In the discussion thread: Larry Sabato: "most people who claim to be independent really are not" [View all]
Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #17)
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:34 AM
CobaltBlue (1,122 posts)
19. Not so fast . . .
Drunken Irishman writes: Does that mean this election won't be close? Of course not. But Obama also has the benefit of a broader electoral map than Bush. Bush in '04 had to win both Florida & Ohio to win. Obama can lose either and still win. So, it comes down to what we classify as achingly close contest. If Obama wins the popular vote by 1 or 2 points, but wins the electoral college by 68 electoral votes - carrying 303 electoral votes - is it really all that close?
If President Barack Obama is going to get re-elected, history indicates he'll have to flip a state. (Even Woodrow Wilson, the only two-term president with fewer electoral votes with re-election, did that in 1916: he won over Utah which, in 1912, was just one of two states that held for disastrously unseated William Howard Taft.) Since the two major parties first competed in 1856, all those elected to a second term countered their opponents with pickups.
I want to see if Obama is going to win pickups in any of the four on the radar: Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, and Montana. Ariz. and Ga. were raw-vote margins for John McCain just over 200,000; Mont. carried by over 10,000 votes; and Mo. was under 4,000. Can Obama flip any of them? If he can't do so, it's likely three out of the four, or perhaps all four, will be shifting Republican. And if that's the case, just go down the list of states and see which other ones to which that would apply.
As for the theory that losing Florida and Ohio are managable: only one time in the last 100 years did both those states back the losing candidate: 1960, a Democratic pickup year for John Kennedy when Richard Nixon failed to hold the White House for the Republicans. Nixon never lost in Fla. or Ohio. Florida has voted for the winners in all (except 1960 and 1992) since 1928. Ohio has voted for the winners in all (minus 1944 and 1960) since 1896. They're politcally powerful.
If this country decides to fire Obama and hire Mitt Romney, the states are going to fall in line. They tend to do so. And we won't give a damn if Romney has a George W. Bush-like electoral map (which would be my bet) but, instead, we'll do the post-election analyses on why Election 2012 was lost when, as clear as four years ago, there should have been a Democratic landslide re-election for Obama. (Advance warning: A "Democratic" president providing policy and leadership, on numerous issues, as if he may as well have been a Republican was the reason for the losses in 2010. And, with that, an economy that didn't get enough of a stimulus that had most of the electorate, ones who don't follow politics, willing to switch the party occupancy for the presidency.)
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|Wounded Bear||Jul 2012||#10|
|rufus dog||Jul 2012||#12|
|Drunken Irishman||Jul 2012||#17|
Not so fast . . .
|Drunken Irishman||Jul 2012||#24|
Please login to view edit histories.