The GOP’s Impending Electoral College Meltdown

[babylonsister]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/03/michael-tomasky-the-gop-s-impending-electoral-college-meltdown.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Fpolitics+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Politics%29

Michael Tomasky: The GOP’s Impending Electoral College Meltdown
by Michael Tomasky May 3, 2012 5:45 AM EDT
Only six months till November, and the Electoral College is looking like Barack Obama’s best friend. Has the Republican Party already blown its chances?

snip//

Obama leads in nine of the 11 states. Romney leads only in two, and he leads in the two whose mere presence on a list of swing states suggests trouble for him—Arizona and Missouri. Romney’s lead in those states is small (3.2 percent in the former, 3.0 in the latter). Of the nine states in which Obama leads, he is ahead by outside your typical three- or four-point margin of error in four: Colorado (9.5 percent), Nevada (6.7 percent), Pennsylvania (6 percent), and Ohio (5.3 percent). Obviously it would be premature to say that Obama is certain to win those states. But given these leads, let’s just give him those states’ 53 combined electoral votes for the sake of argument.

As you’ve already figured out, 227 plus 53 equals 280, which means Obama wins (270 needed). Now here’s what’s really interesting about this hypothetical. Look at the list of states Obama does not need to win under this scenario: Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, and Virginia. That’s 63 electoral votes he can give away, from three states (all of them but Iowa) that political journalists are always insisting are crucial to Obama’s hopes. And from four states he carried in 2008. Just think of it. It’s election night. The cable nets call Virginia for Romney. And North Carolina! Obama is doomed, doomed! Then he wins—and in fact, if he manages to eke out Florida, wins easily, even after dropping those two “must-win” states. Put another way: There appear to be lots of ways for Obama to get to 270 losing either Ohio or Florida. But there appear to be almost no plausible ways for Romney to get to 270 without winning both of them, and one or two major swing states besides, states where he is behind right now.

So, two questions: first, how did the electoral map come to favor Democrats? And second, what are the implications for the kind of race we’re going to see?

On the first question, we know all about the demographic changes of recent years, identified most comprehensively by Ruy Teixeira and John Judis. But there’s more to the story than that. Demography didn’t have to be destiny. If the Republican Party of the last few years hadn’t done everything it could possibly imagine do to alienate Latinos, “new-economy” professionals, and young people, the party would have remained competitive in Colorado (which, by the way, doesn’t really seem like much of a swing state to me) and some Great Lakes-Rust Belt states. That party would have easily maintained its historic advantage in Virginia and North Carolina. But the Republicans chose not to be that party. They decided to be the hate-and-anger party, and they veritably shoved states like those I just mentioned into the Democratic column. The GOP message has been: “If you’re gonna let all those funny-talking brown people and wine-sipping brainiacs in your states, then we don’t want you voting for us anyway!”

And as to the kind of campaign we can expect: I’d say the most negative in history. Barring some huge catastrophe, the only way a not-well-liked candidate like Romney can make up five to seven points in expensive-market states is through massive doses of attack ads, both from his campaign and from the various Super PACs, which may spend a combined $600 million or more—solely on negative ads and chiefly in six or eight states. Hate and anger aren’t going anywhere.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. I seem to recall a similar time, when another president

was the target of nonstop attacks, even a vote for impeachment.

Say, whatever happened to Bill Clinton's effort to win a second term, anyway?

[TheDebbieDee]

18. The Clinton Impeachment didn't occur until after he won re-election.......

[ChairmanAgnostic]

27. true, but the constant attacks on his presidency

were a daily occurrence BEFORE the election.

[barbtries]

2. in spite of these facts

the commentator on NPR last week insisted that the general election would be won by the narrowest of margins. why are they lying on NPR?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. NPR has long been immune to facts.

[SkyDaddy7]

14. NPR was 100% correct!

Just wait until the Right Wing Super PACS spend a BILLON DOLLARS in those 8-11 swing states...Obama will be very lucky to win!

Articles like this cause people to think this election is in the bag for Obama & that is very dangerous!

[CrispyQ]

26. They just have to get it close enough so they can steal it. --nt

[barbtries]

33. not according to the OP.

i think it's a self fulfilling prophecy, or what the right wing media (and here i include NPR, sadly) hopes will work that way. facts schmacts. having said that, i will continue to guard against complacency and do what i am able to help the president win.

[brooklynite]

6. Ayyone who thinks the VOTE MARGIN isn't going to be close is being irresponsible.

[SkyDaddy7]

15. You are very correct!

Far too many people think Obama will simply breeze into a second term while forgetting the Right has several Super PACS willing to spend any amount to win! The Koch Bros alone have pledged $500 MILLION and more if needed & that is only ONE of several big Right Wing Super PACs with hundreds of millions each!

The real threat is congressional races where Super PAC money can literally buy seats in congress unlike the Presidency where it is a bit harder. Super PAC money in Congressional races really scares me!

[Tiggeroshii]

29. Can Bill Gates be the counter-koch brothers?

Just looked it up, and he's worth 61 Billion. I'm pretty sure his politics are more in line with ours -could he be a dark horse superpac donor?

[Proud Public Servant]

10. What Brooklynite said

It's possible to win the popular vote by a narrow margin and romp in the electoral college. Obama winning, say, Florida by 0.5% still gives him all the marbles.

[lastlib]

24. It's also possible to LOSE the popular vote and WIN the Electoral College...

...ESPECIALLY if you have the Supreme Court to help you!

And you can make the popular vote closer by stealing votes with electronic voting machines that have no paper trail. TURNOUT IS GOING TO BE CRITICAL, FOLKS!!!

[Orrex]

16. I'm so glad you posted that

I was driving home yesterday when that aired. The commentator was so bad that even the ordinarily pro-horse-race Robert Siegel noted that Romney would effectively have to "run the table" of the contested states in order to win, which the commentator grudgingly admitted was correct.

Of course, Siegel then went on to predict that it will once again come down to Florida in the wee hours of the morning...


They probably shied away from a frank and honest assessment of Obama's statistical strength in this regard because, as always, they're afraid of accusation of liberal bias and because, as always, it's in the media's interest to preserve the "contest" story down to the wire.

[mojitojoe]

3. Yeah, it looks good now...

...but it's still early.

[Scuba]

5. I sure hope he has long coattails.

[marble falls]

7. Grover Norquist was right about one thing: congress is the real battlefield.......

I think the President will win and Grover's backing the wrong team. The House and a couple of Senators is the prize and I think the President will have a more friendly Congress. The coat-tails will be very important this November.

[blkmusclmachine]

8. The GOP will find a way to steal the election.

n/t

[liberal N proud]

9. That is what I fear

[Kennah]

36. My fear is ...

... what if they steal, and people object.

They aren't just going to say, "Parley", and the GOP isn't just going to respond, "Our bad, let's have a 'Do Over'".

[johnnyrocket]

13. Polls are one thing, but if the GOP rigs the mechanics of voting, they still have the advantage.

Suppression, voting restrictions, etc...they're doing it fast and furiously, and passing these laws ASAP before November. It's not even subtle.

[LonePirate]

11. Wait another 4-8 years when TX and GA will become swing states

The GOP of today will have no path to victory.

[Alcibiades]

25. Yep

And North Carolina's becoming swingier.

You simply cannot win nationally by carrying only older white males, conservatives, evangelicals. 2010 was their last hurrah. That being said, we've got work to do.

[mucifer]

12. Just heard on local radio morning news that Rmoney has close the gap and is even with the President

in Florida and Ohio.

[tanyev]

17. Looks like Mitt's best shot is to pick a high risk/high reward VP for the ticket.

You know, like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann. Go for it, Mittens!

[CanonRay]

19. Once again I'll state my election theme

that Rmoney will have a million Mormons on a holy crusade of phone banks and door to door contact, combined with untold millions of advertising, all negative. If you think this doesn't spell trouble, think Prop 8 in California, the test run for the election.

[cindyperry2010]

20. Reaclearpolitics.com

already has the president at 253 in the electoral college delegate count

[Proud Public Servant]

21. The best news in all of this

is how it might govern spending. Obama's in a position to concentrate nearly all his campaign funds in a handful of states; really, he can spend nearly the whole warchest in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina. Romney, by contrast, is going to have to spread out all over the map; in fact, he can even take OH, FL, VA, and NC and still lose (though I doubt that will happen).

[WI_DEM]

22. Six months is a life time in politics.

[sellitman]

23. What's Kenneth Blackman up to?

Or his clones. That's what we really need to worry about. Who is in charge of the ballots? Polls be damned because it who counts the vote that really matters.

[Proud Public Servant]

28. Of course, there's also this

[jenmito]

30. Obama could get to 270 w/o winning both OH and FL, as long as he wins VA:

http://electoralmap.net/2012/myPrediction.php You can experiment. I got Obama to exactly 270 with CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, VA, WA, and WI (plus Washington DC). Or he can lose VA but win CO and IA and get to 272.

[Kablooie]

31. I doubt Obama will win OH and FL. VA is a question but leans Republican.

[jenmito]

32. Obama can win with none of those 3 as I wrote in my post. n/t

[Arkana]

34. Not any more it doesn't. The northern suburbs and cities are fast outgrowing

the southern conservative enclaves. At worst, Virginia is purple now--and I think with any decent effort Obama wins it and probably Florida too, regardless of whether Rubio is the nominee. Ohio is the only question mark, and even if Romney wins it he doesn't win the election without Florida.

[Drunken Irishman]

35. Why do you doubt Obama will win Ohio? He leads Romney by a wider margin than he ever led McCain.