I think he means Clinton’s swelling that allowed him to defeat Bush. (Yes, I went there)
So “Huh, Texas has 38 EVs. How about that.” counts as “electoral analysis”, now?
It does if you say, “assuming Texas goes ‘red…’” or “assuming assuming Texas goes blue…”.
Texas is going blue-er as it goes more Hispanic. Especially with the recent Republican rhetoric.
There was talk it might be in play last election. There’s talk it might be in play this election. I don’t know. It’s probably worth it for the dems to try some get out the vote work there. Maybe not for this election season, but for the one four years down the road.
As one of the disillussioned, this Republican primary has not only resolved me to vote, it has propmpted me to give more money this time around than last time around, which means giving some money to the SuperPac.
It might make sense to push republicans into a corner and try to pass the Dream Act.
With that said, Texas isn’t going blue. Heck North Carolina and Virginia probably aren’t going blue this year.
The Democratic National Convention will he held in North Carolina.
Texas could go blue. I’m not saying that the Obama campaign should bet it all on Texas. I’m saying that Obama and his campaign should be bold and go into Texas, make headlines, let everyone know that the President is not forgetting Texas, election year or no election year, and not letting Romney and his campaign have fodder like, “President Obama is writing off Texas. I’m not writing off you. I won’t write off you as President.”
I call it the Texas strategy:
- Texas
- Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania
- Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming
We need a bold campaign, even bolder than 2008.
That’s not the Texas Strategy; that’s part of the Fifty-State Strategy.
And as we’ve told you many times before, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are in completely different categories politically, and it makes no sense whatsoever to lump them together. Oregon is pretty reliably blue, Wyoming and Idaho are as red as it’s possible to be, and Montana is a slightly reddish shade of purple.
Yeah, and? There was abrely enough turnout around research triangle to give the state to obama last time around, I want Obama to win and i want Romeny to spend boatloads of cash trying to take North carolina but he is VERY likely to take it unless the economy improves drastically and the Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot with hand grenades..
Parties are not as geographically absed as they used to be so if you have the money, a Republican is going to s[pend money in Massachusetts and a Democrat is going to spend money in Texas. As election day draws near, you concentrate on swing states except where there are really tight congfressional or senate races going on elsewhere.
Modern electoral politics no longer permits parties to let the other guy have any uncontested electoral votes. You can’t spend all your time and energy trying to win a swing state that will still be a swing state next time around while your opponent turns your safe states into swing states. You’ve got to make him defend his safe states even if you are pretty sure taht he will succesfully be able to do so.
That’s a laughable notion given the fact that Mitt Romney is a presidential candidate. Of course, leaving one’s country is usually not a viable option. Secession proved to be a failed concept, though I think the country could use a separate state each for anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-syndicalists.
Also, I think Obama’s record on contraception and abortion could play against him in securing the Hispanic vote in Texas. The historically anti-immigrant GOP are presumably only courting them out of necessity (in a grand spate of irony, since Texas was founded due a demographic “war” with the Catholic majority)… That said, abortion is still a significant issue amongst mainstream Catholics. Humanae Vitae remains the most important document of the past century for them.
If Obama wins Texas, this indicates a landslide of truly Reaganesque proportions. If he wins Indiana, this indicates he’s having a very good night–he did win Indiana in 2008, though very narrowly and it may have been kind of a fluke. Ohio and Pennsylvania are bread-and-butter for any Democrat trying to win (or hold on to) the White House; and for that matter, Ohio is also a state any Republican candidate will be going for in a big way–it’s a classic swing state. Pennsylvania hasn’t gone for a Republican for President since 1988; if Obama is having any trouble there, he’s almost certainly toast. If Obama is worrying about Oregon he’s really screwed–even Dukakis took Oregon. Montana being in play could indicate Obama is going to have a very good day on November 6, but it’s not a completely impossible scenario. If Obama takes Wyoming–or even has a shot at it–the Republican candidate must have bitten the head off a live baby on November 5.
According to the Fair model (2007), incumbency gives you about 2.75 percentage points in the popular vote, which is large but not overwhelming. [sup]1[/sup]
[sup]1[/sup] Standard error: 1.08, so think of a confidence interval of +/- 2.2. The median popular vote point spread is about 4.9 points. Combine incumbency with election year economic performance though and you’ve explained most of the changes in the popular vote spread.
In 2000 and 2004, I’d say forget Wyoming because that is the home state of Dick Cheney. In 2012, Cheney is a non-factor, so, go after Wyoming. Go after Montana, too. And, because you are Barack Obama, go after Texas. John Kerry would never have a chance in hell winning Texas. But you’re the President so you have that going for you. Be Presidential. Not only that, play up being Commander-in-Chief. Go to Texas. Go to Texas on the same day, same time when Romney is there so you can split-screen CNN and have competing headlines in NYT. Be bold.
I would assume that Obama and the Dems will be pursuing a continuation of Howard Dean’s ‘50 state strategy’ that they used pretty successfully last time. They never quit courting voters following Obama’s election, when Organizing for Obama turned into Organizing for America (I may not have the names just right, there). I’ve gotten email from OFA daily since 2008 and Obama has a really tight and up-to-date on-line presence.
I saw this news piece and thought it odd- Obama got more votes in the Ohio Republican Primary that the winner, Romney, did. How they got so many Obama supporters to turn out for an unnecessary vote, I can’t guess. I had also read that in one of the early Republican primary states, that Obama had more offices open than all of the Republican candidates combined. It may have been Ohio, but I can’t locate the story to confirm it now.
Real Clear Politics polling collection data shows Obama winning against all the Republican candidates by anywhere for 1-18%. RealClearPolitics - President Obama vs. Republican Candidates
Erroneous details aside, I think Kozmik’s main point is a good one: Obama should spend a little time and money making news in some big state he’s very unlikely to win – Texas sounds like a good choice to me – just as a show of strength, fearlessness, and to remind us that he’s everybody’s president.
(Yes, it’s just a modification of that “50 state strategy”.)
Latest poll from Rasmussen:
This with all the negative publicity the Repubs have been getting lately. Is this really going to be such a slam-dunk for the President as many are suggesting in this thread?
I will just gently point out that you’re quoting Rasmussen, and leave it at that.
You’re better off use the aggregate polls from RealClearPolitics. This is the one page I keep checking: RealClearPolitics - President Obama vs. Republican Candidates
The same Rasmussen that has Santorum over Obama by a point in their latest poll? Yeah, that seems right. Yep. Sure.
And, above all else, Obama should campaign hard for those states’ Democratic Congressional candidates. That’s the really important election this year.
They determine the unemployment rate by the amount of people receiving unemployment benefits. The only reason they say it is at eight percent is because so many peoples unemployment benefits ran out and they fell off the list as unemployed…So the unemployment rate is truly around 18%. And with the gas prices the way they are and so many foreign countries turning on us…I believe Obama will lose the election this time around!!!