Electoral Map 2012

Now that the Weathervane is going to be the nominee it is time to start looking at the electoral map for the fall.  Go here to view an interactive electoral map with my prediction of the outcome in November.

Actually, that is my cautious prediction based upon current conditions:  Romney 291-Obama 247.  I think it possible, perhaps probable, that either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania will also go Republican in the Presidential contest.  With Pennsylvania the final tally would be Romney 311-Obama 227.  With Wisconsin it is Romney 301-Obama 237.  With both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania it is an electoral landslide of Romney 321-Obama 217.

In the Rasmussen polls Romney had a lead of a few points over Obama all last week.  I expect the polls to fluctuate, but I believe on election day Romney will win with a tally of 54 for him and 45 for Obama.

The battleground states will be Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  Obama will make a head feint against North Carolina, but that will be to divert Romney to spending time and money there.  Romney’s best choice for Veep is Rubio, who will seal the deal on Florida, cut into the Hispanic vote, help mend fences with conservatives and is perfect on the religious liberty issue.  Obama should dump Biden, but I doubt he will.  Choosing Biden was Obama’s way of saying that he needed absolutely no help to win in 2008 and I suspect he believes that will also be true in 2012.  Romney should be able to raise enough funds so the Obama money advantage will be negligible.

American presidential elections are almost always on the economy and I expect the economy to worsen, at least marginally, between now and election day.  According to Rasmussen, Romney has a 10 point advantage over Obama on who voters trust on the economy and I expect that to increase as we get closer in to election day.

38 Responses to Electoral Map 2012

  • I hope you are right, but once the Obama campaign gets up to full speed, and the establishment media gives Obama the benefit of the doubt and Romney the burden of doubt, I believe Obama will win a VERY narrow victory in November.

    Of the 70 million who voted for Obama in 2008, at least 20 to 30 million do not want to vote for him again. But Romney is now such a damaged candidate that most of them will very, very, very reluctantly, if they vote in 2012, return to vote for Obama. The only hope for Romney is low Democratic turnout, but the media will incessantly hammer Romney, stimulating enough turnout for Obama to win.

    This is the 2012 electoral college scenario:

    Obama wins every state east and north of Pennsylvania/Maryland. On the presidential level, the Northeast is now solidly Democratic. Romney wins Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina . . . all states that Obama won in 2008. Obama narrowly retains Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. This leaves the remaining contested states of Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada . . . all of which Obama narrowly wins again. The Latino vote in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada will be determinative in those states. So the final electoral college tally is Obama 272 and Romney 266.

    This is the truly sad part: the damage that has been done during the Republican primary process to “the Weathervane,” by conservatives and fellow Republicans, and, frankly, also by the candidate himself, is now, I believe, irreparable. Also significantly, Obama’s second term will be much more unfettered, with no need for re-election considerations. The use of Executive Orders by Obama in a second term will be unprecedented in American history. Those contentious issues, that he has held back on for future electoral reasons, will no longer be so constrained.

    Republicans and conservatives, through our own petty infighting, and our inability to construct a clear, positive vision for the future, will have once again, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

  • Dullard Flip Rino will lose. Bank on it.

    Obama will win Ohio. Virginia will be close, but Romney will probably narrowly edge Obama there. North Carolina will be a toss-up, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see a narrow Obama win there.

  • “On the presidential level, the Northeast is now solidly Democratic.”

    Not New Hampshire.

    “This leaves the remaining contested states of Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada . . . all of which Obama narrowly wins again.”

    Iowa went Republican in a big way in 2010. I do not expect that to change. Nevada has a huge Mormon population and elected a Republican governor in 2010 and I expect Romney to win comfortably there. New Mexico is going Obama unless Romney puts the female Hispanic GOP governor elected in 2010 on the ticket. Colorado will be tough but I believe Romney will pull it out.

  • “North Carolina will be a toss-up, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see a narrow Obama win there.”

    I would since it went for Obama by a literal handful of votes in 2008 and had a massive swing to the GOP in 2010.

    “Obama will win Ohio. ”

    I very much doubt that, but in my cautious view of the outcome, even if Obama took Ohio Romney would win.

  • Donald, you are right,”solidly” is too strong a word for New Hampshire, the one exception to the “solid” Democratic Northeast, but Obama will still narrowly win in New Hampshire in 2012.

    While on the state level it is politically more complicated, on the presidential level, I believe that both Iowa and Nevada will narrowly go for Obama. But Iowa and Nevada may end up being the decisive states if Romney has any chance of winning in 2012. A poor showing with Latinos in Colorado and New Mexico will be decisive for Obama there.

    And I desperately hope that I am wrong.

