Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Looking at '12, I think Obama has to be considered the favorite

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 04:17 PM
Original message
Looking at '12, I think Obama has to be considered the favorite
Three big blocks:

California
New York
Illinois

In 2008 electoral votes that is 107 electoral votes (CA should gain a couple, NY & IL probably will lose a a couple--so approximately 104-105 electoral votes in 2012).

New England:
MA
CT
RI
VT
ME

In 2008 those states represented 30 electoral votes--this will probably be down a couple in 2012

Add traditionally Democratic Mid-Atlantic states of:

DE (VP Biden's home state)
MD
NJ
DC

Another 31 electoral votes (believe in '12 MD & DE will be same, but NJ may lose a seat)

In the Midwest add:
Minnesota

10 electoral votes (may be down one in 2012--not sure)

In the Pacific West add:

WA
OR
HI

These represented 22 electoral votes in 2008--good chance WA and OR may add a seat?

Add these blocks up and we have 200 electoral votes in 2008 values--possibly 195 in 2012 values.

So Obama needs roughly 75 electoral votes to reach 270--among these (12) states:

Pennsylvania 21 EV in 2008, possibly 19 in 2012.
New Hampshire 4 EV in 2008, probably the same in 2012.
Michigan 17 EV in 2008, possibly 15 or 16 in 2012.
Ohio 20 EV in 2008, possibly 19 in 2012.
Florida 27 EV in 2008, possibly 29 or 30 in 2012.
North Carolina 15 EV in 2008, possibly 16 in 2012.
Wisconsin 10 EV in 2008, possibly 9 in 2012.
Iowa 7 EV in 2008, possibly the same or less 1 in 2012
Virginia 13 EV in 2008, possibly up 1 or 2 in 2012
New Mexico 5 EV in 2008, could be 6 or 7 in 2012
Colorado 9 EV in 2008, could be 10 in 2012
Nevada 5 EV in 2008, could be 6 in 2012.

There are many intriguing ways for Obama to get to 270 with those states, for instance:

Pennsylvania--Sestak nearly won the senate race, but he didn't get the 300,000 votes he needed out of Philadelphia. In a bigger turnout election, Obama should do very well in Philly, Pittsburgh and hold onto the Philly suburbs--I give Obama an edge in PA.

CO/NM/NV: CO and NV went to the Dems in hard fought Senate races in 2010 thanks to a strong Latino vote. Add NM to the mix--I think edge Obama.

North Carolina & or Virginia: The African-American vote will be much stronger in 2012 with Obama at the top of the ticket--it could tip one or both of these states to the president.

WI/IA/MI: All three of these states went strongly GOP in the midterm elections for Gov, but in 2012 it is not inconceivable that all three or at least 2/3 return to their democratic voting patterns in a presidential election. If Obama wins 2 out of these three along with the above states he will have probably more than enough to be re-elected--and that is even without Ohio and Florida. Of course if he won those two--game over.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. I can't think of a single credible Republican challenger for 2012 (so far, anyway)
Plus, the Republican Tea Party is likely going to be a disaster and more people will undoubtedly turn out to vote in 2012.

Obama will most likely be fine for re-election IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertFlower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. what about mitt romney?
he's probably the best, but i doubt he'd be elected. people are still suspicious of mormons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. He probably wouldn't make it through the primaries because of his mormonism
but he's probably as *mainstream* as they can probably get. Which means, he's not even going to be able to make it through the primaries. Plus, what's he going to run on? Repealing a variation of his own HCR law?

For a Republican to win in the GE in 2012, not only does the economy still have to seriously suck but somebody will have to emerge that's simultaneously crazy enough to win the support of the teabaggers in the primary yet appeal to enough moderate independent (sane) voters in the general. Who would be able to pull THAT off? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Donald Trump has been making noises about running as a Republican ...

Donald Trump 'seriously' considering running for president in 2012
Posted: 10:09 AM, October 5, 2010

Donald Trump said today he's "seriously" considering running for the presidency in 2012.

"For the first time in my life, I'm actually thinking about it ," Trump told Fox News Channel. He added, "I see what's going on with this country and it's never been worse. What's happening is a disgrace."

"The Apprentice" host cited what he called the "unfair" trade relationship between America and China and the administration's inability to utilize the country's top business talent in trade negotiations as his main reasons for mulling a run.

"I love this country, we have a great country ... but it's not really great like it used to be. Let's face it, we are no longer respected the way we used to be respected, and if we keep going like this, within 10 years China is going to overtake us easily," Trump said.

When asked the crucial question -- what party he would choose to run for -- the mogul said, "I'm a Republican, so if I did anything I'd do it, I guess, as a Republican."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/donald_trump_seriously_considers_HpwRnhtvmQ2UcNKIcCZxvI


If the economy is still in bad shape, Trump could appeal to a lot of voters. I expect the recovery to be complete or well on its way in 2012, so I expect Obama will get reelected.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Trump? A serious candidate for POTUS????
:rofl:

I mean, yeah, Arnie got elected as Governor in California and Reagan got elected POTUS, so, yeah, I supposed anything is possible but, really????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Laugh all you want ...
I've mentioned this to a bunch of people including Democrats and they said they would vote for him.

If I mention Mitt Romney the response from the same people is either, "Who" or "I would never vote for a Mormon." I have yet to find a person who wants to support Sarah Palin. If I mention Jeb Bush (remember I live in Florida where he was popular) people say, "We have had to many damn Bushes in the White House."

I correctly predicted Obama would be President back in 2006 when I watched him in a spoof announcement prior to the Monday night football game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmWlrtpqp40&p=A0108CEE15ADC14A&playnext=1&index=29

Everybody laughed at me then also. Everybody knew it would be Hillary.



Which reminds me. I'm missing the Steelers versus the Bengals.

:toast:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Nothing is impossible of course
Sarah Palin and some of the other Republican trainwrecks we've had to deal with over the past few years/decades should be proof of that. 2012 will probably be pretty interesting but I just can't see the Donald actually running (or making it through the primary) and, well, if he did, I certainly wouldn't want to vote for him (and no right-minded Democrat would either).

We shall see............

Thanks for the info at any rate.

I don't drink but :toast: From one DUer to another!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. The possibility exists that he is just playing publicity games ...
to increase ratings.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-10 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. Thune + Rubio would be tough. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yep, no matter how you slice it...
Still, a Romney/Palin ticket would be heaven sent!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Until Palin demands that she be at the top of the ticket
Edited on Mon Nov-08-10 04:53 PM by Proud Liberal Dem
I'm sure that neither she- nor her legions of teabaggers- would allow her to take "second billing". If they could've figured out a way to get McCain off the ticket (or get the ticket switched around) in 2008, I'm almost certain they would've done it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. No serious GOPer would put Palin on the ticket with them--not after 08
and with her negatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I thought they couldn't possibly be serious in '08...
When they put her on the McCain ticket! I didn't think they could possibly be serious putting Micheal Steele in charge of the RNC either... I guess I have a hard time thinking they are serious about anything right now, expect maybe straw grasping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. except they saw how well having Palin on the ticket worked for them in '08
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I don't think the Pubbies pay attention to clues like that...
Not even when they get smacked over the head with said clues.

Case in point: Meg Whitman. Her campaign was run by McCain's LOSING team! And they didn't change one play, not even for CA voters. That was a seriously stupid mistake... I'm sure nothing was learned from it either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KeyserSoze87 Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
11. I think 2012 will be the new 1984.
I predict that the economy will recover substantially between now and the next election, which will result in Obama having a landslide victory. The republicans will probably pick Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, or (sadly) Sarah Palin. But regardless of who will be the Republican candidate, the GOP will be crushed. I see Obama getting at least 55% of the vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. 55% is huge
How many states do you think he'd carry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KeyserSoze87 Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I could actually see him winning about 45 states.
I could very well be wrong, but right now I think 2012 will end up being one of the greatest years in history for Democrats and Liberals. Even after the huge beating we took this election, I know we're not finished. Not even close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-10 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. Yeah, anything more than 45 would be unrealistic
In this day and age, no party will ever win 49 again. What could Obama do that would make him win Utah, Idaho, and Oklahoma? Those three are impossible, unless the Democrat is Zell Miller. Mississippi and Alabama aren't far behind. Any others?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Safetykitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
14. Favorite what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
15. I worry about Marco Rubio being on the Repub. ticket as VP with someone like Thune at the top. n/t
Edited on Mon Nov-08-10 09:37 PM by jenmito
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-10 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. I totally concur. Rubio would suck up the Hispanic vote and Thune would come across as "reasonable",
even though he is an extreme fundamentalist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
19. It depends on who the repubs nominate. There are alot of blue state repubs in office now that could
pose a challenge. They no longer have to nominate a southerner because the south votes repig no matter what. If they nominate a Romney, Toomey, Pawlenty, Brown, or other blue state governor it's going to be hard for us especially if they have appeal to places like New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Massatucetts, or Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetapogee Donating Member (449 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. Actually,
It depends on the economy. And to a lesser degree, what the puke controlled house does. And also who the pukes pick to run. But mainly the economy.

At this point, 2012 is an uphill battle against a heavily entrenched enemy so start fighting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-10 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
21. None of that will matter if young voters don't show up and indies don't move back
...toward the prez. And that depends on how he leads - or chooses not to - between now and then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ampad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-10 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
22. I think North Carolina is the one to watch for
Something tells me that the AA vote is going to be stronger in 2012 than what it was in 08. The negativity coming from both sides of the aisle is going to fire up the AA base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvymvy Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-10 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
25. The National Popular Vote bill
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be equal and 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.

Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. 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, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. 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).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. 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: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes -- 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC