Electoral College

Obama Strategies To Win Reelection In 2012: Alternative Routes To Victory

Ronald 1 Comment

Barack Obama seems extremely likely to win the entire Northeast from Maine to Maryland and Washington, DC in 2012, with possibly New Hampshire and Pennsylvania as exceptions. So that would be 112 electoral votes, or without Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, 88 electoral votes.

He is expected also to win the Pacific Coast states of California, Oregon and Washington as well, which would mean 74 electoral votes.

In the Midwest, Illinois is a certainty, and the upper Midwest seems strongly Democratic too, including Michigan, WIsconsin, and Minnesota, which means these four states are together a total of 56 electoral votes.

So far, that adds up to 218 electoral votes, without New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, and with them, it is 242, 28 short of the number needed, 270 electoral votes, to win the Presidency.

So what is needed to guarantee an Obama victory?

1, The state of Florida with 29 electoral votes would put Obama over the top with all of the above states, and add Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado, all with growing Hispanic and Latino populations, and supportive of Obama the last time, and you get 26 electoral votes, to replace a possible loss of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

2. Another scenario is to win Ohio and Missouri, the two states most representative of the winning Presidential candidates, with Ohio being with the GOP nominee every time he has won in US History, and Missouri wrong only twice on the Presidential winner since 1900–1956 and 2008–with their combined 28 replacing Florida or Iowa and the three Southwestern states.

3. Another strategy is to try to win in Georgia and Arizona, along with Missouri, three states won by John McCain in 2008, but all susceptible to moving to Obama with growing Hispanic and Latino populations. This way one gains 37 electoral votes, replacing either Florida OR Iowa and the three Southwestern states.

4. Also, if Obama wins Virginia and North Carolina, he wins 28 electoral votes and does not need Florida, OR Ohio and Missouri, OR Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado!

The point is that Obama has many scenarios to win, and it is very hard to imagine that all of the above combinations of states will go to a Republican party as right wing and divided as it now is, demonstrated even more by the debacle over the middle class tax cut continuation, leading to a split between Republicans in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

So Obama supporters need to work hard, but the future looks bright!

Three “Red” States In Play For 2012 Presidential Election

Ronald Leave a comment

With one year to go to the Presidential Election Of 2012, discussion about the Electoral College has begun.

The question has been whether Barack Obama can hold on to most of the “swing states” which he won in 2008.

But at the same time, there are actually three “red’ states of 2008 that Obama has a possibility of winning–Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona–with a total of 37 electoral votes.

Missouri (10 electoral votes) was won by John McCain by less than 4,000 votes in 2008, and it took a few days to declare McCain the winner because of the very close vote. Missouri is also the ultimate “swing state”, as it ALWAYS has gone to the winner of the Presidency since 1900, except TWICE–going to Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 and to McCain over Obama in 2008.

Georgia (16 electoral votes) went to McCain in 2008 by 196,000 votes, a margin of a little over 5 percent of the vote, but now the growing Hispanic population could be enough to give the state to Obama.

Arizona (11 electoral votes), the home of McCain, went to the senator in 2008 also by a margin of 196,000 votes, a margin of about 8.5 percent, but with the rapidly growing Hispanic population there also, and McCain not on the ballot as a “favorite son”, the possibility exists that Obama could win that state.

So if Obama were to win one or more of the three states mentioned, he could afford to lose some of the “swing states” that he won in 2008.

Nate Silver Gives Odds For Republican Presidential Candidates A Year Before The Presidential Election

Ronald 1 Comment

Nate Silver of the NEW YORK TIMES on Friday explained, according to his statistical model, the odds of any GOP candidate for President having the opportunity to win the popular vote in the 2012 Presidential Election..

Note he does not say that any of these candidates will win the election, because, of course, the Electoral College will decide who wins the White House, and four times the popular vote loser nationally (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000) has won the election.

According to his model, the best candidate with the most opportunity to win is Jon Huntsman, the former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China, who has so far made no dent in the public opinion polls.

And yet, Silver’s argument is that with a 2.5% growth of the economy in 2012, a fairly tepid growth thought to be the most likely and best scenario, Huntsman has a 71 percent chance of winning the popular vote, as compared to 58 percent for Mitt Romney. No other candidate can win under this model, with Herman Cain having a 41 percent chance, Rick Perry a 30 percent chance, and Michele Bachmann having a 12 percent chance.

IF there is a stalled economy with no growth, Huntsman’s chances rise to 90 percent, Romney to 83 percent, Cain to 70 percent, Perry to 59 percent, and Bachmann to 34 percent.

