Looking at the Electoral College Map

Fifty-two weeks from today we'll go to the polls to elect the next president, and if Obama is going to win another term he's going to have some serious work to do (from Chris Cillizza)

There's no question that President Obama faces one of the most challenging political environments in modern memory as he prepares to try to win a second term next November.

But with one year to go before the 2012 election, a state-by-state examination of the battleground map suggests that the president still retains several plausible pathways to the 270 electoral votes he needs. . . .

Obama won three states -- Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia -- that no Democrat had carried at the presidential level in at least two decades, and he scored victories in six other states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio) that George W. Bush had won in 2004. Those nine states will account for 112 electoral votes in 2012 and stand at the center of the fight for the presidency.

If Obama loses every one of them but holds on to the others he won, he will drop to 247 electoral votes and Republicans will win the White House. (The decennial reapportionment of congressional districts after the 2010 Census subtracts six electoral votes from states Obama won in 2008.)

But with the exception of Indiana and its 11 electoral votes, Obama is very much in the game in those states. In several, even Republicans acknowledge that he is favored.

If the GOP nominates Sen. Marco Rubio for VP, you can put Florida solidly in the GOP camp. I think they'll win Florida anyway, along with Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia. Although Ohio may reject Gov. Kasich's union reform measures in the election today, the state went hard for the GOP in 2010 and I think Obama probably loses there too.

And let's not rule out the possibility that Obama could have a rough go in Wisconsin and Michigan. Both those states now have Republican governors they didn't have in 2008.   And should Mitt Romney be the nominee, he'll certainly have a lot of support in Michigan.

Can Obama win any of the states McCain won in 2008? Not likely. His path to office will have to go through the states he won in 2008 and he can't afford to lose the states with the big electoral college numbers like Florida and Ohio.

Howard Dean: Sarah Palin Could Beat Obama

Interesting:

Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman who helped Democrats capture the White House in 2008, warns that Sarah Palin could defeat President Obama in 2012.

Dean says his fellow Democrats should beware of inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that Obama would crush Palin in a general-election contest next year.

“I think she could win,” Dean told The Hill in an interview Friday. “She wouldn’t be my first choice if I were a Republican but I think she could win.”

Dean warns the sluggish economy could have more of a political impact than many Washington strategists and pundits assume.

“Any time you have a contest — particularly when unemployment is as high as it is — nobody gets a walkover,” Dean said. “Whoever the Republicans nominate, including people like Sarah Palin, whom the inside-the-Beltway crowd dismisses — my view is if you get the nomination of a major party, you can win the presidency, I don’t care what people write about you inside the Beltway,” Dean said.

I think Dean's right that the inside-the-Beltway thinking is not truly representative of the country and large and while the Beltway folks may quickly dismiss her, her appeal in the real world will be much higher. Can she win? Hard to say. I still think she's damaged goods thanks to the misinformation the media propagated against her, and leaving her job in Alaska early didn't help.

Campaign Slogan for 2012

Peggy Noonan provides the four little words every Republican needs to use during the 2012 campaign against Obama:

He made it worse.

She closes her piece with this:

Obama inherited financial collapse, deficits and debt. He inherited a broken political culture. These things weren't his fault. But through his decisions, he made them all worse.

Exactly.

First GOP 2012 Debate Cancelled

It's hard to have a debate when no one has declared their candidacy:

A tree falling in a forest with no one there does make a sound but it's a little hard to hold a presidential debate for Republicans when none of them have officially declared their intention to run.

This morning, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation announced that it had rescheduled a debate which was previouly supposed to be held for Republican presidential candidates in May to September 14. The forum is also being sponsored by the newspaper Politico and NBC.

Scuttlebutt has it that no one has thrown his/her hat into the ring as everyone is waiting to see what former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is going to do. Things are a bit murkier for her given her standing contract with Fox News as a paid staff commentator. That lucrative revenue stream for her would cease if she files to run for president.

All that Sarah Palin stuff aside, if I were a GOP candidate I would refuse to do a debate run by NBC and Politico. Both are full of liberal political hacks and I can guarantee you the questioning will be designed to embarrass GOP candidates and provide sound bites for Obama's campaign.

The GOP does not have to accept debates sponsored by mainstream media outlets.  They can set up their own forums with questions being asked by people who don't have such obvious leftward bias.

Most Open GOP Field in 50 Years

Either nobody really wants the job, or Republicans just can't find anyone they really like:

There's nothing typical about this GOP field.

For more than half-a-century, the race for the Republican presidential nomination has always featured a clear front runner at this point in the campaign, according to a Gallup analysis out Monday. Not this time.

