States that will fall away from Obama in 2012

[pbrower2a]

Most likely is Indiana and I don't even believe he won it in 2008. It was ACORN cheating to give him IN, NC, OH, FL, VA, NV, and CO. The media's polls almost match up cuz they are also biased left. Without all the second graders, deceased, and disney characters, Obama loses NC, VA, IN, OH, and FL easily.

ACORN had no such power. It's possible to win a close election by cheating in one place, as has been claimed on occasion -- like Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Multiple places? As John Boehner says, "Hell no, you can't!"

One can just as easily attribute the electoral success of Barack Obama, a failed President on the other side, a catastrophic choice of a VP nominee by the Republicans,  and an economy that got very bad very fast. One can also recognize that Barack Obama is a superb campaigner and that demographic trends favored Democrats in 2008 as they didn't in 2000 and 2004.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia haven't voted  for a Republican nominee since 1988 -- and they all voted decisively for Barack Obama, that is by 10% or more. Those states and DC accounted for 248 electoral votes in 2008. If you see it this way, then the GOP has been operating with  92% of a loss  built into every Presidential race after 1988. That leaves little wiggle room.

States that had voted for a Republican nominee (George W. Bush) only once after 1988 (Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico) also went firmly for Obama in 2008.  Those states went for Obama by at least 9%, so they weren't close. That put Obama within easy striking range of an electoral victor with 264 electoral votes. That is 97.8% of a win, with 264 electoral votes.  Any Obama win of five electoral votes (Nevada) would allow the election to be decided in the House of Representatives.  Anything more-- let us say Arkansas, which has 6 electoral votes, would  give Obama the win outright. Obama didn't win Arkansas and really had no chance there. But there were several other states up for contention.

Let's take a good look at Ohio. In 2004 it was iffy, and had it gone to Ohio, we might have had John Kerry running for re-election in 2008. The economy was (and is still) a mess, much as is so than in either Michigan or Pennsylvania.  If Michigan and Pennsylvania, which are somewhat similar to each other politically and economically and Obama got about a 5% shift toward the Democrats between 2004 and 2008, then how could the Republicans hold onto Ohio, especially if the state's Secretary of State wasn't a partisan hack favoring the GOP?

Let's take a good look at Indiana. I can, because I live in Michigan and have much access to Indiana and Ohio news. Sure, Indiana was arguably a freak. But much went wrong for the GOP.  The state ordinarily is a lock for Republicans, but not this time. The Indiana economy was about as much a mess as were the Michigan or Ohio economies; that is bad for an incumbent.  The Democratic nominee actively campaigned in Indiana because he could do so easily. For a while, Michigan was in doubt, so the Obama campaign had to buy advertising in the South Bend-Elkhart area to get access to a part of Michigan that gets its TV from northwestern Indiana. Ohio was in doubt until a few days before the election, and to reach certain parts of Ohio, the Obama campaign needed to buy advertising time in Fort Wayne to reach certain parts of Ohio.

That advertising worked in part to make Indiana a possible win. Indiana does not go for Democratic  nominees for President in close elections. It was one of the worst states for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. neither Clinton nor Kennedy ever came close to winning the state -- and both were about as adept campaigners as Obama. It is a hard state in which to campaign, and a Republican machine makes it a difficult state to contest. Obama did -- and won it.

The rest? Nevada was a complete meltdown for the Republicans because of the real estate meltdown. Colorado? A legitimate swing state in most years, it had a rapidly-growing Hispanic population that rejected McCain. Different as Colorado and Florida are in geography, their demographics are surprisingly similar. Virginia? The state hadn't voted for a Democratic nominee since 1964, but the state was drifting D for a long time. North Carolina? Much the same.

Sure, Virginia has since voted for right-wing stealth candidates as Governor and Attorney General... a political nutcase. If there had been any political shenanigans in Virginia in 2008, do you think that that right-wing hack wouldn't be going after those?

Keep denying the reality of the 2008 election. Keep promising an abortion ban, creationism and prayer in public schools, and other aspects of the Culture Wars of the 1990s and the Double Zero Decade -- promises that the Hard Right has yet to deliver upon. Keep promising tax cuts to the super-rich that can do little more than create speculative bubbles, and Americans will reject you. Keep denying the foreign-policy successes of our President and that our economy seems to have stabilized.