If GDP grows only 2.3 percent instead of 2.5 percent, Huntsman has a 73 percent chance of winning, Romney 60 percent, Cain 44 percent, Perry 32 percent, and Bachmann 14 percent.

If the economy grows by the unexpected amount of 4 percent GDP growth, then Huntsman has a 55 percent chance, Romney 40 percent, Cain 25 percent, Perry 17 percent, and Bachmann 5 percent.

Notice that Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are not even considered in this model drawn up by Nate Silver.

It ultimately comes down to what the author has said many times; that Jon Huntsman, despite his poor performance in polls so far, is by far the best bet for the Republican Party against Barack Obama, BUT the Tea Party does not care for him; evangelical Christians will not like him for being a Mormon; and unless he can win New Hampshire, he will have no opportunity to move ahead, and right now it seems unlikely.

And since Romney has many of the same problems as Huntsman, as listed above, and has actually less of a chance than Huntsman among key GOP groups, it looks likely that the Republican Party will blow the chance they theoretically have to win the White House!

A Further Elaboration On An Obama Electoral College Victory In 2012

Ronald Leave a comment

Barack Obama will win the 2012 Presidential Election in the Electoral College, no matter how one wishes to interpret it!

Let the following facts explain that reality.

Barack Obama will win the following states for certain:

Maine-4
Vermont-3
Massachusetts–11
Connecticut–7
Rhode Island–4
New York–29
New Jersey–14
Delaware–3
Maryland–10
District of Columbia–3
Illinois–20
Washington–12
Oregon–7
California–55
Hawaii–4

This adds up to 186 electoral votes, 84 shy of the 270 needed.

Obama has a good chance of wining at least some of the battleground states that he won in 2008, including New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. Also, some think he could win Georgia with the growing Hispanic vote there. Also, Missouri is a possible win, only lost in 2008 by a few thousand votes.

With only 84 electoral votes needed to reach 270, can any sane individual believe Obama will not win enough electoral votes from 16 potential states with 198 electoral votes?

He is most likely to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado–a total of 56 electoral votes, leaving him 28 electoral votes short of 270.

The betting is good that Obama would win at least one major battleground state, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina or Florida at the least–with Pennsylvania and Ohio together, Virginia and North Carolina together, and Florida separately capable by themselves in giving him enough electoral votes to win 270 electoral votes. Altogether, they have 95 electoral votes.

That leaves New Hampshire, Iowa, Indiana as more doubtful, and Georgia and Missouri on the outside looking in, both a possibility but more difficult to accomplish for Obama–all together only having 47 electoral votes.

Of course, if by some miracle, Obama was to win all of the above states–30 plus the District of Columbia, he would have won two more states (Georgia and Missouri) and a total of 384 electoral votes as compared to 365 in 2008!

The Electoral College Reality In 2012–Eleven States Can Win The Presidency Theoretically

Ronald 1 Comment

As a result of changes in the Electoral College, due to population growth, in theory eleven states, if won by one candidate for the Presidency, can determine the election, no matter what the popular vote totals.

The eleven largest states add up to exactly the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House lease for the next four years.

In order, these states are:

California 55
Texas 38
New York 29
Florida 29
Pennsylvania 20
Illinois 20
Ohio 18
Michigan 16
Georgia 16
North Carolina 15
New Jersey 14

Therefore, 3 Northeastern states, 3 Midwestern states, 4 Southern states, and one Western state make up enough electoral votes to determine the winner.

Of course, no one can expect in this or any election that either candidate will win ALL of these states, but at this point a year before the election, only Texas seems out of reach for Barack Obama.

The states that seem certain for him would include: California, New York, Illinois and New Jersey.

The states that he won in 2008 that are “battleground” states in 2012 are Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and North Carolina.

Georgia along with Texas went to John McCain in 2008, but Georgia, with its growing Hispanic population, could go to Obama in a close race, although Texas still seems a few elections away before the Hispanic vote can tip the state “blue”

Of course, other states NOT in the top eleven will be important, including Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Indiana (11), Missouri (10), and Washington (12), all of which Obama won in 2008, except for the very close election in Missouri.

So out of all the states mentioned above, Obama ONLY lost Texas, Georgia, and Missouri (closely).

So Obama ONLY lost three of the top 17 states, with a 2012 total of 64 electoral votes, in 2008

If Obama wins all of the states he has won before, he would have a total of 272 electoral votes, and this does NOT include states such as Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, and Hawaii, all of which he won in 2008!