Those early Republican front-runners in past contests have had good odds, and have gone on to win the nomination in 8 out of 10 competitive Republican races since 1952.

While today Mike Huckabee has a slim lead among Republican and Republican-leaning voters with 18 percent of the vote, no one has made wide strides away from the pack. Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney are each the pick of 16 percent.

The 2008 election is the only case surveyed by Gallup in which the eventual nominee gained front-runner status late in the campaign cycle. In most elections, the nominee had netted that status by March.

The 2012 field's deviation from the familiar pattern of nominating the heir apparent could have consequences for fundraising and party cohesion beyond the race for the nomination, the analysis notes.

Let's see:

• Mitt Romney - Romneycare, part-time conservative
• Newt Gingrich - Baggage
• Sarah Palin - Baggage
• Mike Huckabee - Meh
• Rick Santorum - Can't win
• Ron Paul - Nuts
• Donald Trump - Seriously?  He could end up being the Ross Perot of 2012.
• Tim Pawlenty - Name recognition problem
• Mitch Daniels - Too willing to compromise
• Jon Huntsman - Who?
• Haley Barbour  - thick-as-molasses Southern accent may be a problem in the north.
• Herman Cain - Hate to say it, but I don't think America is going to be ready for another black president anytime soon.
• Michele Bachmann - You think Sarah Palin's been demonized, wait until you see what they do to Bachmann.
• Chris Christie - Has said numerous times he doesn't want to run in 2012.  I believe him.

Can someone other than these folks still jump into the fray and win the nomination?  I hope so.

Dems Looking For a New Chosen One for 2012

If Obama loses George Soros, he loses the wacky left and all their money:

Reporting from Washington — Frustrated by what they see as President Obama's weakness in battling Republicans, leading Democratic donors and tacticians have begun independently plotting their political recovery — including building a network of outside fundraising and campaign organizations to compete with those formed this year by Republicans.

This week, more than 100 wealthy Democrats gathered in a posh Washington hotel for a closed meeting in which participants repeatedly called for Obama be more aggressive in his agenda and tactical combat with the Republican right.

"I am used to fighting losing battles, but I don't like losing without a fight," said financier George Soros, a longtime donor to causes on the left, in a comment confirmed by his staff as part of a call to arms in private conversations at the postelection meeting of the Democracy Alliance, an organization of wealthy Democrats that provides funding to liberal groups.

In another sign of Democratic unrest, a dozen prominent Democrats — including longtime Bill Clinton advisor Harold Ickes, labor leader Andy Stern and representatives of influential interest groups — will meet Monday to discuss whether to form a new operation to combat the array of outside groups launched this year by Karl Rove and other Republican strategists, according to multiple participants.

Such a move by Democrats comes despite Obama's longstanding opposition to political spending by outside groups — particularly those that refuse to disclose their donors — and underscores the deep dissatisfaction with the White House's strategy on several fronts.

They got their guy elected in 2008, but their former Chosen One turned out to be an incompetent leader who was able to jam parts of their agenda through Congress and in so doing torpedo the 2nd half of his term. The magic of 2008 won't appear in 2012, at least not in the form of Obama. The wacky left is going to have to find another champion.

Dems Starting to Fish for Dirt on Potential Obama Opponents

The 2012 campaign is underway:

The Democratic National Committee formally has asked the Pentagon for reams of correspondence between military agencies and nine potential Republican presidential candidates, a clear indication that Democrats are building opposition-research files on specific 2012 contenders even before the midterm elections.

An internal Army e-mail obtained by ABC News indicates that the DNC has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for "any and all records of communication" between Army departments and agencies and each of the nine Republicans -- all of whom are widely mentioned as possible challengers to President Obama.

The agencies are asked to respond to the request by this Friday, just four days before Election Day.

The nine Republicans that Democrats are seeking information on are former Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska; former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.; Gov. Haley Barbour, R-Miss.; Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn.; former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.; Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.; Gov. Mitch Daniels, R-Ind.; Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La.

Such requests are typical in the world of opposition research, which involves casting a broad net for publicly available material that may at some point prove embarrassing or incriminating to political candidates.

The request isn't for details of military service or lack thereof, but appears to be designed to find information on letters and memos sent to and from the potential candidates in official positions they've held.

Obama's going to have to do a lot more than dig for dirt to get re-elected in 2012.

