Didn’t We Just Have an Election?

Posted by on . 5 comments.

“CNN Poll: Obama Trails Mitt And Huck, Leads Gingrich And Palin” (TPMDC):

A newly-released CNN poll, conducted a few days before this past midterm election, shows President Obama in for a competitive race in 2012, with him trailing two potential Republican candidates and leading two others among registered voters.

The numbers:

• Mike Huckabee leads Obama by 52%-44%. In the previous CNN poll from April, Obama led Huckabee by 54%-45%.

• Mitt Romney leads Obama by 50%-45%. In the previous CNN poll from April, Obama led Romney by 53%-45%.

As it happens, Sarabeth and I have a bet on the 2012 election made about a year ago. I have The Huck and The Mitt, Sarabeth has Obama. As of now, I expect a push because Huckabee will have to deal with the fact that a man whose prison sentence he commuted killed four police officers last year, Romney won’t be able to run against health care because the Affordable Care Act is basically RomneyCare, and well, Obama just isn’t getting another term.

I know people aren’t yet ready to wrap their heads around Obama not winning in 2012, but taking a look at the electoral map makes it pretty clear. Obama won Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Florida in 2008. NC and IN are totally off the table, and Ohio and Florida were both absolute bloodbaths for Democrats on Tuesday. Iowa voted to actually remove three state judges for ruling in favor of gay marriage. It’s hard to imagine Wisconsin voting out Russ Feingold in favor of a total psycho and then turning around and giving Obama another four years. Likewise Pennsylvania and Virginia were very unfriendly to Democrats on Tuesday.

That’s 124 electoral votes that range from shaky to straight-up gone.

Comments

  1. kohler says:
    November 5, 2010 at 11:34 am

    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 equal and 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.

    Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored — 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, 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.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota — 75%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  2. Abe says:
    November 7, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    Matt,

    I am writing to ask for your help in a survey of bloggers being conducted by the University of Michigan. This study looks at how the blogging community thinks about and responds to important issues and current events. As the author of West Coast Cap Peelers you are invited to visit the link below and complete the survey. It will only take about 20 minutes.

    I apologize for contacting you this way — I couldn’t find an email address on your blog, and it is only by hearing from nearly everybody in the sample that we can be sure the results are truly representative. Your responses will be kept strictly confidential, and I will be happy to share results with you once the study is complete.

    Simply click on the link below, or cut and paste the entire URL into your browser to access the survey. I hope you will find the survey interesting and enjoyable.

    http://umichlsa.qualtrics.com/WRQualtricsSurveyEngine/?Q_SS=9GhujRhjrKm6QKw_0MWBd6sqVxUnOFC&_=1

    Thanks in advance for your willingness to share your ideas and experiences.

    Abe Gong
    University of Michigan

    P.S. If you have questions or comments about this study, you can reach me by email: agong@umich.edu. Thank you!

  3. sarabeth says:
    November 9, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Hilarious research methodology! (And from the University of Michigan too; my alma mater, sad to say.)

    Anyone can masquerade as Matt, and fill in their survey.

    So, if you want to spend 20 minutes helping to screw up their results, feel free. Such stupidly careless research design deserves such a response.

  4. kiel says:
    November 9, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    Never got IRB approval, I bet.

  5. baggers are ignorant says:
    December 20, 2010 at 9:22 pm

    It’s hard to imagine Wisconsin voting out Russ Feingold in favor of a total psycho and then turning around and giving Obama another four years
    It’s hard to imagine Wisconsin (2012) giving Obama four years then turning around and voting in a total psycho (2010).
    not so different. so, who can predict 2012 (another 2 years)?

    2. hickabee vs mittz: i think you meant ‘putsch’, not ‘push’?