Any way one looks at it, Barack Obama has a great electoral vote advantage for 2012, one year before the election, and it is hard to imagine him losing enough states to a divided, confused Republican Party that has no strong, knowledgeable, principled leader found in any one person running for the nomination!

The Flaws Of A Mitt Romney Presidential Candidacy

Ronald 1 Comment

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has many virtues, many positives, that should make him a model candidate for the White House, including:

1. Strong business background with Bain Capital and as head of the Salt Lake City Olympics Committee for 2002.
2. Promoted a health care plan in Massachusetts which is seen as a major success by many.
3. Bright, intelligent, photogenic candidate, with great family image, including his wife and five sons.
4. Knowledgeable about economic matters, and seen as Presidential caliber in many people’s minds.
5. Has presented good body language in debates and has greater potential to appeal to moderates, Independents, and conservative Democrats.

Despite all of the above, there are a long list of flaws that will make it difficult for Romney to win the GOP nomination for President, and if he does, to win the election over President Barack Obama. Among them are :

1. Romney comes across as a chameleon, a person who is constantly over the years changing his views on many issues, seen as originally a moderate and trying to paint himself as a conservative–therefore perceived as a phony candidate, and a “flip flopper”!
2. Romney was not well liked personally by his opponents in the 2008 Presidential race, particularly John McCain and Mike Huckabee, and is not even now well liked by the Bush clan and other Establishment Republicans.
3. Romney is not well regarded by evangelical Christians, a large group in primaries and caucuses, because of his Mormon faith, and one wonders could he win the “Bible Belt” South and Great Plains, areas usually Republican. but seeing Mormons as a cult, and not Christian!
4. All through the race for the GOP nomination, despite Romney showing the best ability in polls to compete with President Obama, there has been a constant search for an alternative, whether Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, and now Chris Christie, not a sign of much feeling of emotion or passionate feelings of love for Romney.
5. Romney has shown insensitivity toward average people, by joking that he is unemployed; by talking about his Cadillacs collection; and by having a project to increase the size of his home to a mansion at a time when many are losing their own homes. Being the richest candidate in the race may give him a money edge, but he comes across as not understanding the problems of the middle class!
6. Despite his recent improved debate performances, Romney still has an image of being stiff, uncomfortable in his own skin, not totally relaxed, and not truly knowing how to deal with irate questioners at rallies, and with strong criticism. It makes one wonder would he be able to work well with Congress, whether his own party or the opposition, with so little political experience, only one term as Governor, and thinking his lack of a career in politics is a plus, which it really is not!
7. Romney’s ability to get people out to vote for him is doubtful, since he does not evoke strong feelings of support, and his poll numbers are still seen as very soft.
8. Romney’s attempt to steer clear of the Tea Party Movement makes one wonder if he could ever work well with fellow Republicans, who in many cases would be much further to the right politically than he would feel comfortable being himself, once in office.
9. Can a candidate from the Northeast, the stronghold of Barack Obama, have any opportunity to defeat him in any scenario that would add up to 270 electoral votes? That seems highly doubtful, as in many ways, Romney comes across as somewhat distant in the same way as two past Massachusetts Democrats who ran for President had trouble overcoming–Michael Dukakis in 1988 and John Kerry in 2004. Those two who lost to father and son Bush did not face a man with the charisma and emotional feelings of support that Barack Obama has had, and even in bad times, still has to some extent today!
10. By coming out hard line against immigration reform that allows illegal immigrants and their children a path to citizenship, Romney, like other Republicans, is losing the future, as Hispanic population and voter participation is growing in the Southwest and across the nation, and they are not likely to throw support to a candidate who demeans them and treats them as not deserving of respect and empathy for their futures in America!

There are probably other points that could be made, but it is clear that Mitt Romney has major flaws in so many ways that his candidacy for President is going to require a lot of luck and good fortune for him to end up in the Oval Office!

Could Jon Huntsman Be The John Anderson Of 2012? What Effect Could It Have On The Presidential Election?

Ronald Leave a comment

Some speculation and rumors are beginning that Jon Huntsman, the moderate centrist candidate in the Republican race for the Presidential nomination, might abandon the party and run as a third party candidate, appealing to the center of the population. Right now, in reality, he scores exactly one percent in eighth and last place of the Gallup poll, on the Republican race for President, so he might not have any sustaining influence, but who can know this far ahead?:

Huntsman has been depicting Barack Obama as too far to the Left, and all of his GOP opponents as too far to the RIght, and his argument is that the Center, where most people are, needs to have representation in the election.