  • I don’t believe Rubio is the Best choice…. just a feeling from watching and listening… he is Upward bound to be sure– but what is his ground?
    a “Catholic turned Mormon turned Catholic again who goes to a Baptist Church” I think the VP selection is very very important– need to seriously look around

  • The only hope for Romney is low Democratic turnout,

    Dullard Flip Rino will lose. Bank on it.

    He is not a dullard, the ‘RINO’ discourse cannot withstand five minutes of serious thought, and no incumbent as damaged as the current one is has been returned to office in the last eighty years. Mr. Romney is just a disappointing political opportunist. Neither the Republican Party nor the electorate at large have a severe allergy to such types.

  • “a “Catholic turned Mormon turned Catholic again who goes to a Baptist Church””

    Rubio, Analyze, had nothing to do with his family’s sojourn among the Mormons, as he was all of 12 after his family returned to the Faith. As for the Baptist Church, his wife is a devout Protestant, so it doesn’t surprise me that he makes time to attend her church as well as his own.

    “Ever since he came onto the nation scene, there’s been intense speculation about Rubio’s religious affiliation. He says he’s a Catholic, but he also attends an Evangelical mega-Church. I have a source – a very good one – who says that Rubio is in fact a devout Catholic but his wife is also a devout Protestant. Rubio attends his church in the morning and hers a little later so that the family can stay together. There’s certainly no sin in that.”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139296/catholic-evangelical-mormon-who-is-the-real-marco-rubio/

  • Donald, I agree that Romney’s VP choice will be very important. Rubio would be excellent, especially as an out-reach to Latinos. You are also right, that the Catholic, Mormon, Catholic “sojourn” was not his, but his family’s during his youth. No fair-minded person would hold that against him. And I also agree that his wife’s strong Protestantism, and his willingness to worship with her while retaining his own Catholicism, could end up being an electoral strength for the Republicans with open-minded independents and especially with women. It is admirable.

    I also would love to see Chris Christie as a potential running mate, although he has repeatedly said he is not interested. He would perform very well in debate and dismantle Biden if it came to that. I’d love to see him on the ticket.

    A well-run campaign with either Rubio or Christie on the ticket might tip the balance to a close Romney victory. We can hope!!

  • Donald, I agree that Romney’s VP choice will be very important.

    Why? Vice Presidents are window dressing. They rarely have any real input in an administration, and when they do – Gore and Cheney – it’s because they’re ideologically compatible with the President. However, when there are differences of opinion – as there were in the latter years of Cheney and Bush – it’s the President whose opinion matters.

    I also would love to see Chris Christie as a potential running mate,

    You and Ann Coulter both, but I think the interest in Chris Christie is pretty minimal after that.

    He would perform very well in debate and dismantle Biden if it came to that.

    I think Newt Gingrich has amply demonstrated why this is an over-rated consideration.

  • Paul, you ask, “Why?” Because this will be a VERY close election, with a potential electoral college margin of victory of under 30 to 40 votes. In close background states, especially those with a higher Latino vote, and with Rubio on the ticket, he could be the difference.

    And Christie is a very effective and knowledgeable speaker with a razor wit. He does not alienate independents, as Gingrich does. Christie would be an excellent addition to the ticket and his presence during the campaign would probably help make Romney a better candidate.

    This will not be a typical election . . . the electoral college margin of victory will likely be small . . . and the VP candidate COULD be the difference. That was my main point.

  • Paul, you ask, “Why?” Because this will be a VERY close election, with a potential electoral college margin of victory of under 30 to 40 votes. In close background states, especially those with a higher Latino vote, and with Rubio on the ticket, he could be the difference.

    I guess I phrased my question inartfully. What I’m really asking is why we should care who the veep selection is for our own purposes. I’m not interested in the political calculus – just curious why we make a big deal over what has been one of the most inconsequential positions ever devised by man.

  • Let me preface this by admitting that I am a very ashamed Penguins Fan. For any of you who follow the NHL, Sunday’s game against the Flyers is the reason.

    The fact is we don’t know how any of this will turn out, not just yet. Obumbler will get a free pass from the press, but let us remember what Obumbler will not get.

    Obumbler will not get is John McCain as an opponent. There are things I don’t like about Mitt Romney, but he is a better candidate than McCain. Romeny has a better organization and better financing.

    Obumbler will not lock up the youth vote like he did in 2008. Countless of those college students who voted for Obumbler in 2008 are unemployed or underemployed and will have learned a lesson.

    Romneycare notwithstanding, Obamacare is a dead albatross hanging from Obumbler’s neck.

    Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida will NOT reelect Obumbler. Romney has a shot at winning Michigan. If the Philly suburbs (Philly is a dirty word to me right now) go for Romney Pennsylvania will go for Romney. Net Hampshire will vote Romney.

  • I used to be in the “Romney will lose” camp, but that’s changed over the past ten days, for two reasons:

    First, he’s raising funds at a rate comparable to Obama–the GOP won’t be crushed by the Three Quarters Of A Billion Dollar Man in this cycle.

    Second, Obama has decided not to target Romney’s Achilles Heel. Instead of attacking him as an opportunistic flip-flopper, he’s attacking Mitt as a conservative extremist.

    Oy. That is a colossal blunder, and quite probably fatal if the economy keeps sputtering like it is.

  • Donald, the link to your map isn’t working. It just goes to the home page of the site. Can you update with the share link?

  • Dale,
    See that is the problem. There are lots of 10 days between now and November, and we’re likely to see some fairly dramatic swings in momentum and data as a result of all kinds of stuff. What the current polls prove is that there is simply no reasonable basis for believing that Romney cannot win the election, and that will be true even if in another 10 days it looks like 10 days ago.

  • Penguins Fan, I feel your pain, as a fellow Penguin’s fan now living in Michigan.

    It was obvious, from the middle of the regular season on, that Fleury was the weak link on the team. Among goaltenders with the most regular season minutes, his goals against average and save percentage were among the worst in the NHL. What I have never understood is his consistent poor play in the playoffs at home . . . his performance in Philadelphia on Sunday notwithstanding, he seems to save his worst games for the playoffs at home.

    The off season had better see some major changes at goal for the Penguins, both with Fleury and the acquisition of a better back-up goaltender.

  • Donald, I agree that Romney’s VP choice will be very important.

    William Schneider would beg to differ. He offered a number of years ago that the research he had examined indicated that a good prospective estimate would be that the vice presidential selection would net the candidate 2% of the vote in the v.p. candidate’s home state, and that the object should be to avoid distractions.

    They rarely have any real input in an administration, and when they do – Gore and Cheney – it’s because they’re ideologically compatible with the President.

    For the last 70-odd years, they have generally been ideologically compatible. George Bush the Elder and Walter Mondale might be regarded as partial exceptions and Nelson Rockefeller as an exception without qualification. Rockefeller, however, was assigned to supervise the domestic policy staff at the White House, so did have real input.

    just curious why we make a big deal over what has been one of the most inconsequential positions ever devised by man.

    Because there is a twenty percent shot the President dies in office or resigns.

  • “Can you update with the share link?”

    Done.

  • “He offered a number of years ago that the research he had examined indicated that a good prospective estimate would be that the vice presidential selection would net the candidate 2% of the vote in the v.p. candidate’s home state, and that the object should be to avoid distractions.”

    I guess he wasn’t paying much attention in the 60 race when Kennedy would not have stood a chance in Texas without Johnson on the ticket.

    In 2008 Palin solidified the conservative base behind McCain, gave him the only week when he was ahead of Obama, after he named her, and provided the only interest in his otherwise corpselike campaign to get the good loser award from the mainstream media.

  • “First, he’s raising funds at a rate comparable to Obama–the GOP won’t be crushed by the Three Quarters Of A Billion Dollar Man in this cycle.

    Second, Obama has decided not to target Romney’s Achilles Heel. Instead of attacking him as an opportunistic flip-flopper, he’s attacking Mitt as a conservative extremist.

    Oy. That is a colossal blunder, and quite probably fatal if the economy keeps sputtering like it is.”

    Bingo Dale. Being attacked as a right wing wacko by Obama will help Romney greatly in solidifying conservative support. As for independents, the idea that white bread Romney, the lost Osmond child, is in any way threatening or extreme will simply seem laughable.

  • “but he is a better candidate than McCain.”

    That is a low bar Penguin Fan, but a correct observation. Romney at least seems like he desperately wants to win. In the general election in 2008 McCain always seemed pathetically eager for any excuse to suspend his campaign. After the economy melted down in September he was only going through the motions. He also had the most incompetent, backbiting and disloyal staff I have ever seen in any presidential campaign.

  • I guess he wasn’t paying much attention in the 60 race when Kennedy would not have stood a chance in Texas without Johnson on the ticket.

    Kennedy won 51% of the vote in Texas. The result is congruent with his thesis.

  • Don

    If has been an analytical common place that for the last 20 years in generic mation wid election each party starts at 45%. I sure hope he loses but even the Palin/McCain did better than 45% (But I thin a McCain anybody else might have been the first to in less that 45%)

    But maybe your right and President Obama is bad enough.

