Nate Silver: Santorum could beat Obama in the Electoral College.

[pnwmom]

And he might have a better chance than Romney.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/nate-silver-obama-reelection-chances.html?_r=3&pagewanted=2&ref=magazine


Still, Santorum, who rates as a 68 on the ideology scale (the same as a less-plausible nominee, Newt Gingrich), would probably be weaker than Romney in the popular vote. According to the model, Obama would be a 77 percent favorite to win the popular vote against Santorum given 2.5 percent G.D.P. growth.

Republicans wouldn’t care about that, however, if Santorum carried Ohio and Michigan — and perhaps even his home state, Pennsylvania — places where economic concerns tend to take precedence. Under these conditions, in fact, Republicans might be able to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.

I am not quite ready to suggest that Santorum would be a better nominee than Romney. But the electability gap between the two is closer than it might appear because of the way Santorum’s strengths could play in the Electoral College. At the very least, he might force a reset of the White House’s strategy — from one focused on the 99 percent to one more intent on critiquing Santorum’s positions on social issues.

Whichever strategy the Obama folks settle on, though, they’ll be acting from a place of relative strength — so long as the economic numbers remain decent. If the economy tips backward toward recession because of the situation in Europe or tensions in the Middle East, Obama would go right back to being an underdog against either Romney or Santorum.

So, who wants to bet on there being nine months of no bad news?

[Drunken Irishman]

1. If Nate Silver believes that, he's lost all credibility.

[pnwmom]

2. What makes you so sure he's wrong?

[Drunken Irishman]

4. Because he is...

It's that simple.

Santorum is damaged goods. He does poorly against Obama in a great deal of polls right now - many which were taken long before his contraceptives remark. He's a loose canon, someone who will alienate moderate, female voters who ultimately decide this election.

Silver might be technically correct in the sense that anything is possible, but Santorum, if the nominee, would lose by huge margins.

I'm sorry, but someone who's pushing this narrative is solely doing it for filler. I'll eat glass if Santorum ever steps foot in the Oval Office as President of the United States. It. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

[Mojorabbit]

26. I was sure Bush would not win an second term. I don't take anything for granted. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

27. That was your mistake...

Anyone who was objective or not wearing blinders in '04 could see the possibility of a Bush second term. He was leading Kerry through most of the election, raising gobs of money, was an incumbent during a time of war and the economy was, for the first time in three years, growing jobs again. Not to say he wasn't vulnerable, but man, that election was not a sure-thing in any instance. I knew Bush was going to be tough to beat and that it would require Kerry drawing an inside straight and he couldn't do it.

[LiberalFighter]

42. Kerry was also a poor candidate compared to Obama.

Kerry's people were incompetent too.

[grantcart]

50. Because he is over emphasizing his 'ideological meter'.

He should try a 'personality meter'.

Santorum would result in a massive landslide for Democrats. He isn't just radical in his beliefs he approachs a strange hyper religiousity that Americans don't like.

Just hope that Santorum's 15 minutes don't run out so far.

I don't think he has much polling on people who have made speeches on how 'Satan' are taking over America.

Let's all remember that Nate Silver orignally called the Republican Primary for Mitt in a walk over.

[Roselma]

3. Nate still projects an Obama win at this point, but was explaining

how different the electoral college would play out versus the popular vote compared to Romney v. Obama.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. Silver's problem is that he consistently looks at polls through the RIGHT NOW prism.

Which, I guess, is okay. But remember, late last year, Silver said Obama would be an underdog in this election. He's changed his tune considerably since then and ultimately shows the flaws in his projections: they don't really say a whole helluva lot.

[DCBob]

6. The headline is misleading.

Nate is just saying Santorum might win some big states in the rust belt that Romeny would not be able to which could possibly make him a tougher candidate. I agree with that analysis.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. Santorum might also lose 50 states in November - which is more likely, IMO.

[LisaL]

9. 49 at the most.

No way he is losing TX.

[HubertHeaver]

17. Texas is more in play than you might think.

And the Republicans are pissing off the women, Mexican-American, and African-American voters, as they say, by the numbers.

[Major Hogwash]

19. The only people the Republicans aren't pissing off these daya are . . .

. . old white rich men like Pat Buchanan and old white women like Phyllis Schlafly.

That's gonna leave the eventual GOP presidential candidate with about .8% of the popular vote -- and that's only if every old white billionaire and millionaire people actually get off of their asses to go vote!

[Tx4obama]

22. Don't bet on that. Obama got over 3.5 MILLION votes in Texas in 2008

Texas nowadays is more PURPLE than blue.

Obama BEAT McCain in ALL of our big cities/counties (except for one: Ft.Worth)
Obama won Dallas, Austin/Travis, Houston/Harris, El Paso, San Antonio, etc.