Huntsman is an appealing candidate in his appearance and speaking manner, and comes across as rational and reasonable to people who are disgusted at the growing right wing extremism of the Republican Party. He has personal wealth, and is courted by the news media, so in theory, he could run a substantial third party of independent bid.

In many respects, he appears to be similar to former Illinois Congressman John Anderson, once one of the top leaders of the Republican minority, who left the party and ran as an Independent in 1980, claiming that President Jimmy Carter had been disappointing and that Ronald Reagan was too far to the Right. After winning a lot of media support and 15 percent in polls, he was able to gain the opportunity to meet Reagan in one debate, with Carter refusing to confront him. Anderson made Reagan look weak in their debate, but then Reagan performed well against Carter and won a landslide victory, with Anderson only winning 7 percent of the vote. Many who flirted with Anderson, including this author, ended up not voting for him, with the recognition that third party or independent candidates only hurt one of the candidates, and cannot win with the Electoral College reality which favors the major party candidates.

If Huntsman were to run, the question is would he hurt Obama or the Republican nominee more? There is no easy answer to this question, but it would certainly “muddy up the waters” of the campaign were he to do that.

Sadly, even if one hoped that such a so called Centrist candidate were to run, at the end we are going to have either Obama or the Republican nominee as our President for the next term, and easily the preference would be for Obama, who the author regards as the best Democratic President since Lyndon B. Johnson!

The author was not thrilled at the time with Jimmy Carter, and often even with Bill Clinton later, but right now, he would be opposed to a Jon Huntsman, or any other, third party candidate, who might just harm Obama and elect the horrors of a Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Ron Paul!

Time For Reality Check On Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment And Third Party Potential For Success In Presidential Elections

Ronald Leave a comment

Unfortunately, many Americans, probably a vast majority, live with a false set of facts about American government, as it stands under the Constitution. There is a major need for a reality check!

Many people, including Republicans in Congress, seem to think that a balanced budget amendment will solve our economic problems, when there is absolutely no chance of that occurring! Any constitutional amendment required a two thirds vote of the House of Representatives, followed by a two thirds vote of the US Senate, and then a majority vote in each of the two houses in three fourths or 38 of the 50 states, with the only exception being Nebraska, which only has a one house or unicameral legislature.

We are not ever going to bring about 290 out of 435 votes in the House of Representatives and 67 out of 100 votes in the Senate for such an amendment! Only 36 proposed amendments have EVER achieved this two thirds vote, and the number of failed amendments is in the hundreds over our history!

But notice, even with 36 amendments making it through the Congress, we have only 27 amendments, telling us that NINE amendments failed to gain a three fourths support of state legislatures. Another way to put it is that IF there is a one vote majority in one of the two houses of the state legislatures against an amendment in just THIRTEEN states at a minimum, the amendment fails to be added to the Constitution.

There is no realistic possibility of a balanced budget amendment EVER making it into the Constitution, no matter what politicians say! And were it to happen, it would create a strait jacket, paralyzing us in a time of economic collapse, war, or natural disaster, no matter what limitations are put into such an amendment. It is time for serious minded people to give up the idea that such an amendment will EVER pass, and instead, take responsibility for the fact that the federal government IS necessary, and that we are all going to have to pay more taxes, whether we like it or not, and that it is PATRIOTIC to pay our fair share, including the super wealthy being thankful for their good fortune, and paying the tax level they used to pay from the 1940s through the 1970s, and certainly at the least, the levels of the Bill Clinton years in the White House!

It is also time for “dreamers”, who have the view that a serious third party movement could lead to the election of a President, to get a reality check as well!

Our electoral college system, which can only be changed by a constitutional amendment, which is not going to happen either, prevents a third party candidate from winning, with Theodore Roosevelt performing the best as a third party candidate of the Progressive Party in 1912, but only winning six states and 88 electoral votes, about a third of what is needed to win the White House. The only reason even he did that well was that he was a former President and extremely popular. Such a scenario will NEVER happen again, particularly with the 22nd Amendment, which limits Presidents to two complete terms in office, something not existing in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt ran for what would have been a third, but non consecutive term as President.

Even if such a thing could happen, a third party candidate without major party backing would have an impossible situation gaining support to govern effectively, as indeed, independent Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota discovered in his term from 1999-2003!

For good or for bad, we are stuck with the two party system, and we will be electing a Democrat or a Republican for the Presidency for the long term future!

