2012: Analyst Says 7 States Will Decide Presidency

Political analyst Larry Sabato writes in the Wall St. Journal that the 2012 presidential election will come down to 7 super-swing states:

Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13).

Why these 7? He says it's all in the electoral college math, the polls don't mean much. Sabato says:

Republicans therefore are a lock or lead in 24 states for 206 electoral votes, and Democrats have or lead in 19 states for 247 electoral votes.

There's a big difference between a lock and a lead so I'm not putting much stock in this. And what if there's a third party candidate on either side? Sabato says that could put a wrench in things. Redistricting (as in Ohio and "Northern Frost Belt" states) ) could also make a difference according to Sabato since the Republicans will gain about 6 electors from it.

< A Non-Pragmatic View Of Tax Policy | Tuesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Seriously, of these seven states (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 12:41:21 PM EST
    If things remain as they are economically, I can't see Obama winning more than two of those states.  And I almost don't care who his opponent is, the result will be the same.

    Hope... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    And what if there's a third party candidate on either side? Sabato says that could put a wrench in things.

    Wrench for President!

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:12:51 PM EST
    You sure that silly photo led to the shooting deaths of two National Guard personnel that look like they were specifically targeted?

    I hate guns - wish we could go by the whole 2nd Amendment and not just the second clause, but I think you're statement is a bit of a stretch.

    Of course, there's always Harry Reid and his guns too.

    If the GOP nominee is Perry (none / 0) (#1)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 12:14:26 PM EST
    I think things are pretty straightforward. Perry spiel doesn't really sell in any of those states (how does one win Florida by claiming that SS and medicare are unconstitutional and should be abolished?).

    Romney . . . well let's just say that given the 7 states referenced, Romney continues to scare me.

    I think we are going to see a massive push for Romney in the coming month or so and I hope it fails.

    Romney continues to look like the sanest choice (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 12:53:23 PM EST
    Which does not bode well for him.

    It will be bloody to the bitter end (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:16:49 PM EST
    if it is Romney and I don't think I have it in me to give a $hit about Obama or any of it.  I really don't.  I have been challenging myself to get back in the saddle with Obama, I'm looking for reasons and trying to talk myself into this, and I can't stay in the saddle for longer than five minutes.  About how long he stayed in the saddle with me...for me.  I'm in a bad place, a really bad place.  I've got nothing for Obama because no sane grown up lets anyone screw them over this badly and then gets excited about being invited to their next house painting party or residence move.

    Listen to a Romney interview sometime (none / 0) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:58:49 AM EST
    He was on Greta Van Susteren's show on Fox tonight, and I had trouble remembering to close my dropped jaw, what he said was so utterly insane.

    For instance, he made a passionate statement about how "middle income Americans' are suffering the most in this recession (really?  really??) and that his 952-point plan, or whatever it is, is designed to help them out by...... ready?  ... eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

    How many "middle-income Americans" do you know who would benefit significantly from eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends?


    If he stays crazy (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:08:20 PM EST
    Fear is the least desirable motivator in this instance but it is reasonable and inspiring.  And the internet has a long memory too, video lives on.

    I think Perry will be a flash in the pan. (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 12:57:53 PM EST
    He's dumb and shallow, even by GOP standards.

    Ah (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:35:52 PM EST
    But she was a terrible gubernatorial candidate and he was the incumbent.

    Perry's not the incumbent here.  Whole different ball of wax.


    KBH wanted to beat Perry (none / 0) (#48)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:38:45 PM EST
    out of dislike and spite... and remember, the governorship of Texas isn't a strong position, it's weak, compared to most governors' power.

    One doesn't need to be a rocket surgeon to govern Texas. The legislature meets every two years, and the governor's hands are tied on many issues, such as commutation of sentences, etc.


    True (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:48:37 PM EST
    But Perry is the "outsider" in a race (as is any serious Republican candidate who gets the nomination). Perry and Romney both have gubernatorial experience (weak governorships or not), which is a heckuva lot more than Obama had.

    It's still going to come down to the economy.  If it looks like it's getting better, Obama is a shoo-in against any one of the R's.  If it's the same or worse, nothing can save him.  It's really that simple.  All this other stuff about gay marriage, abortion, the Supreme Court, the enviroment, etc. will just be noise, despite the postulating and screaming of bloggers and talking heads.  People don't vote or care about that stuff when they can't pay their mortgage.


    I'm not entirely sure (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:47:24 PM EST
    that Perry is all that winnable.  Admittedly, this is a small sample, but I have a lot of older, very conservative friends who simply cannot stand Perry.  They don't like his back-slapping, glad-handing, Evangelic-preacher persona, and will not vote for him in the Republican primary.  Will they vote for him in the general election?  Well, they won't vote for Obama, but they may just stay home.  I also think that Perry will have a very hard time getting the votes of the independents.  We'll see.  

    The farther Perry gets from (none / 0) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:55:12 PM EST
    the big state of Texas, the smaller he gets.  But, Perry is crafty and not to be underestimated.  Perry is scary on many fronts, but to dispel those long standing rumors that his base does not like to hear, he is likely to take a special interest in anti-gay efforts.

    You know what? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 05:22:35 PM EST
    A Perry nomination would show that the GOP has completely gone down the rabbit hole of radical fundamentalism.

    The thing Perry has that someone like Romney does not is that he scares the heck out of the middle and he's not going to be able to cut Obama's numbers with women or Latinos. That is how the Tea Party picked up seats in '10.


    Why would Romney do better than Perry (none / 0) (#91)
    by Politalkix on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 05:27:15 PM EST
    among Latinos?

    I don't (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 06:20:33 PM EST
    think either one do well with Latinos simply because the GOP doesn't do well with them due to their platform. Both of these candidates are going to have to play major hate on Latinos to motivate their base. The problem I see is that Obama isn't really offering them anything to vote for so probably lots of them staying home.

    Let's define the Latino (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 07:07:03 PM EST
    population we're talking about first, though.  Latinos are not a monolithic population.  The GOP does extremely well with Cuban-Americans, who are also Latino.  Granted, they are a small part of the overall Latino population, but they have a huge impact in Florida.  Other than that, I agree with you.

    down the rabbit hole.. (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:36:50 PM EST
    we needed more proof?

    True enough but Perry (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:26:33 PM EST
    will be the candidate and he will win.

    Remember 11/10 and look at the current race in NY.

    It will be Anybody But Obama.


    Anybody (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 05:26:54 PM EST
    but Bush didn't work in 2004 and voting against usually isn't enough to win an election.

    Perry is ripe to be picked apart for this radical fundamentalism and support of Sharia-light. I suppose Perry might be able to pull off a Jimmy Carter type win in 2012 but the voters would buckle under is radical fundamentalism Terry Schiavo type legislation and he would be a one-termer.

    This is looking to be a repeat of either 1972 or 1976 with Obama playing Nixon or Ford. The underlying issues are going against the GOP for the long term.

    Probably one of Perry's biggest negatives is he reminds people of George W. Bush. If the GOP really wants to win the election they would figure out a way to let all Perry's skeletons start coming out of the closet now.


    Ga6th (none / 0) (#103)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 07:24:55 PM EST

    In your dreams (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:30:03 PM EST
    you may believe that 2012 is 2004 with its very good economy.....

    But it aint.



    George (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:06:18 AM EST
    W. Bush lost jobs his entire first term. The economy sucked then too just not as bad as it does now. Look at the Nevada Senate Race last year for an example of running a radical fundamentalist. Nevada had 14% unemployment and Harry Reid's approvals were in the toilet yet Sharon Angle STILL LOST. Let's see last year Perry was recommending that Texas secede from the union and now he wants to be President of the same country he declared he hated last year? The GOP is just flat nuts.

    We should start a pool (none / 0) (#88)
    by loveed on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 05:19:26 PM EST
     To see who can come the closest to picking when Perry will flame out.
     My guess before Oct.1st. No one really pays attention in the summer. Perry will be the gift that just keep on giving. When republicans really look at him and his record, they will drop him fast. They will see what I see "GWB". They do not want another GWB.
     I will say this again" the republicans wants to win". Also they want a leader. These last 11yrs. have hurt all of us.
     There will be 3 debates in 2wks. I will be watching. I bet you Perry will not attend all 3 debates.

    Well (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 06:09:16 PM EST
    him flaming out is certainly possible considering we've already had Newt, Cain, Pawlenty and Bachmann flame out once the oppo research was dumped into the press.

    Obama (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    can definitely write off NH if Romney is the GOP nominee.

    I can't decide (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:25:37 PM EST
    if I'm nervous about Romney or not.

    He is not scary.  But he has zero personal or political appeal.  He is "not Obama".  That's it.

    At least Perry, as crazy as he is, gives people something to vote for.  The thing is, he also gives Dems something to vote against.

    Honestly, I can't figure out which scenario is worse.  They both make me a little nervous, although I also feel like Obama SHOULD be able to beat either of them.


    I consider (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:38:54 PM EST
    Romney the GOP equivalent of Obama. He spouts the right talking points for the primary voters but you really have no idea what he will actually do when in office. I'm sure he didn't get the nickname "Multiple Choice Mitt" for no reason. I can also imagine that he would be another politician like Obama who votes "present".

    well (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    and as silly as this sounds, he's just so.... rich.  And he's not any good at faking it like Bush was.  I think of him more like the GOP equivalent of Kerry than Obama.  Obama has shown that he is somewhat capable of being charismatic at times.

    I guess what I'm getting at is neither of these candidates scare me on their merits.  This race is Obama's to lose.  The only thing is, he might just lose it.


    Romney (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    is owrth over $200 million.

    But Obama is owrth over $10 million.

    And has lots of power.

    Not exactly poor.


    never said he was (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CST on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:11:56 PM EST
    and Bush sure wasn't broke either.  

    Besides, I'm not talking about actual wealth (again, see Bush), although it has a role in this.  I'm talking about the appearance of wealth.

    Although if we are talking about actual weatlh, Romney also grew up wealthy, and it shows.  Also, $200 million >>>> $10 million.  I'm not even sure $10 million would cover the latest addition to Romney's house.


    Does it really matter? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    $10 million or $200 million - that's still filthy stinking rich.

    So what if Romney grew up rich?  Obama didn't grow up poor and he has his hand on the nuclear button.  The point is neither has much in common with voters. If Romney is the nominee, it would be a stupid argument to hold his wealth against him when most people who run for higher office are rich. See the number of millionaire governors and members of Congress.

    If that's all the Dems have - "Ooh! Romeny's rich!" - then they are sure to lose.


    I don't have a problem with them being rich (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by loveed on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 07:02:05 PM EST
     It's the American dream. They worked hard to make there money. Did it honestly, so whats the problem.
     All of us work hard to give our children a better life. If they pass their money to the children, so what.
     Huntsman's father started a cancer foundation,plans on giving all his money away. He lost respect for Nixon, because he did not give to charity.
     Money does not define the man, it's how he spends it.

    If it's about who's more a Plutocrat, (none / 0) (#36)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:22:35 PM EST
    then it doesn't matter to begin with. Catering to W Bush's base... ought to be avoided.

    do you have to cater to it (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:26:52 PM EST
    to acknowledge that it exists?

    Begging for money from Wall Street, (none / 0) (#44)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:32:45 PM EST
    tax breaks, no bankers in trouble... I'd suggest these acts constitute catering to the Plutos. Your might disagree... I'm not fired up about any candidate, so just making observations.

    I don't see a quarter's worth of difference... A nickel or a dime, yes. Definitely a half-dollar. but not quite a quarter's worth of difference between Romney and Obama. Perry OTOH, huge differences.


    In any case (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:53:55 PM EST
    There is no need for any of us to worry.  I don't even have to feel twisted any longer about not being able to feel supportive of Obama or unable to pry a nickel out of my cold dead fingers for him.  I can get a real life TODAY and not fret about any of it, cuz it's a done deal :)  I let the universe know I was wringing and conflicted and it loves me and it sent me the solution and a real life again via the internet.

    This is the best I've got now too since the Octopus died.


    The psychic's prediction (from 2009) (none / 0) (#104)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:22:27 PM EST
    seems a bit...questionable:

    I asked her about the presidential election of 2012 and she told me that Obama will beat Mitt Romney in a very close election. She told me it will come down to 3 states and it will be as close as the 2000 election. She also told me that the economy will continue to be stagnant until 2010 when things pick up dramatically.



    Define dramatically in this economy :)? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:35:28 PM EST
    Yer blowing my don't worry high

    Maybe she has that same fractured philosophy (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:41:29 PM EST
    that economic team Obama has, that when Wall Street starts shooting up there again everything is solved, and if it isn't solved for you it is because you were overpaid and under productive to begin with and you had been milking the system :)

    Hey you don't have to be psychic (none / 0) (#119)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:38:42 AM EST
    to know by now that if it's close and comes down to a few states, particularly big states where the Repubs control the election machinery, the outcome is certain in favor of the election theft GOP party.

    Now, my favorite psychics -- the Psychic Twins Linda and Terry Jamison -- both liberals, predicted last year a continuing slow economic recovery and that O would not be reelected.  They have a good documented record too -- including predicting the 911 attacks two years before the fact and that Olivia N-J's missing boyfriend would be found alive in Mexico.

    Very gifted couple of lovely women and I don't dismiss them easily.  

    Their predictions do contradict those of political analyst Allan Lichtmann and the Nostradamus expert John Hogue both of whom claim to have correctly called presidential elections going back to the 1980s -- they have O winning again.


    misfired there (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:53:59 PM EST
    I was thinking of W's other "base".  The "have a beer with me" base.

    I'm just saying (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:25:06 PM EST
    I see it as a political downside for Romney.  That no one wants to have a beer with him because he looks more comfortable drinking Champagne.

    Take it for what it is, it's not a comment on his abilities or anything else.  It's a comment on how politics in this country works.

    It's the John Kerry factor.  You may think it's stupid, but it's effective.


    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:48:09 PM EST
    has the exact same problem as Romney does. That aloof out of touch persona. George H.W. Bush had it too.

    But Obama has made his own (none / 0) (#42)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:28:38 PM EST
    bad moves on this front... hundred dollar ham, for example, along with 'eat your peas...'

    Not saying these are irreversible, but both appear upper-class, not middle class.

    One of Perry's strong points-- people see him and think he's like them.

    Who's better to run against? I fear the dumb candidate more than the smart one... IOW, Perry, more than Mittens.


    I'm with you on that (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:32:08 PM EST
    which is kind of my whole point with this.

    Everyone is afraid of Romney, but Romney is everything people don't like about Obama - only more so.  

    I think I'm more afraid of Perry.  He reminds me of GWB.  And GWB was president for 8 years.


    Heh. See my post above following (none / 0) (#45)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:33:53 PM EST
    yours? We're saying about the same thing... great minds, and all that? Or just strange minds? ;-)

    You know what? (none / 0) (#79)
    by sj on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:30:04 PM EST
    I pay fairly close attention and at this point in time I don't give a single thought to whether or not a particular candidate is personally wealthy or not.

    I just assume they are and don't factor it in.  That champagne/beer thing might not be the deal breaker that it used to be.



    hah (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:40:09 PM EST
    this is what you are missing:

    "I pay fairly close attention"

    I assume whether you want to drink with your president has never mattered to you.  To be clear, I'm not saying it should matter, per say.  Just that it often does.


    good point (none / 0) (#83)
    by sj on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:44:09 PM EST
    Obama can beat Romeny (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 05:05:40 PM EST
    For the simple reason that the base won't support him. Everyone knows that, and that's why the MSM likes him.

    There (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 06:24:48 PM EST
    isn't enough of Republicans left to make that an option. Besides those people that say they won't vote for Romney are probably the low hanging fruit of the party that would vote for anybody against Obama. If the GOP is only concerned with pacifying what's left of the people who call themselves Republicans then they are going to lose because those people are just simply to radical and have extremely high negatives with the general public.

    I think you are describing the Left re Obama (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:27:51 PM EST

    Forget (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:10:59 AM EST
    left and right and look at the issues polls. People don't like conservative ideas. How many people call themselves Republicans in this country 19%?

    And I apparently can't type (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:58:15 PM EST
    Spell check (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:19:28 PM EST
    is your friend.  Harness its power.   ;-)

    I like to live on the edge. :) (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:21:04 PM EST
    Hey, what can I say? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:49:56 PM EST
    I sometimes ignore spell check myself, if I'm in a hurry.  I guess we're a couple of really radical people, skating close to the edge. :-)  

    I would imagine that (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    how well Perry or another Republican would sell in Florida etal.  would depend a lot on whether or not Obama is successful in cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits before the election. He can save the Republicans from their position on the safety net programs if he cuts them.  

    Obama has already hurt his (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    prospects in Florida with his proposed increasing the age of Medicare eligibility to 67 and by concerns about the ACA's impact on Medicare. His support for Cat Food I and its social safety net cuts helped to bail out Paul Ryan and his Republican colleagues. If cuts are effected in the social safety net, or support is shown for cuts proposed in Cat Food II, it will truly place Florida in jeopardy.

    Senator Marco Rubio (R. FL) may, in turn, help to neutralize the anger with his own oddity, stating that social security and Medicare have made us lazy and weakened us as a nation--but Rubio may be able to get away with it as a tea party darling. The upshot might be that on this issue, it does not matter, both parties will cut benefits.  Senator Bill Nelson (D. Fl) is up for re-election and, depending on his opponent, will have a much tougher time than when running against Katherine Harris. And, Nelson has made it known  that he is against social safety net cuts, especially after reading his mail.


    Who in Florida (none / 0) (#39)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:25:10 PM EST
    has popularity to oust Nelson at this time? Could someone like Jeb do it?

    Bill Nelson is not (none / 0) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:12:08 PM EST
    the lovable, or charismatic type, but he is not disliked with any great intensity.  He has generally been considered a "moderate", or a maddening moderate,by some at times.   I think Obama and Nelson's fates are linked.  Jeb Bush is still popular and would be, probably, the strongest Republican candidate. Other possibilities include state senate president Mike Haridopolos, a right winger and former (appointed) US senator, George LeMieux.

    I've often wondered about (none / 0) (#64)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:14:13 PM EST
    Nelson's lukewarm support in Florida. Do you think the end of the shuttle might adversely affect him?

    I don't think that will matter. (none / 0) (#115)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:57:26 AM EST
    I would worry (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:01:46 PM EST
    about Perry taking Ohio. As evidenced in 2004, there are plenty of fundamentalists in that state.

    I do not think (none / 0) (#15)
    by CST on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:09:15 PM EST
    Bush actually won Ohio in 2004.  As evidenced in 2000 & 2004, here are plenty of election shenanigans that can go on in any state.

    There's an old expression ... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:24:53 PM EST
    in politics:

    "He stole that election fare and square."

    And that's the view in political circles of the Bush wins.  They stole them.  They got away with it.  That's politics.


    no doubt (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CST on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    I just don't think the thing to take away from that is "a lot of people in Ohio are fundies".

    The thing to take away from that is "it's gotta be a landslide or they will find a way to steal that $hit".


    Yup ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 05:28:18 PM EST
    The thing to take away from that is "it's gotta be a landslide or they will find a way to steal that $hit".

    That's about the size of it.


    fair ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:25:37 PM EST
    spelling muscle not working this afternoon.

    Guess you don't remember Chicago (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:29:08 PM EST
    and JFK and then there was Landslide Johnson.

    heh (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 07:02:52 PM EST
    "Landslide Johnson"

    yeah, without the vote tampering, Goldwater certainly would have won


    tell you what, though - if Goldwater were running this time, i would vote for him - he's to the left of everybody else on offer


    Uh, read some history re (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:26:37 PM EST
    Johnson and maybe you'll figure out I wasn't speaking about '64....

    Speaking of '64, the Democrats told me that if I voted for Goldwater we would become involved in a huge land war in Asia.

    Know what? They were right. I voted for Goldwater and look what happened.

    A sad ;-)


    Yes you're right the nickname (none / 0) (#120)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:54:03 AM EST
    doesn't refer to 1964 but the infamous 1948 senate contest decided by just a few dozen votes out of millions cast -- with very suspicious activity occurring in at least one southern county producing absurd results in favor of Johnson.

    But his nickname wasn't "Landslide Johnson" but Landslide Lyndon -- the alliteration adds to the already colorful nature of the story whose dubious outcome LBJ himself was seemingly proud of, judging by the fact that he kept a photo of the election crime scene and the several good old boy participants in a drawer in the WH, proudly displaying it once to a TX reporter.


    Goldwater.. (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:32:55 PM EST

    I thought you said before that you were a Democrat up until the Democraic Party was taken over by "the far-left" in the late sixties?

    Get your story straight.


    You never heard of a Democrat (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:23:29 AM EST
    voting for a Repub???


    Do you get out much?


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:49:16 AM EST
    The southerners that voted for Goldwater were the segregationists. Look at the map linked for proof. Outside of VA and NC they were the former slave states:



    Oh what nonsense. (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:48:33 AM EST
    Some were, some weren't. Most were concerned over national security and what Johnson was/would doing/do.

    And I promise you one thing. Goldwater wouldn't have had the Vietnam mess Johnson and then Nixon had.

    BTW - I voted for Carter in '76.  Does that make a better person?

    Probably not because I voted for Perot in 1990.



    I have (none / 0) (#129)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:49:40 AM EST
    I've heard of who call themselves Democrats, but would vote for someone like Goldwater.  I've even heard of people who call themselves "social liberals" who engage in fear-mongering about Shariah law and claim climate change is a hoax.

    They're funny.


    And I've heard (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:44:20 AM EST
    of stalkers who stalk people because the stalker has a sick fixation on the person.

    See a doctor, yman.


    Awwwwwwweee, ... c'mon Jim (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:50:43 AM EST
    You sound so grumpy, today ... things not go well at the doc's?

    No winking emoticon or "LOL"?


    I like these 7 better (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    I say it's these 5:

    Lust (for power)

    Gluttony (for power)

    Greed (for power)

    Wrath (against the people)

    Envy (of the few remaining rights/privileges/ducats they have to be pilfered)    

    Sloth (in doing nothing that really helps people)

    Pride (in spouting slogans, patriotic nonsense, political yip-yap, and in displaying their ignorance like a badge of honor)

    oops, cut that first line (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 12:24:31 PM EST
    remnants of an original idea.  ahem.

    How would Bachmann do in those states? (none / 0) (#5)
    by observed on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 12:44:10 PM EST

    I see a lot of opnion pieces here that say (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 12:45:53 PM EST
    Marco Rubio is a shoo-in for GOP VP spot, no matter who the top of the ticket is. Also, the GOP convention is in Tampa.

    Have not seen the Dems trying to butter up the Sunshine State yet, with the exception of Debbie Wasserman-Shultz as party chair.

    I used to be sure Rubio would wait until (none / 0) (#65)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:17:23 PM EST
    the 2016 election, but with things looking better for the GOP now I could see him jumping on the bandwagon.

    Couldn't hurt (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    Rubio goes on the ticket.  If the R's win - he's VP and the probable nominee in 8 years.  If they lose, he's the frontrunner who's been in the trenches in 2016.

    He brings Florida along to the R side.

    Win-win for him.


    Yup. The Relubicans still face (none / 0) (#69)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:36:34 PM EST
    a tough electoral vote map, but I could certainly imagine that Rubio would consider coming close a personal victory for his political future.

    I'm hearing Governor McDonnell of Virginia (none / 0) (#113)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:31:22 AM EST
    Will be the VP choice.  I don't see VA going again for Obama, even without McDonnell. I don't see the college kids turning out in VA like they did in 2008.  

    New Hampshire (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    going back to swing status? That's kind of sad but here we are back to the same states that it's always been OH, FL.

    This just backs up what I have been saying for quite a while that right now it's looking to be very close.

    I'm thinking this might be a repeat of the '76 election with Obama playing the role of Gerald Ford. It's either that or '72 with Obama playing Nixon 'cause the GOP nominates Bachmann or Perry.

    Hmm.. a huge 32% of Democats (none / 0) (#12)
    by observed on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:02:55 PM EST
    think the country is going in the right direction, down only 28% from the same number in January.
    As long as Obama has this strong core constituency, he's the big favorite.
    Rah, rah!.

    Seriously, these kind of numbers OUGHT to bring out a primary challenger.

    How low (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:08:26 PM EST
    can Obama go before the party decides that they'd rather he not run 'cuz he going to cause he's gonna drag everybody down with him?

    Frankly, it seems that the party is literally on a suicide mission with Obama leading the charge. They're all a bunch of lemmings going off the cliff with him.


    It's Repeat of 2004... (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    ... ,instead of a bunch of idiots promoting Bush, it's a bunch of idiots promoting Obama.

    The pols numbers dropping significantly, the pure idiocy of his economics, and just the nonsensical party attitude of 'we must win', all of it reminds me of Bush in '04.

    I remember thinking, 'Who in their right mind would vote for this clown ?'.  At the time, I was thinking republicans are so morally bankrupt that winning is the only thing they can see.  Well apparently that isn't a trait reserved for one party, which is what I used to believe.

    So to comment, I totally agree, the lemmings are ready to sacrifice the party's core beliefs and grand accomplishments for the win, leaving the rest of us homeless of political party.


    Pretty much (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 06:11:54 PM EST
    It's the same stupid mentality. It's "we have to win" but win for what reason nobody knows. Certainly Bush didn't have a great first term with him just squeaking by and if Bush did it with his record, Obama could probably do it too.

    Conventional wisdom .... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:21:57 PM EST
    ain't always right.

    This story of the fight for the center looks true over the last few elections. And it makes good copy for the status-quo-oriented media.

    But most big presidential victories play from a different rule book.  The big wins didn't fight for the center, they undercut the opponents' base, leaving them nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

    This is clearly the Obama '12 playbook.  First, because it's the only way to get the landslide he so desperately craves.  Second, all the Republican candidates have weaknesses at their base.  And, third, much of the institutional part of the Republican party is happy with Obama and will aid the press in pointing out the base weaknesses of various candidates.

    Landslide?? (none / 0) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:20:13 AM EST
    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! (wheeze, wiping eyes)

    The most important part of your (none / 0) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:31:50 AM EST
    post IMO.

    ...much of the institutional part of the Republican party is happy with Obama and will aid the press in pointing out the base weaknesses of various candidates.

    Obama is doing wonders for the Republican Party's agenda. He has legitimized much of their rhetoric. He will not only touch the third rail, he will be successful in beginning the process to weaken the safety net programs so that they will be easier to dismantle and as an added bonus will significantly lower the marginal tax rate for corporations and the higher brackets. He will also under the guise of creating jobs eliminate more regulations. And he will prove that the Democratic Party and government is the problem and not the solution. He is by all counts the Republican's w&t dream.

    IMO the institutional part of the Republican party will let 2012 be the year of the Republican crazies for president which will be Obama's life saver. They will concentrate on winning the majority in the Senate which will further assist Obama in passing their agenda items. 2016 they will run their winning candidates and capture the WH to complete whatever agenda items they have on their plate.  


    This doesn't help (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:42:40 PM EST
    Obama hits all time low

    After the bruising debt-ceiling fight -- as well as Standard & Poor's subsequent downgrade of the nation's credit rating -- Obama's job approval rating has sunk to a low of 44 percent, a 3-point drop since July. His handling of the economy stands at a low of 37 percent. And only 19 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction, the lowest mark for this president.

    Perhaps most ominously for Obama, a majority of poll takers -- 54 percent -- think he's facing a longer-term setback from which he's unlikely to recover. Back in January, just 39 percent agreed with that assessment.

    Indeed, that 54 percent is virtually identical to George W. Bush's score on the same question in the Nov. 2005 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which was released just months after Bush's widely criticized handling of Hurricane Katrina.

    More (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:45:18 PM EST
    What's more, in a hypothetical general election contest, Obama leads Texas Gov. Rick Perry by five points, 47 percent to 42 percent. And he leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by one, 46 percent to 45 percent, though that margin is down five points since June.

    But for the first time in the poll, more say they'd probably vote for a generic Republican candidate (44 percent) than say they'd probably vote for Obama (40 percent).

    "Obama is no longer the favorite to win re-election," Hart said, explaining that a head-to-head score will usually conform to the generic one, especially when so many believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.

    When Generic Q. Republican joins (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:01:06 PM EST
    the race, he'll really have to worry.

    Not sure what those people thought was wrong with Tim Pawlenty. Can't get much more generic than him.


    I see.....generic Republican (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:44:41 PM EST
    unlucky enough to reap the 'benefits' of generic Republican policies.

    Right (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:51:00 PM EST
    By naming any or all of the Republican candidates by name, he just gives them credibility.

    I think this earlier and earlier start to the campaign season may soon backfire on the parties one of these years.  People will be so sick of hearing about them by the time it actually comes down to voting, they won't care or will have tuned it out.


    And the Costs... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:04:41 PM EST
    When I heard Obama is thinking he will need 'One Billion Dollars' to run his campaign, I nearly fell off my chair.

    That number is ludicrous, that isn't free cash, it's borrowed from goons who will get their monies worth.

    And of course the republicans will have to be competitive, so count them in near a billion, and we are talking about some huge sums of cash.

    I am sick of shared sacrifice and then here this BS, how long are we the public gonna stand for it, you say soon, I say we will never stop them.  They needs loads of cash and that takes time.


    There's something obscene about (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:08:28 PM EST
    spending a thousand million dollars to win a job that pays $400,000 per year.

    It's obscene, it's tawdry, and with that much cash, I suspect it has to be corrupt.

    We're the losers. Regular folks.


    Caution required - all the GOP candidates (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:40:53 PM EST
    have been running against Obama for 6 months or more...sooner or later he will fight back...one would hope.

    Unless this is another application (none / 0) (#51)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:46:20 PM EST
    of the PPUS!

    Or maybe this is the rope-a-dope?

    Until there's a nominee, or at least until early next year, Obama doesn't need to campaign much, I would think.


    Here's (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:54:22 PM EST
    what's really going to suck about '12~we aren't going to be hearing about issues because 1 nobody likes the Republican issues and 2. Obama has republican ideas. It's going to be another stupid election about who you want to have a beer with or who wants to walk your dog. Or who is scarier--Perry and Bachmann would be great foils for that strategy. It's going to be two candidates taking personal pot shots at each other while the rest of us just throw up our hands.  The only area any of these jokers can really debate is social issues it seems.

    I know. (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:00:40 PM EST
    Who are these people???

    Sabato (none / 0) (#24)
    by koshembos on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:47:02 PM EST
    Most of the electoral votes are spoken for, i.e. 436. There is a total of 535 electors, or undecided are around 100. Sabato list undecided states with a total of 85 electors or the undecided states.

    This arithmetic work can be done by my 2 year old grandson.

    PA and MI (none / 0) (#31)
    by smott on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:09:35 PM EST
    Sorry but I can't get that link on my mobile...where are PA and MI in that chart? Red or blue? I'm in PA and feel it will finally go red, sadly...

    Blue, But Only Barely (none / 0) (#76)
    by The Maven on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:25:36 PM EST
    Sabato puts them on the Democratic side of the ledger only because they "usually vote Democratic for president, but they're hardly a sure thing. . . . In Michigan, economic problems might cause voters to cool on Democrats. . . . And although Pennsylvania has frustrated all GOP attempts to win it over since 1988, recent polls have shown weakness for Mr. Obama there. These [36] electoral votes will be GOP targets if conditions in the fall of 2012 approximate today's."

    Since recent polling only gave Obama 31% favorable job approval in Pennsylvania, the state seems destined to be in the battleground category for 2012.


    pa is always a bateground (none / 0) (#84)
    by smott on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:44:44 PM EST
    I am no pollster but my sense is Pa stayed blue in 08 because Clinton voters reluctantly voted for Obama.
    He will keep the Eastern end of the state in 12 due to the aa population around Philly. Central PA will be red as always.
    Western PA will be key. If it stays blue so does PA. If not, the Keystone state goes red.
    I think pa will be red in 12 tho.

    I agree (none / 0) (#114)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:37:09 AM EST
    PA, OH, and VA all go red in 2012.

    As far as right direction/wrong direction (none / 0) (#34)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    questions at this point, let me put in my $.02...

    I think this next election will be a 'throw the bums out' election, especially in the House. I don't see the obstructionists and puritanical cut it alls maintaining their seats.  

    People expect something, even if it isn't much. Can't say much about the Senate. I need to look at who's running and retiring, but I don't know. I doubt, for some reason, that the Tea Party will have a lot of folks re-elected. After all, they haven't done anything!

    But never underestimate the American voters... the next election's schwerpunkt? Getting out the vote. Nobody claims satisfaction in large numbers. There's a lot of discouragement and lack of interest given the last two years-- politically and economically-- wasted years.

    Who can get the folks to the ballot box, and where? And will Ohio's Diebold machines continue to vote republican for people?

    I used (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:57:12 PM EST
    to think this but with Obama's numbers I'm wondering if he won't be an albatross around D congressional candidates.

    Romney's job creation plan (none / 0) (#72)
    by Politalkix on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:50:59 PM EST

    linkSpeaking under a banner that read, "Day One, Job One," inside a sweltering North Las Vegas truck warehouse, Romney laid out 10 actions he said he would take on his first day in the Oval Office that would create more certainty for businesses.

    They would include five proposed bills that would: lower the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent; implement free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea; expand domestic energy exploration; consolidate worker retraining programs and turn them over to the states; and cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent. (Obama also supports those three trade agreements, although he has been accused of dithering to satisfy the demands of organized labor.)

    If elected, the former Massachusetts governor said he would also issue five executive orders on Inauguration Day. They would roll back President Obama's health-care overhaul; eliminate Obama-era regulations; issue new oil-drilling permits; sanction China for currency manipulation; and reverse a number of policies that favor organized labor.

    Romney also said he would cut the size of the federal workforce by 10 percent through attrition, possibly by hiring only one new government employee for every two who leave.

    But even as he touts the comprehensiveness of his plan, Romney leaves out some important details, such as setting personal income tax rates, that at least one of his opponents, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr., has detailed in his own economic plan.

    Romney proposed an overhaul of the tax code, including eliminating taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for people earning less than $200,000. Over the longer run, he would explore lowering individual income tax rates and closing corporate loopholes. He also pledged to retain the George W. Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

    Those bullet points (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:02:37 PM EST
    Seem like they would appeal to a lot of people (voters).

    Not saying it's good policy, but potentially good politics, especially if the President's plan to be laid out is even thinner on specifics on Thursday.


    Then probably this is what the country wants (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Politalkix on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:24:28 PM EST
    Lower tax rates (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:35:46 PM EST
    Will play well with people struggling to pay their bills.

    Romney's plan is fairly comprehensive - 160 pages.  If all Obama puts out is an ethereal speech on Thursday without concrete details and lots of follow-up, that's gonna be a problem.


    Romney's plan has no champion (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:26:55 PM EST
    in Congress. It will be gone as fast as Huntman's was. Boehner is not going to take up "The Romney Plan" when he is not even close to being the nominee.

    Whatever Obama's proposals are, they will set the debate. I hope they have more to do with actual, direct, job creation than the GOP's 'less cut taxes and hope for the best' tricks that we have already tried and in vain.


    Each and every one of those things makes (none / 0) (#82)
    by sj on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:40:34 PM EST
    me feel rather ill.

    But here's the deal.  They're actions and they're concrete and completely discard PPUS.  That could appeal to a lot of people.  bleachhhh...

    Dig me out of my hole when the presidential vote is for/against a Republican incumbent.  There might actually be something "we" can do then...


    I will go for hibernation (none / 0) (#93)
    by Politalkix on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 06:08:17 PM EST
    myself. Have been spending too much time on this blog....

    the National Popular Vote Bill (none / 0) (#121)
    by mvymvy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:07:29 AM EST
    In 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.  There would no longer be 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of other states.

    When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting 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,CA, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes-- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.


    obama lucked out (none / 0) (#122)
    by pitachips on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    the gop choices are perry or romney? i know it's in vogue to talk about how bad of shape he is in etc, but he's looking pretty good politically IMO. the base doesn't even like romney and no one BUT the base likes Perry. the only way obama is in trouble is if someone like Christie jumps in. otherwise he and his $1,000,000,000 + campaign war chest will just roll onto victory.

    not so sure about that (none / 0) (#123)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:26:22 PM EST
    to be a one-term president, all Obama has to do is lose NE, IN, NC, IA, VA, OH, FL, & NH

    in that case, not even PA can save him, if he even manages to hold on to that state

    & that's not even to mention Obama's vulnerability in NV, CO, NM, WI & MI

    i don't agree that he's looking good politically

    he looks pretty bad right now & if this trend continues it's doubtful that any amount of money can return him to the White House


    yes but (none / 0) (#124)
    by pitachips on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:36:07 PM EST
    the voters still have to vote for another person. when they have the choice between obama and "social security is unconstitutional" perry - enough people will hold their nose and vote obama.

    it's going to be ugly but he'll pull out a victory.


    What a choice (none / 0) (#130)
    by sj on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:58:15 AM EST
    "social security is unconstitutional" perry or "raise the medicare eligiblity age" obama.

    I think I'll hold my nose and vote "none of the above".


    Truly original (1.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:12:34 PM EST
    ...wise and with great depth.

    im sure many people will agree with you (none / 0) (#133)
    by pitachips on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:00:54 PM EST
    and even then obama will probably start out with the greater number of votes already "in the bag" and win.

    I expect you to be right (none / 0) (#137)
    by sj on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:08:18 PM EST
    Well, sometimes.  I go back and forth actually.  But in any case, my vote is not in the bag.