The best thing that can happen for the GOP in 2010 and 2012 is further losses. The GOP has had much the same coalition for victory that worked in 1980, 1994, 2000, and 2004.  That coalition has eroded, and it is even breaking down. The GOP needs to develop a new coalition that can win election, and it won't be between sultan-like plutocrats and people who don't care about economic consequences so long as they get empty promises of a changed culture in their favor. There just aren't enough people to win consistently for the GOP, which has not made gains outside its core areas of support.

The Democrats, badly defeated in three consecutive Presidential campaigns between 1980 and 1988 ended up rebuilding one under Reagan and Bush I landslides.  Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were both Southern moderates fairly similar in political values. But Clinton won with a combination of states very different from those that Carter won in 1976.

Go ahead and deny as you wish -- but demographic trends alone suggest that Obama will win at least as decisively in 2012 as in 2008. An economy in form recovery and clear achievements in foreign policy (like China imposing sanctions on Iran), not to mention the possible extraction of US armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq... and the Republican nominee for President could easily face a defeat as smashing as Stevenson in 1956. 

President Obama won't need ACORN in 2012. He had better not; the organization is now defunct.

[pbrower2a]

Most likely is Indiana and I don't even believe he won it in 2008. It was ACORN cheating to give him IN, NC, OH, FL, VA, NV, and CO. The media's polls almost match up cuz they are also biased left. Without all the second graders, deceased, and disney characters, Obama loses NC, VA, IN, OH, and FL easily.

ACORN had no such power. It's possible to win a close election by cheating in one place, as has been claimed on occasion -- like Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Multiple places? As John Boehner says, "Hell no, you can't!"

One can just as easily attribute the electoral success of Barack Obama, a failed President on the other side, a catastrophic choice of a VP nominee by the Republicans,  and an economy that got very bad very fast. One can also recognize that Barack Obama is a superb campaigner and that demographic trends favored Democrats in 2008 as they didn't in 2000 and 2004.

Palin was an excellent choice for VP.  She energized the conservative base.  Money was flowing in!  Barack Obama is a sub-par campaigner who can fire passion in nobody when the environment is not in his favor.  He was a blank slate in '08, a political Rorschach test.  What's this nonsense about demographic trends?  Are we supposed to believe in four short years that the demographics of America changed so drastically?

It took more than four years. In 2004 the youngest voters were much more Democratic-leaning than the rest of America in a close election. In 2008 there were more. The Hispanic segment of the electorate  has been growing rapidly. In 2004 it voted decidedly for Kerry. In 2008 it was larger.

From 1980 to 2000, the youngest voters were trending Republican. That changed. Generation X is more entrepreneurial in its attitudes and more likely to blame itself for personal failures. Generation Y is more collectivistic and less likely to blame itself for the choices imposed from above and much less likely to participate in the Culture Wars that the GOP has adeptly exploited in recent years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevant.  Many of these states, such as those in the Midwest, have been very close.  You can't just assign them as part of a "blue firewall" because that firewall has never existed.[/quote]

The political cultures of the states are very real, and such showed clearly in 2000, 2004, and 2008. Take a good look at some of the margins. Do you really believe that Minnesota jas the same political culture as Mississippi?

The Blue Firewall is real. The Republicans are not going to win many Presidential elections )although they can, in view of 2000 and 2004 if everything else breaks 'right' for them)  until they cease alienating people in a bunch of states that haven't voted for a Republican nominee since at least 1992. The odds against those states so voting since 1992 -- and many of them voted for Gerald Ford in 1976 (CA, OR, WA, IL, MI, CT, NJ, VT, ME) by random chance alone is one in a number with 29 digits.  
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is the reality of the 2008 election?  The economy tanked, and voters went with the opposite party.  Obama's skills as campaigner (or lack thereof) were irrelevant. 

Obama is a very skilled communicator when he is talking to people who already like him.  (Indecent language excised) [/quote]

Big deal. So is Sarah Palin with people who fit the "right" characteristics.

The 2012 election will be decided upon the issues that usually decide whether an incumbent wins or loses. Is the economy solid or improving, or is it going in the tank? Does the President have a record of legislative achievements or does he have none? Does he have a good international situation (basically peace or the prospect of military victory) or a bad one for which he isn't held at fault? Has he avoided scandals or is he mired in them? Is he an adept politician on a national scale and does he know how to campaign?