So forget the constitutional amendment route for a balanced budget, and ignore the thoughts of a third party movement electing a President, and instead accept the reality of the American future–we need to work within the system and just pick better people for public office, as we always have the right to do by voting and organizing, and stop hating our government, which with its faults, is still essential and necessary in our daily lives, as much as we would wish otherwise in our dreams!

The Effects Of The Latino-Hispanic Vote On The 2012 Presidential Election

Ronald Leave a comment

With the rapid growth of the Latino-Hispanic population, from one eighth in 2000 to one sixth of the population in 2010 according to the Census Bureau, the 2012 Presidential Election will be giving President Obama a tremendous edge in states that otherwise would be major battlegrounds.

Assuming a decent turnout for Obama among Latinos-Hispanics, as well as African Americans, Obama is now seen as likely, statistically, to win Nevada and Florida again and have a real shot at winning Georgia, which he failed to win in 2008.

Obama only needs to win 25 percent of the white vote in Georgia, 35 percent in Nevada, and just under 40 percent in Florida to win those states in the electoral college.

Obama’s call today for comprehensive immigration reform, calling on the Republican opposition to work together on this important issue, may be a political ploy, but realistically, if the GOP continues its hard line view on illegal immigrants, as in Arizona, the result is likely to be a smashing defeat in 2012, and this is not considering the issue that the Republicans seem unable to come up with a winner, someone that turns party members on and is likely to draw the votes of other than whites in the population.

It seems to the author that only Jon Huntsman, and possibly Mitt Romney, even have the potential to appeal to non white voters in 2012, but the odds of either being the nominee seems remote at this point of time.

The Donald Trump Phenomenon: It Can Only Hurt The Republican Party And Help The Democrats!

Ronald 1 Comment

Real estate mogul Donald Trump is on a tear, exploiting the “Birther” conspiracy theory about Barack Obama, and he has now surged in some polls to a lead in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012.

Despite his multiple business bankruptcies, his three marriages, and his tendency to “shoot from the hip” with ridiculous and reckless statements and assertions over many years, Trump is suddenly taking all of the oxygen out of the air in the Republican Party.

Trump is becoming more ridiculous and even stupid as he marches on, now claiming, much like Congressman Ben Quayle of Arizona, son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, did in his campaign for Congress last year, that President Obama is the absolutely worst President in American history!

For Trump to make such a claim, and say Obama has now surpassed former President Jimmy Carter as the worst President ever, shows his absolute ignorance, as if he had studied history, he would well know that there is a long list of Presidents, mostly before and after Abraham Lincoln’s Presidency, that are FAR worse than either Carter or Obama! In fact, in the first estimate of Obama a year ago, he was rated in the top fifteen of the Presidents, while Carter was rated above at least twelve Presidents, putting him in the second tier of three rankings of the Presidents! And Carter seems certain to move up over time, not down to the bottom five or ten, as some like to state, which shows their total lack of knowledge and understanding of the history of the Presidency!

Also, when Trump was asked how many members there are of the House Of Representatives, he was annoyed and refused to answer, a sign that he did not know, putting him in the same camp as being stupid and ignorant as Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum, all of whom have shown they have no clue about any facts or details of our nation’s history!

Why should Donald Trump be expected to know anything other than how to make money, fire people on his television show, and look for constant publicity, since, after all, he inherited his wealth, and has never known what it is to be an ordinary American, who has to worry constantly about staying above water economically?

Rather than study and know the issues, Donald Trump would rather talk about telling China off, seizing Iraq oil revenues, and create constant controversy with his loose mouth?

And get this: Trump is now threatening that if he does not win the GOP nomination for President, he might run as an Independent in the 2012 election, and that with spending up to $600 million of his own money, that he could win the White House! In other words, he would buy the job, much like Rick Scott did in Florida”s Governorship race!

But the difference is that the Electoral College, often much maligned, prevents such a possibility, and NEVER has and NEVER will an Independent be able to win the White House! Ross Perot spent $62 million of his fortune, received 19 percent of the vote, but won no electoral votes in 1992! And Theodore Roosevelt, the much beloved former President, ran as a Progressive in 1912, and won only six states and 27 percent of the votes, and 88 electoral votes, an all time high, but nowhere near winning the Presidency! And this was not just anyone, but rather Teddy Roosevelt!

So stay ignorant and stupid, Donald, and spend your money on your own ego, help the economy in so doing, get your publicity and attention that you constantly need, destroy the Republican Party which is doing a good job by itself in doing so by flirting with the Tea Party, and help Barack Obama, supposedly the worst President ever, to win reelection and continue his great leadership of the nation for another four years!