Thursday, February 24, 2011

Gallop Poll Obama Approval high in 10 States – Projection: 2012 Adjusted Electoral College Map: Obama: 191, Unnamed Republican: 337

A Gallup survey on President Obama’s approval rating in 2010 (available here) headlines his high approval rating in Hawaii, and 9 other states, however, the balance fall below 50%, with 20 states listed as average: approval between 44 and 48%, the balance of the 30 states are at 43% and below, giving an outline of the possible 2012 presidential outcome. (See Map below)



Should these approval rankings stay at present levels, and translate into 2012 Electoral College results, Obama, the incumbent would garner 195 Electoral College votes, needed to remain in office: 270
(See hypothetical 2012 Electoral College Map Below from www270towin.com)



Additionally, the level of Electoral College votes will change with the 2010 census, as districts are redrawn and certain states having lost population will also lose seats in the Electoral College. The New York Times has an interactive map on Electoral College votes here (See Map Below).



In this scenario: Texas gains 4, Arizona 1, Utah 1, Nevada 1, Georgia and South Carolina 1 each, and Florida 2, or a pickup of 11 for the unnamed Republican, on the incumbent side: Washington gains 1 for the incumbent: The total now becomes: 196 to 343 (R). The States that lose Electoral College vote are: Iowa, Missouri and Louisiana (all minus 1), Michigan and Ohio minus 3, for a total of minus 6 for the Republican or 337. States in the Obama approval hypothetical that lose seats are: Pennsylvania 1, New Jersey 1, New York 2 and Massachusetts one, or a net loss of 5, giving the incumbent a total of 191 Electoral College votes.

Given the current state of Foreign Affairs, (Middle East), the threat of 26% inflation in food and clothing in 2011, and the immediate rise of the price per gallon of gasoline, added to a stagnant unemployment rate near 9%, it is somewhat conservative to use the Gallup 2010 approval as part of a hypothetical projection. Given the results, it would behoove the nation to look carefully at any and all Republican Candidates as it is, based on the above scenario, probable that one of them would be the 45th President of the United States.

As the GOP Presidential candidate field has also been hypothetical based on who may run, or who has hinted at a run, it is unlikely that the nation will have a clear idea of who the candidates will be prior to possibly June of 2011. There is more to weigh in this particular instance for anyone who is remotely interested in running than whom they may or may not be able to best, as the 45th President will inherit a scenario that appears Carteresque and one that might have made Ronald Reagan take pause. That said, the candidates that do emerge will have a clear understanding of just how desperate the situation may be, and how Reagan, although elected twice in what can only be considered landslides, (given the fact that he took Massachusetts twice), lost popularity while putting the nation back together over a 3 year period. It goes without saying that these candidates will have to put political ambitions aside, and have a pure desire to right the course of the nation, and the knowledge to do so, as in an individual who has had the experience of Governing a State, as opposed to an individual who has been invested in the legislative side of government.

Mike Huckabee, an increasingly potential GOP 21012 candidate, cautioned recently that Obama would be difficult to beat, but not impossible, and he is right – it will be the candidate chosen by the GOP and GOP leaning independents (and possibly some Democrats) that will either instill confidence in a weary public, or not. Additionally, as Obama’s campaign manager uses the Massachusetts model of “How to elect Deval Patrick” and apply that to the Obama campaigns, one must watch for a third party candidate (i.e. Trojan Horse). Suggest reading treatments of the 2010 Gubernatorial race narrowly won by Deval Patrick over Republican Charlie Baker (by 2 points), with the Democrat turned Independent, Tim Cahill, increasing Patrick’s chances which ultimately gave the Governor with the lowest possible approval rating in Massachusetts a second term.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be 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.

The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). Then, 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 passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

http://wwww.NationalPopularVote.com

Anonymous said...

The founding fathers were very smart in using the Electoral College. It would be a disaster to change it. It helps make sure that the different areas of the country, are addressed on equal footing. If you want another Civil War, then by all means, make it so that a large part of the Country has no say in who gets elected. The candidates would pander to all of the large population centers and ignore the rest of the country.

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address
Subject
Message