[LiberalFighter]

43. They need to have voting centers for the rural areas located in the big cities.

[gopiscrap]

23. Or Utah, Alabama, Idaho, Wyoming, Missisippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina and Oklahoma & WV

[gopiscrap]

24. oops

and Arkansas and probably Arizona

[DCBob]

10. 50 states??

There are at least 20 very red states will never go Democrat anytime in the foreseable future no matter who the GOP candidate is.

[progressiveforever]

13. You are right

Obama's 2008 is about as well as any Democrat will do in the foreseeable future.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. I don't think so...

I think Obama can expand on his '08 numbers and push 400-plus electoral votes.

It'll take a great deal of luck, some big gains in the economy, but I think Georgia, Arizona, Missouri and maybe even Texas in the right scenarios are states Democrats can win.

[gopiscrap]

25. I was think Georgia and Missouri

and if Santorum's the nominee possibly Alaska and Montana because of their fierce loner stance and don't intrude into my life attitude.

[pstokely]

29. Depends on how much he campaigns in those states, none of those are his early targets

He's been running close in Missouri polls

[Drunken Irishman]

34. I agree...Obama's first priority is going after the states he needs...

He doesn't need any of those other states. Still, out of 'em all, I think he'll campaign in Missouri. It would cripple the Republicans if they lost it.

[pstokely]

36. With a senate race in MO, he needs to compete there even if he doesn't expect to win

It would put the pukes on the defense if they had defend the states they barley won.

[Drunken Irishman]

14. Obviously I was being factitious.

I don't believe Obama would beat Santorum in a 50-state landslide. BUT, I'd say he has a better chance of doing that than Santorum winning the EC.

[DCBob]

16. Nate isnt saying Santorum has a plausible chance of winning the EC against Obama.

He is saying Santorum might have a "better" chance of winning than Romney, slight as it is, since Santorum could win some big rust belt states. Its not really big deal.. its just an interesting observation since it changes the dynamics of race and the Obama campaign strategy.

[pnwmom]

21. He is also saying that if the economy goes downhill

or if something major happens elsewhere in the world, Obama suddenly could find himself in serious trouble no matter who the Republican nominee turns out to be.

[Arkana]

52. How does Romney not have a better chance at PA than Santorum?

They HATE him there.

[pnwmom]

20. What is misleading about the headline?

It says he COULD, not that he definitely will beat Obama.

Many people here think Santorum is a joke candidate, but I think we need to take him seriously.

[DCBob]

37. Technically its correct..

but some probably read that as Nate suggesting Santorum had a reasonable possibility of winning which is not what he is saying at all.

BTW, I totally agree with you that we have to take Santorum seriously even if he seems like a nut to us. Many voters in this country can be fooled into voting for someone like him.

[pnwmom]

48. I think he IS suggesting Santorum has a reasonable chance of winning

if the economy takes a bad turn for the worse -- and that is, unfortunately, a real possibility. What is happening in Europe, for example, could wreck our economy, and that is almost entirely out of our control.

[Suich]

5. When Nate Silver talks, I listen.

Let's see what he says in three months.

[progressiveforever]

12. I agree

Silver has proven record--I want an Obama win badly, but I don't think it will be easy.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Huh?

is he smoking? He needs to put away the crack pipe and back up.........slowly.

[davidpdx]

18. I agree with Silver's overall idea

That Santorum would be the better candidate. I think it is possible that he will bring out the righties in terms of local, state and federal offices (besides president) which could cause us to lose state houses or senates or US Representative seats (I think it would be less likely for a US Senate seat). I am still hoping Romney is the GE opponent.

I've been screaming for an Operation Chaos 2012 for days now (except we have to come up with a better name). I don't have the time to put into it, but would sure as hell participate.

[Drunken Irishman]

28. I agree, to a point...

But I think it could also backfire and cause moderate voters to not only back Obama nationally, but Democrats because they're thoroughly disgusted with the Republican options.

This isn't just the instance of a weak party candidate (McCain, Dole, Dukakis, Mondale), this is a candidate that could, like Goldwater in '64, scare the bejesus out of mainstream America. Those candidates don't come along often (I guess McGovern, or at least the McGovern portrayed by Nixon & the media) and when they do, they can radically shift the dynamics of every election.

Take the LBJ-Goldwater election in '64. Democrats picked up two senate seats (increased their total to 68!) and 37 seats in the House (increasing their total to 295). Compare that to, say, 1984, when Reagan easily beat Mondale 20 years later, and the Democrats lost 16 seats (a lot, but not as staggering considering the numbers) in the House and gained one seat in the Senate (still were in the minority, though).

Likewise, in '96, Republicans actually gained two seats in the Senate, even though they got their butts kicked in the presidential campaign, though they did lose 9 seats in the House (still held their majority) - that with a meh candidate.