Failures to get re-elected since 1900 are:

1. William Howard Taft. 1912. Poor fit as President; great jurist.

2. Herbert Hoover. 1932. Economy still melting down after three years.

3. Gerald R. Ford. 1976. Shaky economy, had never run a statewide campaign for elective office.

4. Jimmy Carter. 1980.  Shaky economy, marginal campaigner, hostage situation in Iran.  

5. George W. Bush. 1992. Couldn't offer a reason for a Second Act as President. He achieved about all that he could ever achieve in four years.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could, could, could.  pbrower's posts are splattered with things that could, theoretically, happen.  But Obama's policies aren't going to lift our economy out of the recession, not with inflation setting in and the price of gas skyrocketing.  On foreign policy, he has embraced our enemies and thrown our allies out in the cold.  People like Sarkozy, those who know him best, intensely dislike him.  Israel no longer trusts us.[/quote]

How would you know about Sarkozy? Do you rely heavily upon the Propaganda Channel (FoX "News")? Which "enemies" are you talking about?

As for the recession:



Fourteen months of recovery have turned the most dangerous economic meltdown since the Great Depression into a more "ordinary" recession.

So long as their pay outpaces inflation, millions of Americans will be happy. After eight years of an economic disaster that has ravaged personal savings, one of the usual effects of inflation (devaluation of savings accounts, insurance policies, and bonds) won't have the effect that it did on Jimmy Carter's Presidency.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

al  Qaeda? Ahmedinejad? Kim Jong Il? the Taliban? International drug traffickers? No way is any one of those enemies easy to defeat!  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that President Obama would love to privatize  the segment of the economy that Paulson, Geithner, and Bernanke pressed Dubya to take over in the autumn of 2008.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And shrinking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The campaigns of the general election have yet to begin. Don't worry; President Obama will appear where he is most needed and can do the most to defend Democrats running for re-election and  aid Democrats running for open seats.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Net four Senate seats for the GOP, Democrats still have a majority in the House. But even if the Republican Party gains majorities i either House, Obama campaigns much like Harry Truman in 1948 against a GOP-dominated House and Senate  





[/quote]

[pbrower2a]

Go ahead and deny as you wish -- but demographic trends alone suggest that Obama will win at least as decisively in 2012 as in 2008. An economy in form recovery and clear achievements in foreign policy (like China imposing sanctions on Iran), not to mention the possible extraction of US armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq... and the Republican nominee for President could easily face a defeat as smashing as Stevenson in 1956. 

President Obama won't need ACORN in 2012. He had better not; the organization is now defunct.

Didn't "demography" once suggest that we were heading for the age of the permanent Republican Majority?

Yes -- in the 1990s, when the Religious Right was growing, the Rust Belt was hemorrhaging population, and the youngest voters trended Republican. That is over. The Democratic trend will reverse at some point -- probably around 2020.

Voters born after 1980 are the most liberal-leaning since the young voters of the 1930s. But note well: around 2020 you can expect to see lots of elected officials in high places born in the 1980s.

[pbrower2a]

I'd like to see him try to get Indiana from Mitch Daniels lol. North Carolina is gone too. He has already worn out his welcome in the south.

1. Indiana
2. North Carolina
3. Virginia
4. Florida
5. Colorado
6. Nevada
7. Ohio
8. Iowa
9. Wisconsin
10. New Hampshire
11. Pennsylvania
12. New Mexico

This is in likeliness ranking. I'd say the first 7 on this list are gone at  this point.

The most recent poll in North Carolina (it was within the last moth) showed that Barack Obama had an approval rating among likely voters of the 2010 midterm election of 47%, which is probably enough with which to win. 44% is the break-even point for an incumbent.

[pbrower2a]

Since the census will likely switch 6-7 EV to the Republicans, their path to the Whitehouse is slightly easier in 2012.
Looking at the two party vote in 2008 we can rank order the likely switches:
State          Dem Winning % 2008    2012 EV
North Carolina   49.7                       15
Indiana           49.9                          11
Florida            50.9                           28
Ohio               51.4                           18
Virginia           52.6                           13
     
Given Obama's fall in the Polls, NC, IN, FL are highly likely to go Republican.  I think OH will also fall but VA is a toss up, with the huge growth in the federal government comes new Democratic voters in N. VA  However if VA goes Republican, then the Republicans only need one of the following to win:

Colorado          53.7                   9
Iowa               53.9                   6
Minnesota         54.1                 10
New Hampshire  54.1                   4
Pennsylvania    54.5                 20
Nevada           55.2                   6
Wisconsin        56.2                 10
Oregon            56.7                   7
New Mexico      56.9                   5

Of course having a good Republican candidate would help!

A Quinnipiac poll just showed President Obama with a 50% approval rating.  Disapproval was 45%.

Aye, there's the rub. Wherever the GOP nominee has a lower approval than the President, Obama wins.

[pbrower2a]

I'd like to see him try to get Indiana from Mitch Daniels lol. North Carolina is gone too. He has already worn out his welcome in the south.

1. Indiana
2. North Carolina
3. Virginia
4. Florida
5. Colorado
6. Nevada
7. Ohio
8. Iowa
9. Wisconsin
10. New Hampshire
11. Pennsylvania
12. New Mexico

This is in likeliness ranking. I'd say the first 7 on this list are gone at  this point.

The most recent poll in North Carolina (it was within the last moth) showed that Barack Obama had an approval rating among likely voters of the 2010 midterm election of 47%, which is probably enough with which to win. 44% is the break-even point for an incumbent.

No 50% is the break even point! Any time the incumbent's approval rating is below 50%, then undecided vote has gone unanimously to the challenger since 1948. Besides, a real conservative will rally the base in the south with issues like the NAMBLA member as the school czar, Jeremiah Wright, and the second amendment. It happens every election a conservative runs.

Total bullsh**t.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Incumbents (including the President) can muck up badly and lose; a 55% approval approval rating can become a 42% approval as the result of bad events, blunders, and the decay of general support for one's Party.  So shows the Silver article (which relates to gubernatorial and Senatorial races and not to the Presidency) is not the one that I used for my rationale, but because Presidential races are 50 statewide races and five Congressional-level races the analogy is quite good). Take good looks at Senators George Allen (R-VA) in 2006 and Libby Dole (R-NC) in 2008 -- and see how rare it is that someone whose initial level of support was in the high 40s or low 50s and then lost. Saxby Chambliss came close to being the third, but he still eked out a bare win. Those three are the only ones in the study who initially polled under 55%! Even almost all of the eventual losers  picked up something.


A Senator or Governor might pile on support if given the chance in the only race that matters to his career, but a Presidential candidate has far more than one state to concern himself with. Obama did little campaigning where he believed that he would win more than 55% of the vote in 2008 and little where he knew that he would lose, and I expect much the same in 2012.

Incumbency gives huge advantages for a Governor or Senator. Begin with copious publicity in the form of news. Sure, if the Governor or Senator is incompetent or extreme, then that coverage makes things worse.... but who said that an incompetent politician should get re-elected anyway? An incumbent's campaign can tailor advertising to complement the attention of the news media, the incumbent needing not resort to negative campaigning if it is his desire to create an air of optimism. The incumbent as a rule has experienced campaign staff from the last election; the challenger must often choose between very different proposals by campaign staff that the incumbent finds easier to make.  The incumbent often has access to government vehicles and offices that the challenger lacks.

What applies to a Governor or Senate applies to the President. If a gubernatorial or senatorial campaign is difficult, then just imagine a Presidential campaign which is 50 statewide campaigns, one DC-wide campaign, and five Congressional districts. A challenger from Ohio might try what succeeded in Ohio in California -- only to fail. Fail in enough states and one loses. An incumbent has (Gerald Ford excepted) run a campaign for the Presidency and has some advantage over a challenger in knowing how to run a campaign -- mostly in deciding how to apply resources. Unlike a challenger, the President is actually on the news doing things of Presidential significance, or at least was doing so a few months earlier. Such is good for complementary advertising if it was good. If it wasn't good, then the incumbent loses anyway.

Air Force One and the Presidential Seal impress people who appreciate power alone without judging its use. Any legislative success impresses those who want to go with a winner.

Every President has ups and downs. What matters is whether a President can turn his approval at a certain point in time into a majority, whether one starts with 65% approval or 33% approval. President Obama is below 50% approval, and that is a decline from the start of his Administration. But it is not in the 30s -- it is typically in the high 40s now. Legislative successes, economic performance, improving foreign relations, the absence of scandals, and a strengthening economy could give President Obama somewhere between 55% and 60% of the vote -- somewhere between an Eisenhower-style  landslide or a Reagan-style landslide in popular votes. 

So what can go wrong with President Obama's bid to be re-elected? Plenty. But he would need a Hoover-style meltdown of the economy, a Carter-style disaster analogous to the Iranian hostage crisis, or the complete failure to suggest anything more to do in a second term (as with the elder Bush).