imreallyperplexed
Council Member
What do you find amazing Lupe? An honest account of the facts? :biggrin1:
Amazing
Amazing
The facts come out in November he heWhat do you find amazing Lupe? An honest account of the facts? :biggrin1:
The facts come out in November he he
The American political science cognescenti seems to agree that the definition of "electoral vote landslide" has probably evolved a bit, since the Reagan days. Due to subsequent redistricting and red/blue polarization, there are probably at least 10 states a GOP couldn't win under any circumstances and as many that a Democrat could never win.
So....it may be more useful for us to focus on the possibility of a popular vote landslide, with the winner taking somewhere around 60% of the vote. And on that note...I'd like to see Obama and the Democrats pursue a robust "50 state strategy".
For instance...sure, there's virtually nothing Obama can do to "win" the State of Utah. So, the Obamans could just write off Utah. But, in terms of a possible popular vote landslide and the mandate it would suggest - it all adds up. Therefore, losing Utah 40-60 rather than 30-70, could be of more longterm value than we might assume.
As "they" say, it's all about the turnout!
For the Obamans, the question will be how to drive not so much "winning" turnout, as "mandate" turnout. That's tough. I can see scenarios under which it would be in their interest to campaign that the election's going to be close, so people BETTER vote! But, I can also see scenarios under which they might campaign that they're winning going away and that people should be sure and vote to magnify the win.
For the Mittsters though...I see problems. I'm not seeing much of anything they can do, to get voters excited about Mitt himself. ALL they have, is Obama-hate/fear. And we'll note that even in the several days since Mitt became their "official" candidate, all they've done is try out more Obama-hate/fear themes - with virtually nothing in terms of Mitt-positivity. But with each passing month, people look to be becoming less and less fear/hateful of Obama. And as per the '84 Reagan election, there comes a point where spewing fear/hate becomes counterproductive and starts driving more people TO the target of the fear/hate, than away from him.
I've seen too many things happen in recent decades to make any kind of bet on elections, but I will say that the support that Romney has is largely from the upper percentage of the weallthy in this nation who may possess a great deal of wealth, but by way of a lesson of sorts, because their numbers are small, do not have the votes by virtue of their numbers and despite all the frantic and numerous efforts to suggest it was Obama that tanked the nation's economy, ran up its debt to the point of that collapse and presided over a government that failed the nation, January 2009 (When Obama took office was only 3 years and 3 months ago and while things are not nearly back to "normal" (whatever that is now) a number of things are looking up, not down as they were when the last president left office, just after headlines that described the economic state of the nation as the "worst crisis since the 30's, no end in sight".At this point, I am willing to take-it-for-granted that Romney will be the Republican nominee and that there won't be a significant third party candidate. It will be Mitt versus Barack mano a mano. So it seems like a good time for a poll to get everyone on record early on. However, rather than using percentages of the popular vote, I am going to set up the poll by electoral votes. If anyone has forgotten, there are 538 electoral votes and in 2008, Obama got 365 electoral votes and McCain got 173 electoral votes.
For my poll:
>400 electoral votes is considered a landslide
300-400 electoral votes is considered a solid victory
270-300 electoral votes is considered a squeaker (where it is possible that the popular vote winner does not win the electoral vote).
Well the demographic data collected in the exit polls and also reflected in the 2010 results show that that it is about turning out the 18-33yo base. Where they turned out at 15% and above (of the electorate) in 2010, the GOP went down in flames despite spending tens of millionsI think A LOT of this election and Obama's chances to win will hinge on his ability (or lack there of) to inspire the base that came out for him in 2008. I have read mixed reports on the possibility of some of those groups waning support of him this time around. If Obama isn't able to rally the 18-30 year old base and get the African-American base to the level of excitement they had last Presidential election...that, combined with the factors you just added, COULD spell disaster for Obama.
My prediction is based on the possibility that he will enjoy the same benefits he did in 2008. I think the entire election is going to boil down to states like Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina, and Florida swinging in his favor.
I've seen too many things happen in recent decades to make any kind of bet on elections, but I will say that the support that Romney has is largely from the upper percentage of the weallthy in this nation who may possess a great deal of wealth, but by way of a lesson of sorts, because their numbers are small, do not have the votes by virtue of their numbers and despite all the frantic and numerous efforts to suggest it was Obama that tanked the nation's economy, ran up its debt to the point of that collapse and presided over a government that failed the nation, January 2009 (When Obama took office was only 3 years and 3 months ago and while things are not nearly back to "normal" (whatever that is now) a number of things are looking up, not down as they were when the last president left office, just after headlines that described the economic state of the nation as the "worst crisis since the 30's, no end in sight".
While the hope of some might have been that memories are short or could be wiped out by repeated pounding of rhetoric, I just don't believe that has happened and too many people still remember the root of and whose (if the political party of the president is responsible) party had the reins of the nation when what we're still working our way out of hit us full on.
I think Obama is going to begin to point out all the concessions he has made since he took office and point to how those concessions have not worked and where he was supported has worked and simply ask Americans if they want to go back to the same headline carried by the Wall Street Journal on September 18, 2008 and if they would, to please vote for Mitt Romney.
Romney will win either way....despite voter fraud....despite massive misinformation campaigns...despite the total insanity that will precede the final vote counts....
It's gonna be ugly in the streets after that......they are not going to take this defeat well at all.
JO
U Reps have the nerve to complain about lies? How about: 1.death panels 2. people will go to jail for not getting health insurance. 3. birther b.s. 4. And my favorite--Romney sayng the President refuses to address entitlements--and in the same speech, no less--wants to cut Medicare!And if Obama wins by either of the margins that you mentioned, it will be because he and his minions told enough lies (autistic people will be on their own, old people will be pushed off a cliff in their wheel chairs, poor children will go hungry, etc etc)