2012 Will Feature a Different Electoral Vote Line--up

Although the final numbers aren't in yet, projections are being made as to what effect the 2010 will have on congressional (and electoral vote) apportionment in 2012:

Missouri is now estimated to lose a congressional seat (going from nine to eight congressional districts), while Minnesota would keep all eight of their current districts, reversing the loss of a seat that had been projected last year. The state of New York is now estimated to lose two seats (going from 29 to 27 districts … they had previously been expected to lose only one seat). Finally, Florida is now estimated to be gaining two congressional districts (going from 25 to 27 districts … previously they were expected to add a single seat).

Lotsa New Yorkers heading to Florida during the last 10 years. I wonder how much the lack of a state income tax in Florida has to do with that?

The "Obama in 2012" Campaign Starts Now

It looks like Obama is resigned to a GOP Congress for the last two years of his term, so he's focusing his attention and money on setting the plate for 2012.  From Time Magazine:

What happened to Barack Obama’s once vaunted political machine? The outfit that put upwards of 8 million volunteers on the street in 2008 — known as Organizing for America — is a ghost of its former self. Its staff has shrunk from 6,000 to 300, and its donors are depressed: receipts are a fraction of what they were in 2008. Virtually no one in politics believes it will turn many contests this fall. “There’s no chance that OFA is going to have the slightest impact on the midterms,” says Charlie Cook, who tracks congressional races…


So earlier this year, when the White House gave OFA a whopping $30 million — more than half of the party’s entire budget for 2010 — senior Democrats suspected a hidden agenda. Several tell Time that OFA boss David Plouffe, who ran Obama’s 2008 campaign, is using the cash to rebuild an army for 2012 under the cover of boosting turnout in 2010. OFA is putting staff into such states as Virginia, North Carolina and Arizona, which have few close statewide races this fall but which are all prime targets in an Obama re-election campaign. “This is totally about 2012,” Cook says.

Not terribly surprising. Obama has never really cared about anybody but himself so I'm sure most of his political efforts these days are focused on the campaign for 2012 and how to run against a GOP congress.

While he's at it he better start planning on how to run against Hillary because I still think she'll be a primary opponent.

Political Quote of the Day

From Peggy Noonan, whose WSJ piece was mentioned earlier:

"Sooner or later the secretary of state is going to come under fairly consistent pressure to begin to consider 2012."

And when she does, I'll just remind you of something another wise political pundit wrote awhile back:

Here's a scenario that I think may become more realistic as the year unfolds. Should Obama and the Dems continue to slide, and especially if the Dems take a bloodbath in November, I look for Hillary to resign the Secretary of State's job sometime in early 2011. Nobody will believe she wants to "spend more time with her family" so she'll have to come up with another excuse. In reality, she'll be setting the table for a primary challenge to Obama in 2012.

And she'll be very popular. She barely lost the nomination in 2008 and given Obama's performance and her work as Secretary of State, her star probably shines brighter today than ever. For one thing, she hasn't been in the news all that much and we haven't had to listen to her. That's gotta help.

So, with Hillary out of the Secretary of State's office, who will Obama choose to replace her? Here's where the scenario becomes even more interesting - Joe Biden. Biden's many years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be cited as the main reason to move him to SoS, though the real reason will have more to do with the fact that Biden will be a drag on the 2012 ticket. He's not seen as a viable future candidate for 2016 and frankly people are a little bit afraid that something will happen to Obama and we'll get stuck with President Biden.

This will give Obama and his political crew the opportunity to choose his potential successor, someone younger and more attractive as a 2016 candidate. Confirmation could be a bit problematic should the GOP pick up a bunch of Senate seats this year, but I don't know if they will have the stomach to filibuster a vice presidential nominee.

Meanwhile Hillary will be the Ted Kennedy of 2012, challenging the sitting president the way Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980 - only she'll win. The nomination, that is, but not necessarily the White House. That will depend on both the GOP nominee and voter feelings about Democrats in general. After four years of unbridled liberalism the voters may not be willing to take a chance that Hillary will be any better. Her history certainly suggests she just as much a lefty as Obama, though possibly more competent.

Keep your eyes on Hillary - she could be the early warning sign of what's to come for Obama and the Democrats.

Could happen.

Could Palin Beat Obama?

It's all a bunch of mind games right now, but over at Citizen Palin 4 President they did some math and came up with this electoral map:

I'm not yet convinced that Palin can be a strong enough candidate to get all those states, but who knows. She's surprised a lot of people before.

GOP To Hold Hurricane Party in Tampa

UPDATE 8/25/12 - I was right to warn the GOP about this.  Hurricane Isaac will affect their convention.

Actually they'll call it the Republican National Convention, but August 27th, 2012 will be right in the middle of hurricane season:

The Republican National Committee's site-selection committee is expected to name Tampa, Fla., on Wednesday as site of the party’s 2012 convention, top Republicans tell POLITICO.