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • Rubbish Art. Johnson stole Texas for Kennedy. Some counties had more votes cast for Kennedy than they had registered voters. When the Republicans demanded a recount they were told that the Board of Elections, all Democrats by coincidence, had already certified Kennedy the winner. Of course this type of election fraud was typical for Landslide Lyndon who stole his Senate seat in 1948 and earned his nickname while doing so. Absent the fraud and Johnson’s machine behind him Kennedy would have been creamed.

  • See that is the problem. There are lots of 10 days between now and November, and we’re likely to see some fairly dramatic swings in momentum and data as a result of all kinds of stuff. What the current polls prove is that there is simply no reasonable basis for believing that Romney cannot win the election, and that will be true even if in another 10 days it looks like 10 days ago.

    Bingo.

    Given that our elections tend to be decided by people politically unmoored enough to actually be up for grabs between the two parties, it’s hard to say where things will be in November, but the last week does at least seem to show that a majority of voters are willing to vote for Romney if the stars are aligned right in election week and the Obama campaign is stupid enough to commit unforced errors like attacking Mitt’s wife for being a mom.

  • Brilliant video Hank! I always suspected Bullwinkle of being a trilateralist in league with the cattle mutilating Elvis impersonators!

  • “If has been an analytical common place that for the last 20 years in generic mation wid election each party starts at 45%”.

    Bush senior in 92 got 37% in a three way contest and Clinton got 43%. I think each party starts with a hard core of around 40%. Only Goldwater has gotten below that, 38%, in a two way contest for President.

  • Rubbish Art. Johnson stole Texas for Kennedy.

    We have been over this issue before. It is your blog and you can make any sort of unsupported assertion you care to.

  • Facts and unsupported assertions are two different things Art. That Texas was stolen by Johnson in 1960 for Kennedy is a historical fact.

  • Voter fraud in Texas was massive. This is not in dispute. Was it enough to have stolen the state for Kennedy? That may not be as clear, but I know of no serious study that dismisses it. Art if you think otherwise, then it runs counter to several serious studies I’ve read over the years.

  • I certainly don’t think there is “any sin in that” either– I was wondering about where he is grounded now– neither he nor I chose how we were reared– but I wonder what his take-away from all that is– our upbringing certainly has its effect…even if it is shifting sand… Where does he stand now..? I don’t know –I am willing to look more into it… and also at others. As I said, that the question of the VP is such an important question that it bears really looking around at the potential field.

  • That Texas was stolen by Johnson in 1960 for Kennedy is a historical fact.

    It is no such thing.

  • I stand in awe of such a searing refutation grouchy penguin.

    “As examples of ballot box stuffing: In Texas’s Angelina County, in one precinct, only 86 people voted yet the final tally was 147 for Kennedy, 24 for Nixon; in Fannin County the 4895 registered voters cast 6138 votes (75% for Kennedy). Discarded spoiled ballots were to be placed by Texas law in “ballot box 4″ for later re-examination, but many counties (e.g. Fort Bend County, which had a huge 16% spoilage rate, topping even the worst Florida 2000 County) just discarded them, and did not store them, making any biased discarding decisions uncorrectable and unprovable. The 100%-Democrat Texas Election Board refused to conduct a recount, so game over.”

  • Rubio has stuff in his past that will not go unnoticed in a general campaign. I think a much better option would be Susana Martinez from New Mexico. War on women Ms vice president? Nah… Hate Hispanics Ms Martinez? Nah… A Female Catholic Conservative that’s Hispanic? Heavens yeah!!!

  • Mr. McClarey, you are quite welcome to rummage through the principal indexing services for scholarly treatments of 20th century American history. (That would be America: History and Life, JSTOR, and Academic Search Premier). You will find very little in academic journals on electoral fraud during the 1960 presidential election and nearly all of it concerns Cook County, Illinois. As noted the last time we discussed this subject, Johnson’s organization would have had to steal 46,000 votes in Texas to have turned the state for Kennedy, nearly 5x the size of the task Mayor Daley would have had in Illinois but without the concentrated and well-structured organization to do it. As for the 1948 Texas Democratic primary, as far as I am aware (and in spite of his general contentions as to the dimensions of the fraud), Robert Caro was able to verify only that Johnson’s henchmen had stolen some 202 votes in Jim Welles County. (Caro has claimed, implausibly, that Coke Stevenson’s organization lacked the know-how to steal votes). Now, Caro has a new book coming out in just two weeks, so you may find your argument there. (The advance reviews reveal nothing so explosive, however).

  • Just in; Marco Rubio is apparently working on an immigrant legislation piece that would be huge for Hispanics, so a strong VP case could be made for him.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .