Some Electoral Map Projections

[Annie]

Moe Lane » Election 2012: The long, slow retreat of Obama for America.

Election 2012: The long, slow retreat of Obama for America.

It’s funny, really. Somebody like Mark Halperin sees this:

Barack Obama’s decision to base his re-election campaign outside of Washington seems to be working pretty darn well. The campaign’s massive, high-rise headquarters in Chicago’s Loop achieves a fine balance between 2008’s hip-casual dorm room (there’s a Ping-Pong table and cheeky homemade signage) and 2012’s systematized Death Star (there are more employees than I have ever seen in a political campaign, with work stations subdivided as ever more employees are added). The place hums from early morning until late at night, designed for maximum efficiency and manifest focus.

and thinks “Success!” I see it and think “High burn rate.” Also: “Hubris.” Let’s talk about why.

Visualization of the Electoral College totals will be helpful, so I’m going to show a series of maps (via 270toWin) and give my explanation of what I think each one represents. A lot of this is subjective, so if you think that I’m generally full of it anyway you have my permission to keep thinking that. Anyway, let’s start with the baseline:



. . .

It gets more interesting from this point.

Anyone who saw James Carville's warning, may quickly understand this oldie. Liberal cocooning:

The Times "Liberal Cocoon" - November 5, 2003 - TimesWatch.org | Media Research Center

The Times "Liberal Cocoon" - November 5, 2003 - TimesWatch.org


The Times "Liberal Cocoon"

Slate journalist Mickey Kaus has developed an explanation for why Democrats tend to disappoint on Election Day-"liberal cocooning." Kaus explains: "The point is that reporters and editors at papers like the Times (either one!) are exquisitely sensitive to any sign that Democrats might win, but don't cultivate equivalent sensitivity when it comes to discerning signs Republicans might win. (Who wants to read that?) The result, in recent years, is the Liberal Cocoon, in which Democratic partisans are kept happy and hopeful until they are slaughtered every other November." Kaus' subject was an article in the L.A. Times, but his theory applies equally well to the paper's New York namesake.

Back on August 13, the NYT's James Dao opened a story on the Kentucky governor's race with this pro-Democratic rah-rah: "Improbable as it sounds, the first major test of President Bush's vulnerability on the weak economy may come this November in a state that he won handily in 2000, where his favorable ratings are still high and where Republicans hold seven of eight Congressional seats. No one said Kentucky politics was predictable. With a tenacity that has surprised his opponent and some supporters, the Democratic candidate for governor, Attorney General Ben Chandler, has attacked Mr. Bush's stewardship of the economy, contending that Republican policies have drained Kentucky of 56,000 jobs, aided the wealthy at the expense of the poor and helped drill a gaping hole in the state budget."

Dao continued the cheerleading: "If Mr. Chandler, considered the underdog, can ride voters' anxieties about unemployment to victory, it could give the Democrats momentum in their seemingly uphill quest to unseat the president, Democrats and political analysts assert.Still, Mr. Chandler's assault seems to have put [Republican candidate Ernie] Fletcher on the defensive. In campaign events, he acknowledges that Kentucky's economy is struggling and that job creation should be among the new governor's top priorities." The article's headline posed the election as a test for Bush: "Kentucky Race Is Test For Bush on Economy."

But as Michael Janofsky reports in Wednesday's editions, Bush aced the exam. For all the talk of the "tenacious" Democrat and the "defensive" Republican, the Republican candidate Ernie Fletcher won decisively (55%-45%) capturing the Kentucky statehouse for the Republican Party for the first time since 1967.

One can't help notice that suddenly the Kentucky election doesn't have quite such national significance for the Times. Back in August, when Democratic hopes were high, the Times painted it as a referendum on Bush. Now, after a Republican win, the Kentucky race morphs into a referendum on Kentucky's scandal-ridden Democratic governor, Paul Patton: "The Kentucky race was viewed largely as a referendum on the leadership of Mr. Patton, whose eight years in office became major campaign fodder for the number of investigations into corruption, the indictment of several administration officials and Mr. Patton's extramarital affair with a state contractor." (Janofsky does note the Kentucky win "gives Republicans at least a degree of momentum heading into a presidential election next November.")

David Rosenbaum wrote a similar long story on October 15 about the Mississippi governor's race, which pitted well-connected Republican Haley Barbour versus incumbent governor Ronnie Musgrove. Rosenbaum similarly positioned the incumbent Democrat Musgrove as the scrappy underdog in the race (never mind that Musgrove was governor and should have in theory had the natural advantage).

Rosenbaum noted: "With his money, national Republican connections, political savvy and personal charm, Haley Barbour looked to many people last winter like a sure bet to be elected governor of Mississippi this year. That was especially true because the Democratic incumbent whom he was challenging had presided over the weakest state economy in years in a region where President Bush is particularly popular and at a time when anti-incumbent sentiment seems to be increasing. But the handicappers underestimated Gov. Ronnie Musgrove. He raised nearly as much money as Mr. Barbour, conserved most of it for the last few weeks before the November election and proved to be a relentless campaigner. Now, although no polls have been published, the candidates and political experts agree that the race is extremely tight." The headline to Rosenbaum's story: "Mississippi Incumbent Surprises His G.O.P. Opponent."

The Times "cocooned" readership was probably surprised as well, when they woke up to find that Republican Haley Barbour won easily (53%-45% with 95 percent of precincts reporting as of Wednesday morning), becoming only the second Republican governor elected in Mississippi in modern times. Republicans now hold 29 governorships nationwide.

For Michael Janofsky's story on the Republican's big night, click here.

 

[Mad Scientist]

"I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon."

"I don't know a single person who voted for Reagan."

Then after Romney gets elected they'll say it about him too.

 

[Unkotare]

I remember that comment about Reagan so well. I happened to have been watching that newscast at that time.

 

[JoeB131]

Digging into the depth of this article was amusing, because it kind of shows the magical thinking of Romney supporters.

the fact is, the Electoral College system gives the Democrats a huge advantage before a single vote is cast.

Obama will without a doubt take all the states the Democrats have won the last four times. That starts him out at 242. It's pretty much a done deal that he'll take New Mexico. Democrats have taken that 4 of the last five times and 2004 was a fluke.

He just needs to come up with 23 more. Just winning Florida gets that for him.

So do the combinations of -

VA and NC
VA and OH
OH and IA
OH and NV
OH and CO
NC and CO
NC and NH and OH
VA and NH and OH

In short, there are a bunch of permutations that gets you that extra 23 votes.

Now Romney starts off at really, the states McCain won, plus Indiana, and minus AZ and MO, where he looks iffy. He as to not only retain those two, but he also has to take FL, NC, VA and OH. Simply no scenario where he wins without all four of those, and he still needs one more state (NH, IA, NV, CO) to get him over 270. If he loses one of the first four, he has to take all four of the others to have a shot.

Of course, the worst part about it is, historically, Romney always starts strong and finishes weak. When people get to know him, they dont like what they see.

 

[Katzndogz]

Digging into the depth of this article was amusing, because it kind of shows the magical thinking of Romney supporters.

the fact is, the Electoral College system gives the Democrats a huge advantage before a single vote is cast.

Obama will without a doubt take all the states the Democrats have won the last four times. That starts him out at 242. It's pretty much a done deal that he'll take New Mexico. Democrats have taken that 4 of the last five times and 2004 was a fluke.

He just needs to come up with 23 more. Just winning Florida gets that for him.

So do the combinations of -

VA and NC
VA and OH
OH and IA
OH and NV
OH and CO
NC and CO
NC and NH and OH
VA and NH and OH

In short, there are a bunch of permutations that gets you that extra 23 votes.

Now Romney starts off at really, the states McCain won, plus Indiana, and minus AZ and MO, where he looks iffy. He as to not only retain those two, but he also has to take FL, NC, VA and OH. Simply no scenario where he wins without all four of those, and he still needs one more state (NH, IA, NV, CO) to get him over 270. If he loses one of the first four, he has to take all four of the others to have a shot.

Of course, the worst part about it is, historically, Romney always starts strong and finishes weak. When people get to know him, they dont like what they see.

That's some pretty wishful thinking.

It must be why Romney is leading right now. obama is just so darn popular in North Carolina and Nevada. By the way, obama has already give up in Indiana. Colorado is following North Carolina out of the swing state category.

 

[JoeB131]

That's some pretty wishful thinking.

It must be why Romney is leading right now. obama is just so darn popular in North Carolina and Nevada. By the way, obama has already give up in Indiana. Colorado is following North Carolina out of the swing state category.

Sorry, man, RCP has them both listed as Swing States, and frankly, the thinking is kind of wishful, as Obama leads in polls in both.

but he could lose both and still win. All he has to do is take Florida.

By the way, look for Romney's numbers to crater this week. The Bully story will do him in.



RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Colorado: Romney vs. Obama

PPP (D)

4/5 - 4/7

542 RV

53

40

Obama +13


North Carolina-


RCP Average

4/4 - 4/30

--

46.7

44.3

Obama +2.4



SurveyUSA

4/26 - 4/30

1636 RV

47

43

Obama +4



Rasmussen Reports

4/10 - 4/10

500 LV

44

46

Romney +2



PPP (D)

4/4 - 4/7

975 RV

49

44

Obama +5