The site-selection committee is scheduled to announce a choice among three finalists: Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Tampa. The committee has made high-publicity visits to the top prospects, which put on the dog to show what they could do for the GOP.

Phoenix was a non-starter, not because of the immigration debate but because it's like 140 degrees there in August. Salt Lake City doesn't really offer the GOP any electoral advantages since Utah will go red again.

The last convention in Minneapolis lost the first night because of a hurricane that looked like it was going to hit New Orleans and the GOP got played by political correctness. This time they could lost the whole shebang if a poorly timed Al Gore-loving storm were to strike the Tampa area...or pretty much anywhere in Florida.

Voters Like Hillary More Than Obama

A new CNN poll says that voters now like Hillary Clinton more than the president (from Top of the Ticket):

And a new CNN/Opinion Research Poll has just revealed that even today Americans like that other Democrat more and dislike that other Democrat less than they do the incumbent Democratic president.

That other Democrat is, of course, Hillary Clinton, who fought and scratched her way mightily but unsuccessfully through those bitter, belligerent Democratic primaries and caucuses of 2008. The former first lady and current secretary of State professes no intra-mural interest in challenging her White House boss, as she must as long as she's an administration team member.

The published CNN article focused on an Obama matchup with Sarah Palin. But within the data were Favorable/Unfavorable ratings for numerous prominent politicians of both parties. Here are the surprising new poll numbers for Clinton:

61% now think favorably of the former senator and only 35% unfavorably, both numbers improved from the 56% and 40% she had during the Democratic National Convention in late August of 2008.

 It is, on one level, an impressive turnaround for the once polarizing political figure.

I've got to wonder a little bit about CNN polling method, not because Hillary is scoring higher than Obama, but because they still have Obama with a 57% approval. No other poll has him anywhere near there. most are in the low to mid-40's.

However, I don't doubt that Hillary's numbers are higher, mainly because Obama has successfully hid her from sight since she became Secretary of State. Add to that his far leftist policies, most if not all of which Hillary would endorse, and she looks better simply because we haven't heard from her.

This will probably help push Hillary in the direction I think she'll go - a primary challenge to Obama.

Paulistinians Rejoice!

It must be silly season at Rasmussen Reports:

Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Ask the Political Class, though, and it’s a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class vote for Obama.

There will be joy in the Paulistinian camps tonight.

However, I know a lot of conservative pundits that would vote for Obama over Paul.

It's Good to be Sarah Palin

Everything's coming up roses these days:

Since stepping down as Alaska’s governor in July, 2009, Sarah Palin has made at least $12 million, according to a report by ABC News.


Let’s see. $125,000 as governor or millions writing a book, doing a reality show and hitting the speaking circuit?


Palin is now a private citizen so there’s no way to get an exact total of her earnings. But as ABC says, it’s pretty common knowledge that she got $12 million for her book, Going Rogue and that the Learning Channel is paying her $250,000 for each of eight episodes of an Alaska reality show she’s doing.


She’s also got a multi-year deal with Fox News and has signed a deal for a second book. In January, Politico said she’s getting $100,000 a clip for each of her speeches, although she did say that the money she was to make for the Tea Party convention in Nashville earlier this year was going to charity.


With paychecks like this why would she want to get back into elective politics? At last weekend’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Palin ranked behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul in the group’s 2012 presidential straw poll. They each got 24 percent from the delegates voting; Palin got 18 percent.

I personally hope she doesn't choose to run for president, at least not in 2012. Her value right now is as a conservative motivational speaker and endorser of GOP candidates. She should spend her time traveling and supporting those candidates who share her values and who are running in districts where her support can make a difference. I just don't see her as a viable national candidate right now.

Maybe 2016, but not right now.

Unfortunately, her brand has been tarnished both by the unfair attacks on her intelligence by the media and the left, and by her own actions in leaving the governor's job early. When you examine the fact that as governor she was subject to all kinds of harassing frivolous lawsuits and ethics charges that were costing her a fortune she didn't have (and none of which were upheld), it's easy to understand why she'd want to get away from that and strike while her presence can command big bucks and big crowds. However, many voters don't know the backstory from her days as governor - all they see is a quitter and that won't help her as a candidate. Not now, anyway. Maybe later all will be forgotten and she'll have a different resume with which to work. We'll see.

