Archive for electoral votes

GOP strategist Mike Murphy: "Democrats begin each presidential election with a near lock on the Electoral College."


it's a lock

Mike Murphy wrote this commentary in the Detroit Free Press:

The GOP's greatest challenge is the fact that Democrats begin each presidential election with a near lock on the Electoral College. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have given their electoral votes to the Democratic presidential nominee in at least five out of the last six elections. These states represent 257 electoral votes out of the 270 needed to win the presidency. Under current trends, the GOP nominee has to pull the equivalent of drawing an inside straight in poker to get to the White House. [...]

The GOP needs to reshuffle the deck and expand the presidential playing field. Success in Michigan could become its electoral ace in the hole.

Mike Murphy, a principal at the Revolution Agency, was the lead strategist to former Michigan Gov. John Engler and U.S. Sen. Spencer Abraham. Trent Wisecup is a Republican consultant who has worked for Abraham, Oakland County Executive Brooks Patterson and U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg.

I'm not sure how the Dems have a near lock on the Electoral College when Republicans are indeed "shuffling the deck" and "expanding the presidential playing field" by gerrymandering and disenfranchising voters as fast as they can. If some GOP states have their way, they will "apportion electoral votes by congressional district, a setup far more favorable to Republicans." In fact, it could change the outcome of future elections.

So as much as I want to believe that Dems have the advantage, I find it difficult to be that optimistic.


Poll-itics: Hillary could win Texas in 2016, but support for secession has increased


secede texas

PPP has some interesting little tidbits in their new poll. One that stood out was that more Democrats than Republicans support an election-rigging scheme to allocate electoral voters by Congressional District instead of giving them to the statewide winner, by a margin of 28% to 25%.

but wait there's more

Public Policy Polling:

PPP's newest Texas poll finds that, at least for now, Hillary Clinton could win the state in 2016... she would have a decent chance of winning Kentucky if she makes another White House bid. [...]

Support for secession in the state has increased since President Obama's reelection. 20% of voters say they'd like to leave the country to 67% who support staying in the union. That's up from 14% who wanted to secede when we polled on the issue in September of 2011. 35% of Republicans support exiting.

So Texas voters could very well support Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, in 2016 while simultaneously warming to the idea of seceding from the rest of us.

Solution: Allow that 20% of anti-Obama Texans to strand themselves on an island somewhere, while the sane ones vote Hillary into office. See? Bipartisan solutions aren't that hard to find.


Video- Karl Rove Has Meltdown Over Calling Ohio For President Obama


Poor Karl, the math is soooo hard. Via.


PhotOH! Obama v. Bush on jobs. Oh, and NINE electoral college predictions have Obama ahead!


More here: “The unemployment rate went up slightly because of GOOD news… Job growth improved.”

Here's your Moment of Happy, via Taegan:

Ryan Teague Beckwith rounds up electoral maps from nine political prognosticators, all of which see President Obama winning re-election with anywhere from 281 to 332 electoral votes.


Mitt Romney’s playing field is experiencing shrinkage


As has been reported, for now at least, Republican super PACs have pulled their resources from Michigan and Pennsylvania. At first I saw that as good news for Team Obama, but then I wondered if the Romney campaign will just blitz those states in the future. I'm no strategist or expert in these things, so your guess is as good as mine.

And of course, I am always wringing my hands over voter suppression, which could keep hundreds of thousands from the polls.

Jonathan Chait offers some encouraging insight, but I'm still only cautiously optimistic at this point:

Romney is targeting eight states: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and New Hampshire. No Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. This is surely not because Romney is husbanding scarce cash.  [...]

The reason this looks worrisome for Romney is that he’s pursuing an electoral-college strategy that requires him nearly to run the table of competitive states. ... If you play with the electoral possibilities, you can see that this would mean Obama could win with Florida alone or Ohio plus a small state or Virginia plus a couple small states, and so on.

Unless I’m missing something badly here, Romney needs either a significant national shift his way — possibly from the debates or some other news event — or else to hope that his advertising advantage is potent enough to move the dial in almost every swing state in which he’s competing.

Or else to hope that disenfranchising voters will achieve what his money can't.


"If this were truly a dead even race, Romney should be ahead in these polls almost as often as he is behind."


Dan Balz is reporting that Willard M. Romney's advisers believe that if their candidate can get to the GOP convention with the race close to even, he could end up leading during the final two months of the campaign. That means they also believe that he can compensate for any damage he's done to himself in the swing states, which so far favor President Obama.

And by compensate they mean convince voters that he's not a total dufus loser outsourcing tax- returnless gaffe machine.

They have a lot of work to do.

Dan Balz continues, via WaPo:

But in looking at the numbers nationally and in the battleground states, the consistency of Obama’s lead is striking. More than two dozen national polls have been conducted since the beginning of June. Obama has led in the overwhelming number of them.

Polls in the most contested states show a similar pattern. In three of the most important — Ohio, Florida and Virginia — there have been roughly three dozen polls total since April, about the time that Romney’s GOP rivals were exiting the nomination race. In Ohio and Virginia, Obama has led in all but a few. In Florida, Romney has done better, but overall, Obama has led about twice as often.

Those polls are not definitive predictors of the November outcome, by any means. A movement in the national numbers, which could easily occur in the final weeks, will change the look of many of those states. But at this point, the available evidence suggests that the advantage, however small, is with Obama. If this were truly a dead even race, Romney should be ahead in these polls almost as often as he is behind.

Fingers crossed.

Get out the vote.


The (Possible) Coming Obama Landslide


has another great article at the Daily Beast. If you recall, his last one was a major smack down of Willard Romney's wimp factor. Read about it, you'll be glad you did: VIDEO- Robert Gibbs: Romney is “embarrassing.” Daily Beast: He’s “lame, annoying, a true wimp, a weenie, nervous, terrified, nasty, whiny.”

In keeping with Tomasky's article, yesterday I posted some encouraging news from Nate Silver: “Mr. Obama’s probability of winning the Electoral College increased…” Tomasky adds fuel and support to that assertion by writing in his new piece, "...The fact is that the more you look at it, the more you come to conclude that Mitt Romney has to draw an inside straight like you’ve never ever seen in a movie to win this thing."

He goes on to say that Pennsylvania has been trending back toward Obama lately. In fact, it has.


Obama can lose the big Eastern four—Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida: all of ’em!—and still be reelected.

And barring some huge cataclysm, he’s not losing all four of those states. If he wins even one—say Virginia, the smallest of the four—then Romney has to win Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire; all possible, certainly, but all states where he has been behind, narrowly but consistently, for weeks or months. [...]

Sure, something big could happen to alter the dynamic completely. ... All the supposedly game-changing events of the last few weeks haven’t changed much of anything. This is a paradoxical situation that has little or no modern precedent, which makes it hard for people to accept. Liberals are too nervous to think it, reporters too intent on a “down to the wire” narrative, and conservatives too furious and disbelieving, but it’s shaping up to be true: An extremely close election that on election night itself stands a surprisingly good chance of being not that close at all.

He has more details so please link over, and I still have a few concerns: Voter suppression (hopefully, the courts will continue to derail the GOP effort to stop people from voting); super PAC money (hopefully, saturation of the air waves by negative ads will desensitize and/or anger enough unconvinced swing voters that they'll stop listening); hatred of the president (hopefully, those people are the same 20-30% we keep seeing in the polls who comprise the most extreme members of the Republican base who would never vote for Obama in the first place).

The key is Democratic turnout. Please consider doing everything you can to assist people in accessing places of registration right now, and then getting them to the polls in November.