My point? When you're dealing with a radical, on either end of the spectrum, it has the potential to dramatically influence voters who might not even vote in an election.

I know many voters here in UTAH who didn't vote for Obama, don't like Obama, but will vote for Obama if it's Santorum. Does that mean they'll vote straight Democratic? No - but in some swing states, people might come out and do just that because they see the Republican Party as too radical.

Just my take. While I certainly see Silver's point about down ticket, I also think he's overselling Santorum's potential in the rust belt. Just because Romney is under performing there (and he is against Obama), it doesn't mean Santorum will be a better option. In fact, I think he'd be worse in states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Minnesota - where it's often the suburban vote that ultimately decides the election.

And who makes up most of the suburban vote? Women. More specifically, moderate women. Santorum will scare 'em off.

[davidpdx]

57. All good points

It really is hard even from looking back at the elections you mentioned to guess what would happen with either Republican candidate. One variable is how weak they will be coming out of the primary. Your point about Santorum burring himself in terms of support from women is a good one. He wants to take us back to the 12th century. Santorum would also have a tougher time with minorities I think. If you can't at least get a sizable about of those two demographics, there's no way he'd win. He'd get some, but it would probably be lower then McCain.

[David__77]

30. People are too flippant about Santorum.

He'd do better than Romney. Romney is real damaged goods, and the right-wingers would be in a terrible spot. Romney is NOT one of them. The religious right correctly doesn't trust him either.

Santorum could mobilize the forces to actually rally for his candidacy. Don't underestimate this political force in this country.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. I'm not flippant. If he gets the nomination, he should be taken VERY seriously, and he will.

But, see, that's the point- it's not just the 500 or so godbaggers who want the death penalty for contraceptive users who will be motivated, it will also be THE REST OF US. A lot of suburban progressive types who might be ho-hum about the prospect of a Romney win; after all, he was a moderate in Massachusetts, right? Will be right there on the front lines if this glassy-eyed sweatervest goober is on the GOP ticket.

The anti-choicers, the religious right, even the conventional wisdom poo-bahs who still think the "values voter" is all-powerful, what do they do? They UNDERESTIMATE THE PRO CHOICE MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY.

Every god-damn time. And they do it, because we're normally complacent. Not easily roused; until we are. This is what happened with the Komen/Planned Parenthood flap.

And then, all of a sudden, the anti-choicers and religious right types are like, "shit! Where did all these people come from????"



That is exactly what will happen if Santorum gets nominated. You will see motivation on the part of our party that is unprecedented.

[Cosmocat]

38. This is what a Santorum candidacy would do

It would energize BOTH bases ...

And, he probably would push away more indies than Romney.

I am from Pa, I TOTALLY get Santorum.

He is NOT to be underestimated as a candidate. He is smart, he is tough, he is a hard worker, he is a VERY effective politician. He WILL unite the R base.

But, for the same reason he will unit their base, he will enliven the democratic base. He is so extreme, the republican party cannot even TRY its usual voodoo of making extreme right wing views "mainstream." He is THAT far in his views, and THAT unabashed in putting them out.

And, again, I think once the battle is waged, in comparison to a cooler and more measured Obama, the middle will break BOs way pretty substancially. Obama is A LOT like Casey, who beat Santorum 59 to 41 in a race where at the time Santorum raised as much money as had ever been raised for a senate race. Casey did not engage Santorum on his terms, neither will Obama.

Again, Santorum is not to be taken lightly. He is smarter, tougher and a harder worker than the likes of Palin, Bachman, Perry or Gingrich. But, he is who he is.

I know some pretty strident republicans here in Pa who hate BO, but won't vote for Santorum.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Cower Before The ALL POWERFUL VALUES VOTER, Foooooools!

A Santorum Nom would "Force Obama to critique his positions on social issues"?

Well, duh. But, "Force"? Not "force". The guy is whack-a-doo out of step with what the vast majority of the country believes. You want "The 99%"? That "99%" is the percent of people who DON'T think- unlike Santorum does- that we should go back to the pre-Griswold days when states could make it illegal to buy condoms.

I think Nate Silver is heavily invested in this idea that 'social issues don't matter, the economy does'- but it's not either/or. Rick Santorum would not be some populist dream nominee, and frankly his theocratic godbagger shit is NOT going to fly in the general.

[pnwmom]

33. Donald Duck could win in the general if he had the Repub nomination

and the economy took a bad turn for the worse.

[quaker bill]

35. Nate assumes too much

But he is correct in broader terms. The only real path to the Whitehouse that remains viable for Republicans, given an improving economy, is a culture war campaign.

If they are going to go culture war with this, Santorum is the correct candidate to select. He could easily do better than Romney as favoring the 1% has lost its electoral allure.

Nate correctly leaves the probability of this strategy actually winning fairly low, but probably not low enough. Chances are far better that he is the Republican's George McGovern, where a significant minority believes strongly in what he is doing, but it is a minority nearly everywhere.

What is cool for our side is that there is a better than even odds chance of beating Santorum nearly everywhere, some places by only thin majorities, other places by historic proportions. Trashing mainline protestants, and limiting access to birth control could do interesting things even in red states.

[JNelson6563]

39. Nate Silver: Into the dustbin of credibility

What a moran.

[WI_DEM]

40. people have to understand that Santorum hasn't been scrutinized by the press

and democrats the way Mittens has. Santorum has a lot of nutty beliefs that he is going to have to try and explain if he's the nominee.

[HopeHoops]

41. Mr. Frothy sure as hell wouldn't get PA. We threw him out once, we'll do it again.

[DFW]

44. If Rick Santorum becomes the next President in 2013

I am going to pull my savings out of the USA and ask that my temporary work and residence
permits for the EU be made permanent. The governments here may be incompetent and slow
at times, but the last complete whacko that came to power in these parts by election did so in 1933.
I choose not to reside in a country that chooses to install another one seventy years later.

Frankly, I don't see it, but I didn't see a Reagan or Bush Lite presidency, either, and yet they both happened.

[Cal33]

45. Santorum could beat Obama only if the Repubs. carry out the all-time most massive vote-fraud

in U.S. history -- which they very well may be trying to do.

[FrenchieCat]

46. Repubs are reading this too, right?

Good!

Let them choose Little Ricky as their Nominee. We shall see whose base will come out in large numbers to vote for the sane, and against the insane!

[zipplewrath]

47. Focus on this

Re-read Nate AFTER reading this:

Whichever strategy the Obama folks settle on, though, they’ll be acting from a place of relative strength — so long as the economic numbers remain decent. If the economy tips backward toward recession because of the situation in Europe or tensions in the Middle East, Obama would go right back to being an underdog against either Romney or Santorum.

If Obama is going to lose, it may be more likely that he would lose to Santorum. Because if he is in a position to lose, it may be Santorum who could close the deal, not Romney.

Nate's saying that it is Obama's race to lose. If one were trying to beat him, one might actually want to pick Santorum over Romney. But it is still possible for Obama to lose to EITHER because of world events.

[DeltaLitProf]

49. Lot of truth here.

And if the economy were to trend downward again, what powers would Obama have to reverse this with a Tea Party House? This is why we should not in any way root for Santorum to be nominated. At least if Romney were to win, we could be sure he'd probably betray the radical right at least a couple times. Santorum? no.

[DCBob]

58. +1

good explanation.

[Arkana]

51. Santorum doesn't carry PA or MI.

Possibly Ohio, but Pennsylvania hates him, and Michigan isn't voting for anyone besides Obama after the auto bailout. He practically saved the auto industry.

[ShadowLiberal]

55. Agreed Santorum won't win PA, he lost it by 18 points, the biggest defeat of an incumbent in decades

Santorum's defeat in the 2006 senate race was the second largest defeat suffered by an incumbent senator in over three decades.

History also shows that the political careers of senators who lose their seat is usually over.

I also have a feeling from what I've seen so far that Santorum isn't too Internet savy, another thing that'll hurt him.

I live in PA, and grew up in a republican household, I have a younger brother, he's 20, who's a moderate republican but a social liberal on most issues (other then perhaps abortion, he's probably a moderate on that issue). My younger brother doesn't see himself being able to cast a vote for a candidate like Santorum, who he considers a joke from all the crazy anti-gay stuff he's said in the past.

To be fair though, my younger brother also can't see ever voting for Newt (knowing about his past corruption and $300,000 fine). He has a hard time seeing himself voting for Romney (he just doesn't like him since he's so fake and a serial flip flopper) and Ron Paul (he thinks Paul's somewhat crazy on some issues but respects him for being consistent and not as corrupt as the others). He hasn't closed the door on voting for Romney or Paul yet. He doesn't really like Obama either, but seeing how bad all the republicans are he's considering maybe voting for him. On the plus side, a lot of the things he doesn't like about Obama (like indefinite detention of 'threats' to America, continuing the wars in the middle east) are stuff that Bush did first and all the republican candidates (other than Paul perhaps) would almost certainly continue doing anyway. I think I may be able to talk him into voting for Obama against Romney, but I wouldn't put it higher then 33%. Against Santorum I'd give it 3 to 1 odds that he'd eventually cast his vote for Obama.

[yellowcanine]

53. IF Santorum could carry California, Illinois, and New York he would probably win the EC also.

Of course that isn't going to happen however. And neither is Santorum carrying PA, OH or MI.

[Lex]

54. Exactly. And if a frog had wings

it could fly.

[pnwmom]

56. All he has to do to win OH

is lock down a counting place to outside observers, as they did in 2004.