Huckabee Positioning Himself for 2012

Although the title of the First Read piece is "Huck on Gay Rights", the story deals with Mike Huckabee's thoughts on a lot of subjects, all of which seem to be positioning him for another run in 2012:

In an interview with a student publication at The College of New Jersey, Mike Huckabee advocated strongly against gay rights, including civil unions, even adoptions by gay couples, saying, “Children are not puppies. This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?” He added on comparisons on gay marriage and civil unions to people who use drugs and who are polygamists. “You don’t go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal,” he said. “That would be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, so we should accommodate them.” Huckabee said civil unions are "not necessary." “I think there’s been a real level of being disingenuous on the part of the gay and lesbian community with their goal of civil unions,” he said. He added that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," "touches an extraordinarily small group of people," and therefore should not be repealed.

 He also criticized Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health-care plan as a "dismal failure." “Essentially ‘Obamacare’ and what Massachusetts has is virtually identical,” Huckabee said, adding that the Massachusetts plan has "resulted in huge cost increases, exponentially beyond what was projected."

Charlie Cook notes his impressions of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. On Newt Gingrich: "His baggage might keep him out of the race or limit his ability to win the nomination, but watching him in action leaves a strong impression he has as much raw ability and political instincts as the rest of the field combined."

On Palin: "Palin is catnip for the Republican base. Watching her flirt and tease with GOP audiences leaves the impression that she uses her femininity much the same way California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger does his masculinity. Palin doesn’t compete with Gingrich for the minds of GOP voters, but she sure goes after their hearts — and she does it with a sassiness that is fun for even those who don’t like her."

Huckabee may have designs on 2012 but I think his results will be even worse than his showing in 2008. He'd be better off to stay with the TV show.

Hillary to SCOTUS?

This is one of those "thoughts that just happened to come to me" posts.  As I thought about the coming Supreme Court nomination fight it occurred to me that Obama could have the opportunity to solve two problems at once: Put another liberal on the court and get rid of a potential 2012 primary challenger.  How?  Nominate Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court.  Hillary would be instantly declared a "moderate" by the press and fellow Dems and probably would find a fairly easy path to confirmation.

That would clear the way for another move I'd discussed previously - moving Joe Biden from VP to Secretary of State and opening up the VP job for someone who could be a better ticket-mate in 2012 and a better candidate in 2016.  Let's face it, Biden isn't going to help Obama in 2012 so why not move him out of the way now and clear the path for a better person?

And if there's one Democrat who poses the greatest threat to Obama in 2012 it's Hillary.  She still has a very loyal group of followers out there who are still angry that she lost and angry at what Obama has done since taking office.  Combine those people with other disaffected Democrats and independents (in those states where they are allowed to vote in the Dem primary) and Hillary could win the nomination.

Could happen...

White Flight

Millions of white guys who fell for the whole unicorns and rainbows thing in 2008 are coming to their senses:

Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the election in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.
...

Pollsters regularly ask voters whether they would rather see a Democrat or Republican win their district. By February, support for Democrats among white people (male and female) was three points lower than in February 1994, the year of the last Republican landslide.

Today, among whites, only 35% of men and 43% of women say they will back Democrats in the fall election. Women's preferences have remained steady since July 2009. But over that same period, white men's support for a Democratic Congress has fallen eight points, according to Gallup.

White men have moved away from Obama as well. The same proportion of white women approve of him -- 46%, according to Gallup -- as voted for him in 2008. But only 38% of white men approve of the president, which means that millions of white men who voted for Obama have now lost faith in him.

The migration of white men from the Democratic Party was evident in the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. His opponent won 52% of white women. But white men favored Brown by a 60%-to-38% margin, according to Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates polling. Once again, Democrats could not win enough other votes to compensate for the white male gap.

...

In 1994, liberals tried to explain their thinning ranks by casting aspersions on the white men who were fleeing, and the media took up the cry. The term "angry white male" or "angry white men" was mentioned 37 times in English-language news media contained in the Nexis database between 1980 and the 1994 election. In the following year, the phrases appear 2,306 times.

Tarnishing their opponents as merely "angry" was poor politics for the Democrats. Liberals know what it's like to have their views -- most recently on the war in Iraq or George W. Bush -- caricatured as merely irrational anger. Most voters vote their interests. And many white men by the 1980s had decided the Democrats were no longer interested in them.

I think "angry white male" could be a very accurate description in 2010. I'm an angry white male (though I didn't fall for the rainbows and unicorns) and I'm ready to take out my frustrations on the nearest Dem politician. I'd like to squeeze their necks 'til their heads pop.

Yep, I'm angry.

Krauthammer 2012

The Other McCain offers this:
We could do a lot worse...and probably will.

Political Photos of the Day

The battle of the late night hosts and two potential 2012 candidates:

The ratings for tonight's shows should be interesting.