see why this is so. The president continues to be viewed in the public's eye as a likeable person, a faithful husband and a good father. African American voters and liberal voters continue to adore the president. The historic nature of his presidency drew independent voters to him in 2008, and while they have abandoned him and his party in droves over the last two years over policy issues, they continue to have a certain level of affection for him personally.

Because the president generates so much personal goodwill, then, it isn't clear that his approval rating has the same political effects that other presidents' approval ratings do.

RE :”If Pelosi were still in charge, perhaps we would stand a better chance of beating Obama in 2012. However, look how much more damage these clowns could do to our country over the next two years. More debt, more cementing of the Obamacare.”

I understand that voting Democrat or holding back voting in 2010 to win the next election (2012) would be a very risky/cynical strategy. (although losing RINO seats might of helped in the House.)

On the other hand if Pelosi had a 10 Seat majority and Reid had his 3 seat majority everything could be blocked, and Democrats would have all the responsibility on them to produce.

Looking forward, I don't see an effective strategy emerging to beat Obama politically with the new House majority. just calling him a socialist wont do it anymore like it did last year because his is playing 'Mr Reasonable' and Pelosi is gone.

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). That candidate would get the needed 270 electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning districts or 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, some 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).

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 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

Are you referring to these polls?

In the 3 state examples of polling 800 voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state’s winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”
Question 2: “Do you think it more important that a state’s electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?”

Support for a National Popular Vote

South Dakota — 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages...php#SD_2009MAY

Connecticut — 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2.
see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages...php#CT_2009MAY

Utah — 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2.
see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages...php#UT_2009MAY

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.